Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Great Debates in American Environmental History, Voume 1 -- Contents -- List of Entries -- Guide to Related Topics -- Preface -- Introduction: What Lay below the Arctic Ice Cap -- Great Debates in American Environmental History -- Epilogue -- Bibliography -- Index -- Great Debates in American Environmental History, Volume 2 -- Contents -- List of Entries -- Guide to Related Topics -- Preface -- Introduction: What Lay below the Arctic Ice Cap -- Great Debates in American Environmental History -- Epilogue -- Bibliography -- Index.

In this paper, we utilize narratives about sanctuary cities as an exploratory case study to suggest further development of the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF). We propose the inclusion of elements from the Multiple Streams Approach (MSA)—the ideas of focusing events, evidence, policy entrepreneurs, timing, policy windows—and the general agenda setting literature's concept of translation of narratives among different policy agendas to extend the NPF in theoretically meaningful ways. Then we use these ideas in an exploration of recent narratives about sanctuary cities in order to increase understanding of the role of policy narratives and agenda setting within public policy processes. Our exploratory questions and findings demonstrate the usefulness of adding elements of the MSA to the NPF. First, we suggest that an emotionally powerful story can create a formidable focusing event which can be used by policy entrepreneurs, even if the construction of the event is dominated by one media outlet. Second, our preliminary results show that studying narrative policy windows provides a methodological challenge; it is difficult to determine how long a policy narrative remains powerful and relevant. Finally, our findings reveal both similarities and differences of narratives between different policy agendas.

Recent studies have explored the dimensions of duty‐based versus engaged citizenship. These studies assert that individuals differ on the question of "what is a good citizen" and somehow suggest that "engaged citizens" are more participatory, global, and committed to social justice than their duty‐based counterparts. In this article, we examine, with an innovative survey methodology and merging of citizenship and framing literature, the potential effects of increased engaged citizenship on policy issues. Our questions explore the characteristics of citizenship and explore whether duty‐based and engaged citizens are more likely to support a policy, in this case recycling efforts, if the issue is framed in the context of their respective preferred citizenship norm. We find that the engaged recycling frame was strongly supported by individuals with a more engaged view of citizenship who also supported some duty‐based frames of recycling. Conversely, respondents with a more duty‐based view of citizenship did not support engaged recycling frames.Estudios recientes han explorado las dimensiones de la noción de "ciudadanía basada en deberes"vis‐à‐vis aquella de "ciudadanía involucrada." Estos estudios afirman que los individuos difieren en sus respuestas a la pregunta de "¿qué es un buen ciudadano?" Así mismo, parecen sugerir que los "ciudadanos involucrados" son más participativos, globales, y entregados a la justicia social que sus homólogos basados en deberes. En este artículo examinamos los efectos potenciales del incremento de la ciudadanía involucrada en asuntos de política con una innovadora metodología de encuestas y combinando la literatura de ciudadanía y la teoría del enmarcamiento de asuntos. Nuestras preguntas exploran las características de la ciudadanía y si acaso los individuos cuyo comportamiento se aproxima al planteado en la noción de "ciudadanía basada en deberes" son más proclives a apoyar una política de reciclaje, que aquellos cuyo comportamiento se aproxima al planteado en la noción de "ciudadanía involucrada." De manera específica exploramos si acaso los ciudadanos responden de manera más decidida a propuestas de reciclaje dependiendo de si están enmarcadas en una noción de "ciudadanía basada en deberes" o en una de "ciudadanía involucrada." Encontramos que una política de reciclaje enmarcada en una de noción "ciudadanía involucrada" fue fuertemente apoyada por individuos cuyo comportamiento se aproxima al planteado en dicha noción pero que estos mismos individuos también apoyaron algunas propuestas de reciclaje enmarcadas en la noción de "ciudadanía basada en deberes." En cambio, individuos cuyo comportamiento se aproxima al planteado en la noción de "ciudadanía basada en deberes" no apoyaron ninguna propuesta de reciclaje enmarcada en la noción de "ciudadanía involucrada."

Understanding the reasoning behind diverse views grows empathy and can help strengthen democracy. This study examines narratives and their influence on individuals, to see if individuals only empathize with narratives from those with whom they share identity. Using an experimental design, we test empathy with working class climate change narratives. Results showed participants who agreed with anthropogenic climate change, who were given both evidence and a narrative, empathized with the narrator (either an organic farmer or a mechanic) that told a pro-climate change narrative. The greatest empathy was for the mechanic telling a pro-climate change narrative. Conversely, participants who did not agree with human-caused climate change and who were given evidence without narrative had more empathy for the organic farmer (over the mechanic) who told a pro-climate change narrative. Overall, we found some identity issues negatively influenced empathy, but we also found examples where individuals moved beyond their identity.

AbstractCommunication between stakeholders and the larger public is an increasingly important issue in today's policy world. This communication often takes the form of policy narratives; however, few studies have empirically examined what type of communication style stakeholders prefer for communication with the public. This study uses a survey of 87 river stakeholders to determine the preferred communication choices of stakeholders. The study finds that 39% of the stakeholders chose a duty‐based narrative, 28% choose a science statement, 23% choose an engaged citizen narrative, and 10% choose a do nothing statement. Some of these preferences were related to issues of trust, other policy preferences, and demographic background. Based on previous research, the findings demonstrate that stakeholders can make decisions about how to communicate with the public that are not necessarily reflective of the own values.

Narratives, or the telling of stories, are a powerful tool used to gain support for public policies. The advent of new social media, including YouTube, provides opportunities for less‐mainstream narratives of cooperation, but are these opportunities being realized? Using the Narrative Policy Framework and Schneider and Ingram's Social Construction of target populations as the theoretical basis, we analyzed 95 English and Spanish YouTube videos focusing on the U.S.–Mexico border and found they demonstrate a maintained focus on mainstream, divisive issues such as security and violence, immigration, and drugs. However, although new media often cover mainstream issues, YouTube videos appear to construct more favorable perspectives of the border region than traditional media: 52 percent of the videos constructed a sympathetic view of the border, including the people associated with it, while 48 percent of the videos constructed an unsympathetic view. Understanding the use of these narratives can have real‐world impacts for developing policy along the U.S.–Mexico border; possibly creating greater cooperation vital to solving many of the urgent problems border communities face on a day‐to‐day basis.

Stakeholders include scientists, interest groups, leaders, professionals, government and NGO employees, and activists; they are individuals or groups that play an increasingly important role in public policy. As such, stakeholders are frequently used as a source to better inform public decision making. Given the growing importance of stakeholders' understanding and thus communication concerning the issues on which they inform the public, it is timely to ask: How do stakeholders comprehend, or mentally construct an understanding of the policy issues upon which they are asked to weigh in? In an attempt to address this issue, this paper uses a case study of a policy issue, river restoration. Results from a survey of 85 stakeholders and a follow up interview of 20 stakeholders shed light on whether stakeholders predominantly prefer to think of river restoration in terms of science or through policy narratives. The findings indicate that stakeholders prefer explanations that use science and the engaged citizen narrative when they think about the river's restoration. Additionally, stakeholders who work for government particularly emphasize that the river should be described in scientific terms. We use this data to further analyze what elements of science and narratives are divisive to stakeholders and which are not and conclude with advice on how stakeholders can speak in a non-divisive way to the public and other stakeholders.