Narrative Policy Framework Research Articles

An Examination of Policy Narratives in Agricultural Biotechnology Policy in India

The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) focuses attention on the importance of narratives in policy debates and on their empirical analysis. While NPF has become an increasingly important and accepted approach to studying the policy process, the vast majority of research applies it to the policy contexts of the United States, which limits tests of its potential generalizability and responsiveness to cultural specificity. To broaden the contextual scope of the approach, this study applies the NPF to a non-U.S. policy context through examining the controversial issue of agricultural biotechnology policy in India. It analyzes media coverage from leading English newspapers in India to explore the strategic use of narrative variables in policy narratives. In doing so, it highlights the important role of incomplete policy narratives in policy debates and outcomes. Policy narratives do not always contain a full suite of narrative components, and yet they may be among the most common messages received by the public and political actors. Through an analysis of incomplete narratives, this study attempts to further refine the definition of policy narratives and consider which narratives are important from empirical and audience reception perspectives. Results show that incomplete narratives occur more frequently and contain relevant narrative variables.

How to conduct a Narrative Policy Framework study

The Narrative Policy Framework has a growing number of researchers seeking to apply the framework in policy process scholarship. This article is intended to assist those interested in conducting an NPF study that is ‘clear enough to be wrong’ (Sabatier, 2000). While graduate programs offer critical methodological training, this article focuses on the specific application of the NPF to research inquiries about the role of policy narratives in the policy process. We approach our discussion by examining various decisions in the research process and include a detailed discussion of specifying the model and obtaining narrative data. We also point out areas for further investigation.

Stories of the sharing economy: Policy narratives surrounding the entry of transportation network companies into four mid-sized American cities

ABSTRACTNew transportation businesses such as Uber and Lyft have recently entered metropolitan markets across the US. Because they do not fit into existing regulatory and policy frameworks, and their entrance into markets is sometimes abrupt or illegal, these transportation network companies (TNCs) engender widely varying reactions from city governments. These reactions are captured in different stories that develop about TNCs when they enter a market. Using content analysis, elements of the narrative policy framework (NPF), and application of Mark Bevir and R.A.W. Rhodes decentered theory of governance, this study explores the narratives that develop about TNCs and how those narratives may influence policy making. Prominent themes that emerged from an analysis of city council meetings in four mid-sized American communities include safety, leveling the playing field, and market considerations. There was also an identifiable causal linkage between the types of stories councilmembers told, and the solutions they proposed in deliberations. Finally, this article makes a compelling argument for the compatibility of the NPF and Bevir and Rhodes interpretivist tradition by pointing out the similarities among the two, and demonstrating ways in which they can effectively dovetail in narrative analysis.

Editorial Note

Editorial Note

Fracking Bad Guys: Narrative Character Affect in Public Opinion About Hydraulic Fracturing

Recent growth in unconventional oil and gas development is controversial, fueling an ongoing U.S. policy debate. Central to these discussions is hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, a well-stimulation technique that has become synonymous with unconventional oil and gas extraction methods. This research applies Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to explore how culturally-nuanced narratives shape individuals’ policy preferences toward fracking regulations. A census-balanced internet panel (n=1,145) is used to conduct a survey experiment where participants are randomly assigned to four groups and exposed to information regarding fracking practices. The control group receives only a baseline fact list (e.g., benefits and costs associated with fracking) while three treatment groups are exposed to one of three culturally distinct narratives (e.g., egalitarian narrative, hierarch narrative, and individualist narrative). The results of causal mediation analysis suggest that while there is no direct effect of the narrative treatments on the formation of individuals’ fracking policy preferences, culturally nuanced narratives do influence the general public’s attitudes on fracking policies indirectly through their effects on individuals’ reactions towards villain characters presented in the narratives. These findings demonstrate a complex cognitive interplay between narrative communication and policy preference formation among the American public.

Nexus narratives and resource insecurities in the Mekong Region

Several global narratives around resource insecurities have reached the Mekong Region. In the latest reincarnation, experts, bureaucrats and businesses have called for greater attention to a water-energy-food nexus. It is not clear however, if they are talking about the same thing, with the same purpose or that decision-makers are listening. The purpose of this study was to identify the key features of nexus narratives globally, and then analyze how they are being used in the Mekong Region. We used the Narrative Policy Framework to explore narrative content and strategies, and Cultural Theory to help identify policy beliefs of competing coalitions in a mixed-methods analysis. Increasing resource scarcity, which undermines security, was a shared setting in all nexus narratives. Individualist and Hierarchist narratives tend to de-politicize the nexus by promising solutions from innovative businesses and free markets, or through technocratic and managerial control of resources and the environment by bureaucrats. Egalitarian narratives identify victims and villains to re-politicize the nexus around themes of justice and human security. Nexus narratives were used to support and oppose hydropower, irrigation and biofuel development, with Individualist narratives consistently being the most pro-development. Nexus narratives have been widely adopted by international organizations and foreign experts working in the Mekong Region; however, with a few exceptions, they have as of yet had little direct influence on national policy or plans. Several possible reasons are discussed, including limitations of the concept itself.

Angels versus Devils: The Portrayal of Characters in the Gun Policy Debate

This research examines the role of the devil shift and angel shift in interest group rhetoric using the case of gun policy. The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) suggests that the devil shift—whereby political actors characterize their opponents as more malicious and powerful than they actually are—is common in intractable policy debates. Through an analysis of e‐mails and press releases by two gun control organizations and two gun rights organizations, I examine how groups portray themselves and their opponents. I identify two dimensions relevant to these portrayals: (1) whether a character in a policy narrative is portrayed as good or evil, and (2) whether a character is portrayed as strong or weak. The findings indicate that while the devil shift is present, the angel shift—that is, the glorification of one's own coalition—is more common in gun policy groups' communications. Two alternative characterizations, which I call the angel in distress and the devil diminished, are also present. The use of these character portrayals varies significantly across political coalitions and as a function of communication purposes. The results suggest a need to reconceptualize character portrayals to better understand how they operate as narrative strategies in the NPF.

A Narrative Policy Framework Analysis of Wildfire Policy Discussions in Two Colorado Communities

Whether due to climate change, human development in risk‐prone areas, or other factors contributing to vulnerability, communities globally face risk from hazards that can lead to disasters that impact human livelihoods. Some disasters become focusing events that can catalyze a search for solutions to the policy problems uncovered by disaster. The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) was developed to provide policy scholars with the tools to analyze the role of narratives in such policy debates. The NPF, however, has not been systematically applied to narratives surrounding hazards and disasters. This study examines media coverage from two cases of catastrophic wildfire in Colorado, the United States, to understand the evolving policy narratives over time, with specific attention to three key NPF variables: policy problems, solutions, and characters. Findings indicate that narratives concerning disasters are different than other policy issues in ways that are vital to understand as scholars apply and refine the NPF.Related Articles Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Mark K. McBeth, and Paul L. Hathaway. 2011. “.” Politics & Policy 39 (): 373‐400. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00295.x/abstract Smith‐Walter, Aaron, Holly L. Peterson, Michael D. Jones, and Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall. 2016. “.” Politics & Policy 44: 1053‐1088. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12187/full Ertas, Nevbahar. 2015. “.” Politics & Policy 43: 426‐451. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12120/full

Politics & Policy: Note from the Editor

<i>Politics &amp; Policy</i>: Note from the Editor

Strategic use of evidence in state-level policymaking: matching evidence type to legislative stage

Although there has been a growth of scholarly interest in research utilization in the policy process, how advocates strategically deploy different types of evidence to influence lawmakers remains not well understood. In this paper we draw on the Advocacy Coalition Framework and the Narrative Policy Framework to show how various types of evidence — from empirical findings to personal narratives — were utilized by an advocacy coalition during the two years leading to the passage of California’s historic 2010 law to extend foster care to age 20. The result was a generous and flexible entitlement policy passed with bipartisan support in the context of a recession, a state budget deficit, and an ambivalent governor. We find that advocates strategically accessed the expertise of a variety of actors to showcase different types of evidence at specific moments in the legislative process. Advocates first used research evidence to convince lawmakers that the bill would be an effective solution to a known problem, then used professional expertise and benefit-cost analysis to convince them it would come at an acceptable cost, and finally used personal narratives to motivate them to act. We conclude that though cost-benefit analyses play an integral role in policymaking during a time of austerity, advocacy coalitions may benefit from their connections with professionals and citizens whose personal narratives lend emotional potency and urgency.

Editorial Note

Editorial Note

Using Nonprofit Narratives and News Media Framing to Depict Air Pollution in Delhi, India

ABSTRACTHow is the air pollution issue in Delhi framed by the news media and narrated by nonprofit organizations? To study news media framing, we employed an inductive approach based on automated text coding of news coverage of the issue. To study nonprofit organization narrations, a deductive approach guided by the Narrative Policy Framework was used to focus on the stories told via online documents as found on nonprofit websites. The findings confirm existing theory and empirical research regarding the leading causes and effects of air pollution; however, perceptions are mixed regarding the government’s ability to implement policy. The combined deductive and inductive approaches provide a systematic and multi-method research study for understanding perceptions of air pollution in one of the largest cities in the world. The result is a depiction of the priorities that influence public opinions, political decisions, and eventually public policies.

Claims in vapour device (e-cigarette) regulation: A Narrative Policy Framework analysis

BackgroundThe electronic cigarette or e-cigarette (vapour device) is a consumer product undergoing rapid growth, and governments have been adopting regulations on the sale of the devices and their nicotine liquids. Competing claims about vapour devices have ignited a contentious debate in the public health community. What claims have been taken up in the state arena, and how have they possibly influenced regulatory outcomes? MethodsThis study utilized Narrative Policy Framework to analyze the claims made about vapour devices in legislation recommendation reports from Queensland Australia, Canada, and the European Union, and the 2016 deeming rule legislation from the United States, and examined the claims and the regulatory outcomes in these jurisdictions. ResultsThe vast majority of claims in the policy documents represented vapour devices as a threat: an unsafe product harming the health of vapour device users, a gateway product promoting youth tobacco uptake, and a quasi-tobacco product impeding tobacco control. The opportunity for vapour devices to promote cessation or reduce exposure to toxins was very rarely presented, and these positive claims were not discussed at all in two of the four documents studied. ConclusionThe dominant claims of vapour devices as a public health threat have supported regulations that have limited their potential as a harm reduction strategy. Future policy debates should evaluate the opportunities for vapour devices to decrease the health and social burdens of the tobacco epidemic.

Narrative Policy Framework: Narratives as heuristics in the policy process

Abstract This paper discusses how the assumption that individuals and policy makers do not automatically update their prior beliefs with the new information has shaped policy process theories. Rather than the rational homo economicus, humans are homo narrans: they are more likely to respond to narratives than to expert-based information. The assumption that humans are storytellers is central to the Narrative Policy Framework, which (1) examines the strategic construction of policy narratives by competing coalitions and (2) offers improved measures of narrative elements, strategies, etc., which provide insights into how information is processed by individuals and entire organizations.

서비스발전정책의 정책흐름 및 정책담화 분석과 서비스 패러다임으로의 변화

1970년대 유통근대화정책에서 비롯되어 1990년대 서비스무역시대의 시작에 따른 경쟁력강화정책, 외환위기 당시의 구조조정정책, 21세기 이후의 서비스전문인력 양성과 서비스 R&D, 정책의 부침에서 최근 박근혜정부의 서비스발전정책에 이르기까지의 정책발전을 정책변동 이론의 주요 모델인 정책흐름모형과 정책내러티브의 틀 속에서 바라보았다. 지식기반의 확충에 따라 차원에서 서비스정책내러티브는 발전하여 왔으나 이명박 정부 이후 정책창의 닫힘이라는 현상이 서비스정책의 후퇴와 실패를 가져왔다고 진단한다. 정책창이 닫히는 주된 원인은 보수정당의 집권에 따라 산업화 시대의 자본-노동의 대립이라는 낡은 정책갈등이 격화되었기 때문에 탈산업화 담론인 서비스정책내러티브가 채택되기 어려워지기 때문으로 보인다. 성공적 서비스 발전 정책을 위한 정책창을 열기 위해서는 단순한 서비스내러티브의 추구를 넘어서 서비스패러다임으로의 전환을 도모해야 한다. Despite that Korea has tried 50 years of service development policies, the result has been unsatisfactory. Borrowing the policy stream model of policy change and narrative policy framework one tried to explain the weaknesses of the policy process for the service development policies. Before 2000 lacking knowledge resulted in poor policy narratives while after 2000 despite sufficient knowledge base and well articulated narratives policy window would not open. Adversarial politics under conservative party caused the window to be closed. One suggests that paradigm shift in value and world view treats is necessary to overcome the policy failures in service development policy. According these analyses one expects a new initiative of policy narrative construction.

Gun Stories: How Evidence Shapes Firearm Policy in the United States

This article examines the role of evidence in the National Rifle Association and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence's firearm policy debate proximate to the December 14, 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting. The groups’ member‐directed policy narratives are operationalized with The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), and new categories of evidence for the framework are developed. Analysis of 2,535 paragraphs of member newsletters indicates the groups display different patterns of narrative components. Evidence is associated with narrative elements, and that narrative strategy has a significant, but mixed relationship with evidence. Most importantly, findings indicate that evidence frequently co‐occurs with characters, leading us to conclude that evidence has a buttressing, or supportive, role in policy narrative closely associated with character attributions. The findings expand the understanding of evidence in contentious policy debates and offer a new component for NPF theory.Related Articles Nevbahar, Ertas. 2015. “.” Politics &amp; Policy 43 (): 426‐451. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12120/abstract Raile, Eric D., Amber N. W. Raile, Charles T. Salmon, and Lori Ann Post. 2014. “.” Politics &amp; Policy 42 (): 103‐130. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12063/abstract Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Mark K. McBeth, and Paul T. Hathaway. 2011. “.” Politics &amp; Policy 39 (): 373‐400. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2011.00295.x/abstractRelated Media . https://www.youtube.com/user/BradyCampaign . https://www.youtube.com/user/NRAVideos

The Social Construction of a Border: The US–Canada Border

ABSTRACTThis study argues that boundaries represent socially and politically constructed policy realities and that media policy narratives play an important role in this construction. Traditionally borders are described, and their image is created or at least reified, via traditional media sources such as newspapers and television. In today’s world of increasing access to new media, this trend appears to be shifting. Thus, it is timely to ask, What is the image of the US–Canada border as presented through new media outlets such as YouTube? Does YouTube present narratives that discuss topics different from those in the traditional media? And, Do these narratives describe the issues and people of the border in a deserving or undeserving light? This paper uses the Narrative Policy Framework and Schneider and Ingram’s Social Construction of Policy Design to analyze how YouTube videos construct the US–Canada border. A total of 56 YouTube videos, posted between February 2009 and May 2015, were analyzed. Results show the most common issue within videos involved security on the border. Most frequently viewed were videos involving life on the border and security. Characters common in the videos were villains and victims, rather than heroes. Overall, the analysis found 64% of videos presented a deserving construction of the border and 36% presented an undeserving construction. The implications of these findings for the study of the US and Canada border are discussed.

Narratives in climate change discourse

‘Stories’ used to communicate climate change knowledge shape opinions and preferences, and analyzing such narratives can help explain how they are constructed and how they influence us on personal and societal scales. The narrative perspective makes it possible to identify the presence or absence of typical components in a ‘story,’ such as initial situation, complication, reaction(s), resolution, and final situation, and to identify different actors or narrative characters (heroes, villains, victims). This article reviews the notions of narratives and frames, describes narrative analysis generally and more specifically how a text linguistic perspective can benefit from and contribute to the Narrative Policy Framework in narrative analysis. It illustrates how different approaches can be applied as analytical tools to explore the effects of conflicting narratives (frames) on public opinion of and attitudes towards climate change. Applied to various text genres, the analysis identifies different components of the ‘stories,’ at overarching levels of the text as a whole and at microlevels such as sentences. This may have rhetorical implications, as controversial points of view can be hidden from critical assessment through the condensation of narrative components into short expressions. When exposed to conflicting ‘stories,’ people get a diverse picture of climate change, a diversity which may, however, also lead to confusion about how to react. Concerning the narrative characters, recent research indicates that a clear hero role has a large persuasive impact. More experiments testing how people interpret various narratives should be undertaken in an interdisciplinary perspective, combining social science, and linguistic approaches. WIREs Clim Change 2017, 8:e429. doi: 10.1002/wcc.429This article is categorized under: Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change &gt; Communication

Media in the Policy Process: Using Framing and Narratives to Understand Policy Influences

AbstractPolicy scholarship has long sought to understand the role of knowledge and information in the policy process. Of the actors, institutions, and resources involved in shaping policy processes and outcomes, media and narratives have been incorporated into empirical policy scholarship and theories with varying success. The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) is a framework through which scholars can bring analysis of narratives into studies of policy making. The NPF moves the field forward in understanding the role of narratives, communication, and stakeholder beliefs in the policy process, while at the same time striving for theoretical rigor. We embed the discussion of frames and narratives in the NPF to provide an empirical and theoretical cohesion to our understanding of media and public policy and then provide a brief empirical example of how such an integration may prove fruitful for policy scholars.

Advocacy Group Messaging on Social Media: Using the Narrative Policy Framework to Study Twitter Messages about Nuclear Energy Policy in the United States

Increasingly, policy scholars are using the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to systematically study the narrative elements and strategies that policy actors and groups use to advance their agendas. The majority of these studies analyze reports, documents, and websites published by the actors and groups that are most active in the policy subsystem. Though useful, these “public consumption documents” can be difficult to find and relatively static. In this article, we suggest that the constant flow of messages and content that competing actors and groups publish on social media may provide a solution to this problem. To test this proposition, we use the NPF to analyze messages published on Twitter by competing advocacy groups in the U.S. nuclear energy policy subsystem from January 2014 to May 2014 (n = 703). We find that both groups use Twitter to disseminate messages that contain the basic elements of policy narratives. Moreover, the narratives they use include strategies that are consistent with their position in the subsystem. These findings demonstrate the utility of the NPF for research on social media and, more importantly, validate the use of Twitter data in future work on the NPF.