“No Fracking Way” vs. “Drill Baby Drill”: A Restructuring of Who Is Pitted Against Whom in the Narrative Policy Framework

Abstract

Narratives are highly consequential in policy processes because they shape public perception of policy issues. The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) seeks to predict the extent to which narratives are strategically used to influence policy outcomes. Its core hypotheses center around a winning vs. losing dichotomy, in which winning and losing narratives employ distinct sets of strategies. Due to the newness of the theory, there are few empirical tests of its components, and their results are inconclusive. We posit that the winning–losing paradigm does not accurately predict narrative strategy use. To test this hypothesis, we examine a policy dilemma where contextually similar jurisdictions adopted multiple different policy solutions over a common time period. From 2008 to 2012, more than 260 New York municipalities passed policies related to hydraulic fracturing (fracking). We analyze editorial content from two local newspapers in central New York whose distribution covers municipalities that adopted anti‐ and pro‐fracking policies. Our findings reveal that narrators consistently use narrative strategies that correspond to the side of the issue they support, regardless of whether they are winning or losing the policy debate. This suggests the NPF's winning–losing dichotomy may not be not well suited to predicting narrative strategy use or policy outcomes.

Advancing the Narrative Policy Framework? The Musings of a Potentially Unreliable Narrator

“…Also bridging micro‐ and meso levels of analyses, Gottlieb, Bertone Oehninger, and Arnold () apply the NPF to test hypotheses related to strategy by examining hydraulic fracturing narratives in New York between the years 2008 and 2012. The researchers test traditional NPF hypotheses side‐by‐side with modified hypotheses designed to refine the NPF.…”

“…The research within this issue continues that trend. Most are mixed‐methods approaches including some aspect of qualitative research and what might be considered standard NPF types of quantitative analyses, including descriptive statistics; measures of association; and, of course, plenty of regression analyses (e.g., Gottlieb et al, ; McBeth & Lybecker, ; Merry, ; Shanahan, Raile, et al, ). However, as the NPF adapts to new research questions with more nuanced data concerns and, in some cases, modest narrative effects, we are seeing more variety and sophistication in the statistical techniques deployed.…”

“…The most recent take on the state of the NPF declared this body of findings to be inconsistent and thus inconclusive (Shanahan et al, , p. 193). Gottlieb et al () test devil‐angel shift hypotheses related to winning and losing. They find that usage of the devil‐angel shift has little to do with who is winning or losing, and more so with what side of the issue the narrator is on, which they argue should guide reformulations of NPF devil‐angel shift hypotheses in the future.…”

“…Merry () defines framing broadly as simply the portrayal of a policy problem. Gottlieb et al (), McMorris et al (), and Smith‐Walter () all appear to use the term casually, without providing a clear definition. My intent here is not to impugn these works as sloppy or careless, as all do seem to appropriately apply the framing concept, given the context in which they invoke it.…”

“…Meanwhile, Smith‐Walter () observes that his findings about victim deployment in policy narratives do not comport with previous NPF findings. Gottlieb et al () show that the entirety of the devil‐angel shift connection to the winning and losing strategies within the NPF is potentially misguided. All mentioned findings indicate this likely contingent nature of some of the NPF's theorized relationships between policy narratives and policy and offer researchers opportunities to refine the where, when, and how aspects of these relationships.…”