Showing papers by "Michael D. Jones published in 2017"

There and Back Again: A Tale of the Advocacy Coalition Framework

Abstract: 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.

How can we use the ‘science of stories’ to produce persuasive scientific stories?

Abstract: The core goal of the science communicator is to convey accurate scientific information—to help people update existing understandings of the world and to change those understandings when necessary. However, science communicators, with their often extensive scientific training and educations, are often socialized into educating with information derived from scientific works in a way that mirrors the values of science itself. They do this by primarily relying on an approach termed the Knowledge Deficit Model, a model of communicating that emphasizes the repetition of emotionless objectively sterile information to increase understanding. The problem with this approach is that people do not actually make decisions or process information based on only objective scientific evidence. Their personal beliefs and emotional understandings of the world also play a powerful role. In this article we argue that to better connect with audiences communicators would do well to recognize themselves as storytellers–not to distort the truth, but to help people to connect with problems and issues on a more human level in terms of what matters to them. We reference extant narrative persuasion scholarship in public policy and elsewhere to offer a step-by-step guide to narrating scientific evidence. We argue that through understanding the structure of a narrative, science communicators can engage in the policy process, remaining true to the tenets of science and maintaining the integrity of the evidence, but doing so in a way that is compelling and thus also effective in helping solve problems.

Social Construction and Policy Design: A Review of Past Applications

Abstract: One of the leading theories for understanding the policy process is the theory of social construction and policy design developed by Anne Schneider and Helen Ingram. The theory incorporates the social construction and power of target populations to understand the development and implications of policy design. In order to better understand its empirical breadth, depth, and general utility, our analysis reviews all past publications of the theory, focusing specifically on empirical applications (N = 111), from 1993 to 2013. Based on this review, we find: a recent increase in the number of applications of this theory; that these applications appear across a wide range of outlets, relate to numerous policy domains, and are conducted by a diverse group of domestic and international scholars; that the target population proposition has been applied with greater frequency than the theory’s feed-forward proposition; and that scholars have a notable interest in understanding causal mechanisms leading to changes in the positioning of target populations among advantaged, contender, dependent, and deviant target popu- lation categories. Following a descriptive review of past publications, we offer specific suggestions for theoretical development and future research.

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

Abstract: 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.