Framing Contests and Policy Conflicts over Gas Pipelines

Abstract

This paper compares and contrasts high-conflict policy debates over the siting of three natural gas pipeline projects at different decision stages of the siting process. This paper draws on over 600 newspaper articles spanning 3 years, analyzed through Discourse Network Analysis. Drawing from the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Policy Conflict framework, this paper finds that actor framing of opposing policy beliefs involves more indirect than direct confrontations, with statements in the media waxing and waning over time. Opponents of the pipelines more often explicitly argue against pipelines, while also using a broad range of conceptual arguments, whereas proponents more often couch their arguments around the economic benefits of pipelines and use fewer conceptual frames overall. We also find evidence that opposing coalitions use similar framing across different decision contexts. This paper concludes with a commentary on the status and contributions of this paper to the study of policy conflicts and next steps in advancing similar research agendas. KEY WORDS: policy conflict, gas pipeline, advocacy coalition framework, framing, discourse network analysis 建构有关天然气管道的竞争和政策冲突 本文对比了引起激烈争论的政策辩论，辩论关于三大天然气管道项目在选址过程不同决策阶 段间的选址情况。本文借鉴了三年内使用话语网络分析的600多篇报纸文章。通过利用倡议联 盟框架和政策冲突框架，本文发现，行动者对相反的政策信仰的建构涉及更多间接对抗，而不 是直接对抗，行动者的媒体言论随时间推移而不断起伏。管道修建反对方更常明确提出这一主 张，同时使用一系列概念论点，而管道修建支持方则更常将论点围绕经济利益展开，并整体而 言使用较少的理论框架。我们还发现证据，认为反对联盟在不同决策背景下使用相似框架。结 论评价了本文对政策冲突研究的重要程度和贡献，以及推进相似研究议程的后续步骤。 关键词: 政策冲突, 天然气管道, 倡议联盟框架, 建构, 话语网络分析 Concursos de marcos y conflictos de políticas sobre gasoductosEste documento compara y contrasta los debates de políticas de alto conflicto sobre la ubicación de tres proyectos de gasoductos de gas natural en diferentes etapas de decisión del proceso de ubicación. Este documento se basa en más de 600 artículos de periódicos que abarcan 3 años, analizados a través de Discourse Network Analysis. A partir del marco de la Coalición de Defensa y el marco de Conflicto de Políticas, este documento encuentra que la formulación de las creencias políticas opuestas por parte de los actores implica confrontaciones más indirectas que directas, con declaraciones en los medios que aumentan y disminuyen con el tiempo. Los opositores de las tuberías argumentan más a menudo explícitamente en contra de las Framing Contests and Policy Conflicts 737 tuberías, al tiempo que usan una amplia gama de argumentos conceptuales, mientras que los defensores suelen expresar sus argumentos sobre los beneficios económicos de las tuberías y usan menos marcos conceptuales en general. También encontramos evidencia de que las coaliciones opuestas utilizan un marco similar en diferentes contextos de decisión. Este documento concluye con un comentario sobre el estado y las contribuciones de este documento al estudio de los conflictos de políticas y los próximos pasos para avanzar en agendas de investigación similares.

Problem Uncertainty, Institutional Insularity, and Modes of Learning in Canadian Provincial Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation

“…Second, problem uncertainty refers to actors’ collective understanding of the scope and dimensions of the policy problem at hand (Dunlop & Radaelli, 2013). Comparative research on hydraulic fracturing has found focusing events and framing contests to have a strong influence on regulatory outcomes (Bomberg, 2012; Jaspal & Nerlich, 2014; Stephan, 2020; Yordy, You, Park, Weible, & Heikkila, 2019). Learning theory suggests that the social construction of problem uncertainty impacts what knowledges, information, and values, are considered to be appropriate inputs into policy design.…”

Polarization and frames of advocacy coalitions in South Korea's nuclear energy policy

“…As expressed in the news media, we expect members of advocacy coalitions (i.e., policy actors) to bring attention to some components of their belief system to win a particular debate while not expressing other components of their belief system that might be less pertinent 3 . These expressions of frames do not necessarily signify belief changes but rather shifts in what is important in rallying policy actor allies, persuading decision‐makers, and influencing public opinion (Yordy et al, 2019). At the same time, we do not expect inconsistent uses of frames.…”

“…The limitation is news media as a data source, a point we return to in the conclusion. This paper builds on the growing number of studies using Discourse Network Analyzer by using and adapting the same coding approach found in some of these past studies (e.g., Yordy et al, 2019;You et al, 2020You et al, , 2021.…”

“…Prime examples include studies exploring coalitions that use surveys (e.g., Elgin & Weible, 2013; Gronow & Ylä‐Anttila, 2019; Ingold, 2011) or the analyses of texts (Jenkins‐Smith & St Clair, 1993; Nohrstedt, 2010; Pierce, 2011; Zafonte & Sabatier, 2004). One method beginning to establish itself is the study of advocacy coalitions using Discourse Network Analyzer with news media as a data source (Buckton et al, 2019; Fergie et al, 2019; Kukkonen et al, 2017; Leifeld, 2013; Leifeld & Brandenberger, 2019; Yordy et al, 2019; You et al, 2020, 2021). The strength of these studies is their available data sources and shared coding technique.…”

“…The argument herein is less about coalition growth and decline and more about the waxing and waning polarization in coalitions.3 We borrow arguments from the framing literature, see for exampleJerit (2008). We can think of "frames" in this study and similar ACF work as expressions of policy core beliefs in the public discourse (seeYordy et al, 2019). Concerning the relationship between policy core beliefs and frames, imagine a policy actor having a bag of policy core beliefs to pull from.…”