Suchergebnisse

AbstractDrawing on ideas about how narratives focus attention, this paper develops a "narrative policy image" using the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and Narrative Policy Framework explanations of the policy process. The concept of a narrative policy image is applied to test partisan expectations about presidential environmental policy stories in State of the Union Addresses over 73 years. This research finds that Democratic stories focus on problems like climate change and victims and Republican stories emphasize solutions like new programs and upholding the status quo. These trends point to potential story types and suggest a narrative policy image, including both narrative components and valence, may be a useful concept for understanding narrative attention in macropolitics.

Attention plays an important role in driving policy process dynamics at multiple levels of analysis. Despite this, narrative policy process studies often center on the position that narrative is strategically used in subsystem debates because it alters policy beliefs and preferences. This paper explicates the relationship between narrative and attention in the policy process according to theory and empirical findings in the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) and Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) literatures, developing a theory of narrative attention. According to Narrative Attention Theory (NAT), narrative focuses attention at multiple levels of analysis in the policy process, but is most important to consider at the macro level, where preferences are most stable. In associating PET's notion of macro political institutions (e.g., executive branch) and NPF's macro level of analysis (institutions or culture), NAT offers new hypotheses about narrative dynamics, a PET macro institutional approach to NPF's macro level, and an NPF conceptualization of PET's policy image.

AbstractDo presidential climate change narratives increase related congressional attention in the United States? Narrative theory says since narratives leverage cognitive heuristics, they should focus policy‐making attention in institutions more efficiently than non‐narrative statements. This study identifies and tests climate change statements and narratives, including those focused on solutions, or "stories of hope," and those focused on problems and victims, "stories of fear," for relationships with congressional attention using time series analysis. Findings suggest a relationship between narrative and hearings, but not for non‐narrative statements and hearings. Furthermore, while narratives are related to hearings generally, stories of fear have larger effects, but only in conditions of single party control of the US Presidency and Congress. This analysis supports theory about narratives and institutional influence and offers the additional concept of stories of fear and hope as impactful on political institutions.

Rural studies and policy process literature are ripe for integration due to their interdisciplinary approaches, empirical‐foci, and importance of values, norms, and heuristics. Policy process theory often ignores the important context‐rich variation within the rural and urban distinction, yet offers qualities rural scholars may find useful, like generalizability. This integration would improve both literature by facilitating empirical inquiry. Process theory "lenses" offer internal consistency, a shared research agenda, and applicability in many settings. These qualities encourage sharing and comparing of diverse research findings, thereby advancing common understanding and exploration of the policy process. In illustration of these ideas, this article reviews five policy process frameworks, the Institutional Development and Analysis framework, the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Social Construction Framework, the Narrative Policy Framework, and the Multiple Streams Approach, extant rural policy process studies, and provides examples of how the literature may be integrated to explore specific research areas and questions.Related ArticlesCrow, Deserai A., Lydia A. Lawhon, John Berggren, Juhi Huda, Elizabeth Koebele, and Adrianne Kroepsch. 2017. "A Narrative Policy Framework Analysis of Wildfire Policy Discussions in two Colorado Communities." Politics & Policy 45 (4): 626‐656. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12207Shortall, Sally, and Margaret Alston. 2016. "To Rural Proof or not to Rural Proof: A Comparative Analysis." Politics & Policy 44 (1): 35‐55. https://doi-org.libproxy.usouthal.edu/10.1111/polp.12144Smith‐Walter, Aaron, Holly L. Peterson, Michael D. Jones, and Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall. 2016. "Gun Stories: How Evidence Shapes Firearm Policy in the United States." Politics & Policy 44 (6): 1053‐1088. https://doi-org.libproxy.usouthal.edu/10.1111/polp.12187

One purpose of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is to explain policy change. Previous holistic reviews of the ACF by Weible, Sabatier, and McQueen (2009) and Pierce, Peterson, Jones, Garrard, and Vu (2017) of the framework have not explicitly analyzed all the concepts and their interactions in a systematic manner. To address this gap and inform scholars and practitioners about past findings, strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for future research, this article analyzes how the ACF's theory of policy change is applied to 148 policy processes among 67 journal articles from 2007 to 2014. Similar to Weible et al. (2009), this research finds the frequent use of multiple primary pathways to policy change, infrequent use of many of the ACF's concepts, a plurality of applications in the environment and energy domain, comparison of subsystems, and a need for greater clarity and transparency among applications. Unlike Weible et al. (2009), this article explores associations between primary pathways and policy domains, the frequency of associations between primary pathways and secondary components, policy change and stasis, and identifies threats to internal validity of key ACF concepts.

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 & 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 & 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 & 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

To better understand how the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is applied, this article catalogues and analyzes 161 applications of the ACF from 2007 to 2014. Building on a previous review of 80 applications of the ACF (1987–2006) conducted by Weible, Sabatier, and McQueen in 2009, this review examines both the breadth and depth of the framework. In terms of breadth, there are over 130 unique first authors from 25 countries, in almost 100 journals applying the framework, including a majority outside of the United States. In terms of depth, a plurality of applications analyzes environment and energy, subsystems at the national level, and utilizes qualitative methods of data collection and analyses. This review also explores how the three theoretical foci of the framework—advocacy coalitions, policy change, and policy‐oriented learning—are applied. Our findings suggest that the ACF balances common approaches for applying the framework with the specificity of particular contexts.

This study uses content analysis of recent Multiple Streams Approach (MSA) research to determine the scope of MSA applications, examining the consistency, and coherence with which concepts of MSA are applied. Our analysis examines peer‐reviewed articles testing MSA concepts available in English published from 2000 through 2013 (N = 311). Among other findings, we observe that MSA is applied to study 65 different countries, at multiple levels of governance, across 22 different policy areas, and by researchers spanning the globe. Our findings suggest that while MSA is prolific, consistency across applications—in terms of operationalization of MSA core concepts—is needed to facilitate theoretical development of the approach.