The Narrative Uses of Evidence

Schlaufer, Caroline

doi:10.1111/psj.12174

Cited by 63 publications

(80 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…57–60; 2005, pp. 308–11; Schmidt, , p. 309; 2011, p. 113) and highlighted by empirical work informed by discursive approaches to policy analyses (e.g., Schlaufer, ; Throgmorton, ; Winton, ). Greenhalgh's () historical account of the making of China's one‐child policy is particularly illustrative in this respect, which has revealed how the language of science (e.g., quantitative analysis and graphical representation) has been employed by Chinese population scientists, in framing the growth in Chinese population as “a national crisis” and endowing such a drastic policy solution (one‐child policy) with “unassailable legitimacy.”…”

Section: Analytic Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Noninstitutionalized Policy Innovation Is Justified: A Rhetorical Perspective

Li¹

2018

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The premise of this article is that developing persuasive justification is fundamental to the construction and emergence of policy innovation. Nevertheless, given that policy innovation has been typically treated as given, existing public policy research on innovation says little about the process through which the rationales for innovative policies are established. A rhetorical approach is introduced as a new perspective to illustrate this process. In particular, I focus on the case of happiness indices, which is selected because it represents a noninstitutionalized idea which challenges the incumbent way of measuring social progress by GDP‐related indicators. Rhetorical analysis is then applied to a body of documents advocating this ambitious innovation, through which I reveal five distinct types of legitimation strategies (i.e., logos, authorization, cosmology, scientization, and teleology). These rhetorical strategies are used in a supplementary manner to describe a policy idea—utopian in many people's eyes—as appropriate and desirable. The concluding discussion section highlights the wider implications of the empirical findings.

show abstract

Section: Analytic Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…168–69). A scientific discourse is primarily based on an evidence‐based model of justification, with the persuasiveness of arguments established and reinforced by reference to scientific research (Sahlin & Wedlin, , p. 234; Schlaufer, ; Schmidt, , p. 113; Throgmorton, , pp. 117–23).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Noninstitutionalized Policy Innovation Is Justified: A Rhetorical Perspective

Li¹

2018

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In both framing and NPF studies writ large, the focus is on how external (e.g., news media, advocacy groups, political officials) communication influences individual opinions, attitudes, and beliefs. The NPF has proved successful at understanding how narrative elements and strategies operate within and across externally communicated narratives at the meso level (e.g., Merry, ; Schlaufer, ; Shanahan et al, ), as well as how these externally communicated meso‐level policy narratives influence micro‐level individual beliefs and opinions (e.g., Jones, ; Lybecker, McBeth, & Stoutenborough, ; Shanahan et al, ). However, the NPF has largely left unexamined the internal cognition associated with external realities.…”

Section: Communication and Cognitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bounded Stories

Shanahan¹,

Raile²,

French³

et al. 2018

Policy Studies Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) and framing scholars share an interest in how the construction of policy arguments influences opinions and policy decisions. However, conceptual clarification is needed. This study advances the NPF by clarifying the meaning and function of frames and narrative, as well as their respective roles in creating policy realities. We explore sociological and psychological roots of framing scholarship and map these onto NPF's science of narratives philosophy, suggesting that narratives can reveal internally held cognitive schemas. We focus on issue categorization frames as boundaries for narrative construction. Within these bounds, narrative settings further focalize the audience by specifying where action toward a solution takes place. Based on 26 interviews with floodplain decision makers in Montana, we capture internally held cognitions through the assemblage of issue categorization frames and narrative elements. We find that settings can traverse issue categorization frames and policy solutions, with actions of characters that unfold within the setting being key. Similarly, we find that a single issue categorization frame can contain multiple different narratives and that individuals may simultaneously hold multiple different narratives internally. Overall, this study contributes to policy process research through establishment of connections among narratives, issue categorization frames, and cognitive schemas.

show abstract

“…Importantly, NPF research has found that advocacy groups frequently pair their evidence with one or more of the other narrative elements, such as characters (Schlaufer, 2016;Smith-Walter et al, 2016). Such pairings are likely to bring the emotional attachment of a narrative element, such as a villain or victim, and make the evidence more memorable (e.g., Jones and Song, 2014).…”

Section: Shortcomings Of Knowledge Deficit Science Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

The Narrative Uses of Evidence

Cited by 63 publications

References 44 publications

How Noninstitutionalized Policy Innovation Is Justified: A Rhetorical Perspective

How Noninstitutionalized Policy Innovation Is Justified: A Rhetorical Perspective

Bounded Stories

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About