scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Mark K. McBeth

Bio: Mark K. McBeth is an academic researcher from Idaho State University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Narrative & Public policy. The author has an hindex of 23, co-authored 64 publications receiving 2990 citations.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that policy narratives can be studied using systematic empirical approaches and introduce a Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) for elaboration and empirical testing, which defines narrative structure and narrative content.
Abstract: Narratives are increasingly subject to empirical study in a wide variety of disciplines. However, in public policy, narratives are thought of almost exclusively as a poststructural concept outside the realm of empirical study. In this paper, after reviewing the major literature on narratives, we argue that policy narratives can be studied using systematic empirical approaches and introduce a “Narrative Policy Framework” (NPF) for elaboration and empirical testing. The NPF defines narrative structure and narrative content. We then discuss narrative at the micro level of analysis and examine how narratives impact individual attitudes and hence aggregate public opinion. Similarly, we examine strategies for the studying of group and elite behavior using the NPF. We conclude with seven hypotheses for researchers interested in elaborating the framework.

658 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The role of policy narratives has been largely neglected in ACF literature partially because much of that work has operated outside of traditional social science principles, such as falsification as discussed by the authors, and yet emerging literature under the rubric of Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) demonstrates how the role of Policy narratives in policy processes is studied using the same rigorous social science standards initially set forth by Paul A. Sabatier.
Abstract: The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) has influenced a generation of policy scholars with its emphasis on causal drivers, testable hypotheses, and falsification. Until recently, the role of policy narratives has been largely neglected in ACF literature partially because much of that work has operated outside of traditional social science principles, such as falsification. Yet emerging literature under the rubric of Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) demonstrates how the role of policy narratives in policy processes is studied using the same rigorous social science standards initially set forth by Paul A. Sabatier. The NPF identifies theories specifying narrative elements and strategies that are likely useful to ACF researchers as classes of variables that have yet to be integrated. Examining this proposition, we provide seven hypotheses related to critical ACF concepts including advocacy coalitions and policy beliefs, policy learning, public opinion, and strategy. Our goal is to stay within the scientific, theoretical, and methodological tradition of the ACF and show how NPF's empirical, hypotheses, and causal driven work on policy narratives identifies theories applicable to ACF research while also offering an independent framework capable of explaining the policy process through the power of policy narratives. In doing so, we believe both ACF and NPF scholarship can contribute to the advancement of our understanding of the policy process.

329 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper proposed an integration of narrative policy analysis and policy change theory through an empirical analysis of the narrative political strategies of two interest groups involved in policy debate and change over an eight-year period in the Greater Yellowstone Area.
Abstract: Narrative policy analysis and policy change theory rarely intersect in the literature. This research proposes an integration of these approaches through an empirical analysis of the narrative political strategies of two interest groups involved in policy debate and change over an eight-year period in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Three research questions are explored: (i) Is it possible to reconcile these seemingly disparate approaches? (ii) Do policy narrative strategies explain how interest groups expand or contain policy issues despite divergent core policy beliefs? (3) How does this new method of analysis add to the literature? One hundred and five documents from the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and the Blue Ribbon Coalition were content analyzed for policy narrative strategies: identification of winners and losers, diffusion or concentration of costs and benefits, and use of condensation symbols, policy surrogates, and science. Five of seven hypotheses were confirmed while controlling for presidential administration and technical expertise. The results indicate that interest groups do use distinctive narrative strategies in the turbulent policy environment.

242 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: The narrative policy framework (NPF) as mentioned in this paper identifies operational measures of policy beliefs through narrative elements such as characters and other symbolic, metaphorical, or contextual means by which collective understandings of the policy are generated.
Abstract: This chapter aims to detail the narrative policy framework (NPF) in an effort to provide a means by which policy researchers in a variety of contexts can advance scientific discoveries surrounding our central research question. Narrative strategies are used in an attempt to influence the policy process. The NPF identifies operational measures of policy beliefs through narrative elements such as characters and other symbolic, metaphorical, or contextual means by which collective understandings of the policy are generated. The NPF assumes that policy narratives operate simultaneously at three levels of analysis such as Microlevel NPF, Mesolevel NPF and Macrolevel NPF. The chapter addresses four new directions in NPF research, which include comparative public policy approaches, use of evidence, validation of digital media as a source of narrative data, and a new proposition regarding policy narrative learning in the context of policy change.

237 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors examined the role of policy narratives in the policy process and examined the extent to which a coalition tells the same story across narrative elements, narrative strategies, and policy beliefs in a case study of wind turbines off Nantucket.
Abstract: Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) is a new and maturing theory of the policy process that takes a systematic, scientific approach to understanding the social construction of policy realities. As such, NPF serves as a bridge between postpositivists, who assert that public policymaking is contextualized through narratives and social construction, and positivists, who contend that legitimacy is grounded in falsifiable claims. The central questions of NPF are: What is the empirical role of policy narratives in the policy process and do policy narratives influence policy outcomes? First, the contributions of NPF scholarship at three levels of analysis—micro, meso, and macro—are examined. Next, necessary conditions of a policy narrative are specified, accompanied by detailed discussion of the narrative components: narrative elements, narrative strategies, and policy beliefs. Finally, an empirical illustration of NPF—a case study of Cape Wind's proposal to install wind turbines off Nantucket—is presented. Although intercoalitional differences have long been studied in the NPF scholarship, this is the first study to examine intracoalitional cohesion or the extent to which a coalition tells the same story across narrative elements, narrative strategies, and policy beliefs. NPF is a new approach to the study of the policy process that offers empirical pathways to better speculating the role of narrative in the policy process.

216 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal Article
TL;DR: Prospect Theory led cognitive psychology in a new direction that began to uncover other human biases in thinking that are probably not learned but are part of the authors' brain’s wiring.
Abstract: In 1974 an article appeared in Science magazine with the dry-sounding title “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases” by a pair of psychologists who were not well known outside their discipline of decision theory. In it Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman introduced the world to Prospect Theory, which mapped out how humans actually behave when faced with decisions about gains and losses, in contrast to how economists assumed that people behave. Prospect Theory turned Economics on its head by demonstrating through a series of ingenious experiments that people are much more concerned with losses than they are with gains, and that framing a choice from one perspective or the other will result in decisions that are exactly the opposite of each other, even if the outcomes are monetarily the same. Prospect Theory led cognitive psychology in a new direction that began to uncover other human biases in thinking that are probably not learned but are part of our brain’s wiring.

4,351 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors explore the conceptual origins of the community, and the ways the term has been deployed in writings on resource use, and analyze those aspects of community most important to advocates for community's role in resource management.

2,826 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: A case study explores the background of the digitization project, the practices implemented, and the critiques of the project, which aims to provide access to a plethora of information to EPA employees, scientists, and researchers.
Abstract: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides access to information on a variety of topics related to the environment and strives to inform citizens of health risks. The EPA also has an extensive library network that consists of 26 libraries throughout the United States, which provide access to a plethora of information to EPA employees, scientists, and researchers. The EPA implemented a reorganization project to digitize their materials so they would be more accessible to a wider range of users, but this plan was drastically accelerated when the EPA was threatened with a budget cut. It chose to close and reduce the hours and services of some of their libraries. As a result, the agency was accused of denying users the “right to know” by making information unavailable, not providing an adequate strategic plan, and discarding vital materials. This case study explores the background of the digitization project, the practices implemented, and the critiques of the project.

2,588 citations