Narrative policy framework at the macro level—cultural theory-based beliefs, science-based narrative strategies, and their uptake in the Canadian policy process for genetically modified salmon

Abstract

This study utilizes the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) and cultural theory to examine the use of policy narratives by coalitions (meso-level) and the institutional uptake (macro-level). We analyze Parliamentary hearings about genetically modified (GM) salmon in Canada to associate narrative strategies with certain cultural worldviews and policy-stances. We explore narrative strategies used by cultural groups with regard to whether they contain the scope of GM salmon issues to “science-only” (direct health and environmental impacts) or expand the issues to “science-plus” (to include broader economic, social, or cultural impacts). Finally, we examine whether certain framings of GM salmon issues or specific cultural narratives are preferentially taken up in the final policy documents generated after the hearings. Our findings reveal significant relationships between policy-stance (pro-vs anti-GM), the cultural disposition of a policy narrative, the narrative strategies being used, and ultimately policy uptake. For example, narratives with hierarchical cultural dispositions were more likely to expand the scope of the issue to science-plus when supporting their own policy position (typically pro-GM) but contain the scope to “science-only” when refuting an anti-GM policy-stance. With regard to policy uptake, final government documents referred more to narratives that contained the scope to “science-only” and expressed hierarchical or individualistic dispositions in comparison to the hearings. This study has practical implications for understanding whose perspectives and arguments are legitimized in national policy debates about GM foods. It also extends NPF theory to how narratives containing specific cultural dispositions and risk-based framings influence policy uptake at the macro-level.