Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Human Affairs

Postdisciplinary Humanities & Social Sciences Quarterly

Editor-in-Chief: Višnovský, Emil

Ed. by Bianchi, Gabriel / Hrubec, Marek / Tartaglia, James


CiteScore 2016: 0.33

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.172
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.415

Online
ISSN
1337-401X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 24, Issue 3

Issues

Science, stories and the anti-vaccination movement

Marcela Veselková
  • Institute of Public Policy and Economics, Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Comenius University, Mlynské luhy 4, 821 05, Bratislava, Slovakia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2014-06-26 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-014-0227-8

Abstract

This paper discusses the theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of the use or non-use of expert-based information in policy-making. Special attention is paid to the Narrative Policy Framework introduced by Jones & McBeth in 2010. This theory of the policy process adopts a quantitative, structuralist and positivist approach to the study of policy narratives. The Narrative Policy Framework is useful for the analysis of the use of expert-based information to resolve so-called wicked problems, which are characterized by intense value-based conflict between policy coalitions. The methodological approach of the Narrative Policy Framework is illustrated using the policy issue of mandatory vaccination.

Keywords: narrative policy framework; wicked problems; mandatory vaccination

  • [1] Andre, F.E., Booy, R., Bock, H.L., Clemens, J., Datta, S.K., John, T.J., Lee, B.W., Lolekha, S., Peltola, H., Ruff T. A., Santosham, M., & Schmitt, H. J. (2008). Vaccination greatly reduces disease, disability, death and inequity worldwide. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 86(2), 81–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.07.040089CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [2] Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar

  • [3] Bennett, C., & Howlett, M. (1992). The lessons of learning: Reconciling theories of policy learning and policy change. Policy Sciences, 25, 275–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00138786CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [4] Betsch, C., Brewer, N.T., Brocard, P., Davies, P., Gaissmaier, W., Haase, N., Leask, J., Renkewitz, F., Renner, B., Reyna, V.F., Rossmann, C., Sachse, K., Schachinger, A., Siegrist, M., & Stryk, M. (2012). Opportunities and challenges of Web 2.0 for vaccination decisions. Vaccine, 30, 3727–3733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.02.025Google Scholar

  • [5] Caplan, N. (1979). The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22(3), 459–470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000276427902200308CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [6] Caplan, N. S., Morrison, A., & Stambaugh, R. (1975). The use of social science knowledge in policy decisions at the national level. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. Google Scholar

  • [7] Chermack, T. J. (2004). Improving decision-making with scenario planning. Futures, 36, 295–309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00156-3CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [8] Dunn, W.N. (1980). The two-communities metaphor and models of knowledge use: an explanatory case study. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1, 515–536. Google Scholar

  • [9] Freed, G. L., Clark, S. J., Butchart, A. T., Singer, D. C., & Davis, M. M. (2011). Sources and perceived credibility of vaccine-safety information for parents. Pediatrics, 127(Supplement), S107–S112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-1722PCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [10] Graham, I. D., Logan, J., Harrison, M. B., Straus, S. E., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W. & Robinson, N. (2006). Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 28, 13–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/chp.47CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [11] Hobson-West, P. (2007). Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all: Organised resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29(2), 198–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.00544.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [12] Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [13] Ingram, H., Schneider, A. L., & deLeon, P. (2007). Social construction and policy design. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 93–128). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Google Scholar

  • [14] Innvaer, S., Vist, G., Trommald, M., & Oxman, A. (2002). Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 7(4), 239–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/135581902320432778CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [15] Irwin, A., & Wynne, B. (1996). Introduction. In A. Irwin & B. Wynne (Eds.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (pp. 1–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511563737.001CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [16] Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2010). A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong? The Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 329–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00364.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [17] Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Boston/Toronto: Little Brown & Company. Google Scholar

  • [18] Lord, C., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [19] May, P. J. (1992). Policy learning and failure. Journal of Public Policy, 12(4), 331–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00005602CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [20] McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E. A., & Jones, M. D. (2005). The science of storytelling: Measuring policy beliefs in Greater Yellowstone. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 413–429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920590924765CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [21] McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E. A., Hathaway, P. L., Tigert, L. E., & Sampson, L. J. (2010). Buffalo tales: interest group policy stories in Greater Yellowstone. Policy Sciences, 43, 391–409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11077-010-9114-2CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [22] McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E. A., Arnell, R. J., & Hathaway, P. L. (2007). The intersection of narrative policy analysis and policy change theory. The Policy Studies Journal, 35(1), 87–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00208.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [23] Mitton, C., Adair, C. E., McKenzie, E., Patten, S. B., & Perry, B. W. (2007). Knowledge transfer and exchange: Review and synthesis of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly, 85(4), 729–768. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00506.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [24] Mosteller, F. (2006). Innovation and evaluation. In S. E. Fienberg & D. C. Hoaglin (Eds.), Selected Papers of Frederick Mosteller (pp. 515–529). Springer Science + Business Media. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-44956-2_33CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [25] Neilson, S. (2001). Knowledge utilization and public policy processes: A literature review. Ottawa: Evaluation Unit, IDRC December. Google Scholar

  • [26] Nowlin, M. C. (2011). Theories of the policy process: State of the research and emerging trends. The Policy Studies Journal, 39(S1), 41–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00389_4.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [27] Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G. L. (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133(4), e835–e842. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-2365CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [28] Pralle, S, B. (2006). Branching out digging in: Environmental advocacy and agenda setting. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Google Scholar

  • [29] Quattrone, G., & Tversky, A. (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analysis of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82, 719–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1962487CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [30] Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [31] Roe, E. (1991). Development narratives, or making the best of blueprint development. World Development, 19(4), 287–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(91)90177-JCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [32] Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1215/9780822381891CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [33] Sabatier, P. (1978). The acquisition and utilization of technical information by administrative agencies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(September), 386–411. Google Scholar

  • [34] Sabatier, P. (1987). Knowledge, policy-oriented learning, and policy change. Knowledge, 8(June), 649–92. Google Scholar

  • [35] Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition gramework of policy change and the role of policyoriented learning therein. Policy Science, 21(2/3), 129–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00136406CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [36] Sabatier, P. A. (2000). Clear enough to be wrong. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(1), 135–40. Google Scholar

  • [37] Shanahan, E. A., McBeth, M. K., Tigert, L. E., & Hathaway, P. L. (2010). From protests to litigation to YouTube: A longitudinal case study of strategic lobby tactic choice for the Buffalo Field Campaign. Social Science Journal, 47(1), 137–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2009.10.002CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [38] Shanahan, E., Jones, M. D., McBeth, M. K., & Lane, R. R. (2013). An angel on the wind: How heroic policy narratives shape policy realities. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 453–483. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/psj.12025CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [39] Simon, H. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. American Political Science Review, 79(June), 293–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1956650CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [40] Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KA: University of Kansas Press. Google Scholar

  • [41] Scholz, J., & Pinney, N. (1995). Duty, fear, and tax compliance: The heuristic basis of citizenships behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 39(May), 490–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2111622CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [42] Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. (Revised ed.). New York: W.W. Norton. Google Scholar

  • [43] Stone, D. (1988). Policy paradox and political reason. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, and Company. Google Scholar

  • [44] Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M., & Abrams, L. (2001). Using mentoring and storytelling to transfer knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 95–114. Google Scholar

  • [45] Weber, E. P., Memon, A., & Painter, B. (2011). Science, society, and water resources in New Zealand: Recognizing and overcoming a societal impasse. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 13(1), 49–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2011.564414CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [46] Weible, C. M. (2007). An advocacy coalition framework approach to stakeholder analysis: Understanding the political context of California marine protected area policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(1), 95–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muj015CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [47] Weible, C. M. (2008). Expert-based information and policy subsystems: A review and synthesis. The Policy Studies Journal, 36(4), 615–635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00287.xCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [48] Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2007). A guide to the advocacy coalition framework. In. F Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis. Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 123–136). Boca Raton, FL.: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. Google Scholar

  • [49] Weiss, C. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social science research. Policy Analysis, 3(4), 531–545. Google Scholar

  • [50] Weiss, C. (1999). The interface between evaluation and public policy. Evaluation, 5(1), 468–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135638909900500408CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • [51] Wildavsky, A., & Tenenbaum, E. (1981). The politics of mistrust. Beverly Hills: Sage. Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2014-06-26

Published in Print: 2014-07-01


Citation Information: Human Affairs, Volume 24, Issue 3, Pages 287–298, ISSN (Online) 1337-401X, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-014-0227-8.

Export Citation

© 2014 Institute for Research in Social Communication, Slovak Academy of Sciences. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Aaron Smith-Walter, Holly L. Peterson, Michael D. Jones, and Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall
Politics & Policy, 2016, Volume 44, Number 6, Page 1053

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in