Research Design and the Narrative Policy Framework.

Full text

Narratives Everywhere? The Limits of a Narrative Approach to the Policy Process
Jonathan J. Pierce, Seattle University
Holly L. Peterson, Oregon State University
Aaron Smith-Walter, Virginia Tech University
V. April 3, 2015
Prepared for the Midwest Political Science Annual Conference
Chicago, IL
Abstract
The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) was developed to allow falsifiable empirical testing of
narratives in public policy research. Although, the NPF has developed falsifiable hypotheses,
employed empirical methods of inquiry, and provided direction toward necessary conditions of
policy narrative structure regarding the inclusion of characters and a policy referent (Shanahan et
al., 2013; Jones et al., 2014), it has yet to articulate a model of policy narrative structure that is
falsifiable and amenable to empirical portability. Our analysis applies the work of Goertz (2006)
in developing necessary and sufficient structure of policy narratives, which will aid scholars in
testing policy narrative structure. By providing a falsifiable narrative structure our model enables
and encourages portability of the policy narrative concept, allowing for comparison between
empirical NPF applications. Encouraging consistency of concept and method may aid scholars of
future empirical NPF studies and in NPF theory-building more generally, as well as increase the
internal validity and generalizability of NPF empirical analysis.
1

Narratives Everywhere? The Limits of a Narrative Approach to the Policy Process
The Power of Narratives
Stories are powerful. People use them every day in communications with others and in
constructing a sense of themselves (e.g., Bruner 1986; McAdams 1996). We tell stories to
understand the lives of others (e.g., Nussbaum 1997), in structuring explanations (e.g., Ferreira &
Favoreto 2011; Walker 2012), to uncover important information about issues of concern (e.g.,
Goodson et al. 2010; Shanahan et al. 2011), in building rationales for actions (e.g., Stone 1989;
Walker 2012), and to build consensus or advocate for a position (e.g., Stone 2002; Jones &
McBeth 2010). Policy actors also use stories to facilitate information transfer (e.g., Stone 2002;
Jones & McBeth 2010), to build coalitions (e.g., Shanahan et al. 2011), and to affect policy
change (e.g., Stone 2002; Jones & McBeth 2010). The narrative policy framework (NPF) is
developed around the idea that narratives are powerful in their effects in the policy process
(Jones & McBeth 2010) and draws upon a variety of literature in establishing its claims (see
Jones & McBeth 2010; Jones et al. 2014, pp. 2-3).
Research in a variety of disciplines shows the importance of narratives in human life.
Psychological works find people use narratives to make sense of their lives and relate to others
(e.g., Bruner 1986; Polkinghorn 1988) and that narratives boost memory retention (e.g.,
Bransford et al. 1972; Bransford 1979). Philosophical works argue narrative is key in building
empathy for others by expanding the possibilities people can imagine happening to them and
others (e.g., Johnson 1993; Nussbaum 1997). Neuroscience studies have identified areas of the
2

brain associated with narrative capacity (e.g., Mar 2004) and have shown that injury to such
areas greatly reduces quality of life, as victims of such injury have problems remembering
information about themselves and justifying rationales for action (e.g., Walker 2012). Healthcare
research has shown that narratives are helpful in uncovering diagnostic and therapeutic options
(e.g., Greenhalgh & Hurwitz 1999), in establishing patient compliance with treatment plans (e.g.,
Ferreira & Favoreto 2011), and in training medical professionals (e.g., Jones 1999). Marketing
research finds that narratives are persuasive (e.g., Mattila 2000), and political science research
has shown that narratives help people organize information (e.g., Berinsky & Kinder 2006).
Narrative scholarship has been abundant throughout the academy for many years, but the role of
narrative in the policy process is a more recent focus for researchers.
Narratives and the policy process
The policy process literature largely ignored the role of narratives in the policy process
until recently (e.g., Shanahan et al. 2011; Shanahan et al. 2013; Jones 2014), with the advent of
the NPF (Jones & McBeth 2010). Prior to the NPF’s development of a theory-driven framework
for falsifiable, empirical analysis, policy narratives fell in the domain of interpretive policy
scholars (e.g., Stone 1989; Hajer 1993; Fischer & Forrester 1993; Roe 1994). This research
largely lacked characteristics of falsifiability, replication, and clarity that scholars of the policy
process value (e.g., Sabatier 1991, 2000). The lack of empirical rigor and focus on interpretation
in policy narrative scholarship led to the general exclusion of narratives from the policy process
literature (Shanahan et al. 2013).
Policy process theories tend to focus on collaboration (e.g., Ostrom 1990), competition
(e.g., Berry & Berry 1990; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993; Schneider and Ingram 1993), or
3

incremental processes (e.g., Baumgartner and Jones 1993) to explain the policy process.
Although narrative analysis can be worked into many of these policy process theories, none of
them explicitly involve narratives in their vision of the policy process. Shanahan et al. (2013)
conclude that the missing role of policy narratives in the process literature is problematic because
narratives help in understanding how policy actors manage “facts” in their construction of policy
narratives. In their words, “the politics of constructing policy reality appeared to be
underspecified or missing from mainstream policy process theories” (p. 455).
Development and spread of the narrative policy framework for understanding the policy
process
In the most recent and third edition of Theories of the Policy Process (Sabatier & Weible
2014), Mark McBeth, Michael Jones, and Elizabeth Shanahan describe how they began
developing early iterations of the NPF following the first edition of Theories of the Policy
Process (Sabatier 1999). Although they were inspired by Sabatier’s call for theory “clear enough
to be wrong” (Sabatier 2000), some of their early narrative works were postpositive in nature
(see McBeth et al. 2014). McBeth et al. (2014) identify a 2004 article on the role of macro-level
trends in the marketing of policy frames to consumers as the first of a set of pre-NPF works that
helped lay the theoretical foundation for the NPF (McBeth & Shanahan 2004). Next follows a
2005 article arguing and demonstrating how narrative elements can be quantified and used to
measure policy beliefs (McBeth, Shanahan, & Jones). Two years later followed a study
identifying narrative strategies (McBeth et al. 2007). Three years after the study identifying
strategies, the NPF was developed into its own theoretical lens, given a foundation in literatures
from many disciplines, proposed a set of empirical hypotheses, and was articulated as a theory of
the policy process (Jones and McBeth 2010).
4

Since the development of the NPF as a theory of the policy process, a small number of
scholars and students have been producing publications, theses, and dissertations utilizing the
framework (see Pierce et al. 2014). Additionally, the NPF was included in a special issue of the
Policy Studies Journal introducing new policy theory (Shanahan et al. 2013), has been included
in the most recent edition of Theories of the Policy Process (Sabatier & Weible 2014), and has
been the topic of a recent edited volume by its creators (Jones et al. 2014). In a chapter of the
edited volume, Pierce et al. review the research design of NPF applications to date, identifying
19 peer-review journal articles, noting the popularity of the framework in student theses and
dissertations (2014). At the time of the review, Pierce et al. found only a small dissemination of
the framework in terms of publication authors; however, the student works did suggest more
diversity in scholarship. Since the publication of the research design review, more publications,
conference papers, and student works using the NPF have been completed. A citation search
using a similar method as Pierce et al. (2014) employ show 18 additional peer review
publications citing the foundational NPF works in 2014, and two so far for 2015. However, in
order for the NPF to continue to grow and be applied the unit analysis, policy narratives, needs to
have internal concept validity.
Narrative Policy Framework
Policy narratives include four elements, setting, characters, plot, and moral of the story
(Jones et al. 2014), constituting the structure of policy narratives. Belief systems and strategies
constitute the content of policy narratives (Jones et al. 2014). .Identifying and understanding the
structure of policy narratives is important because they “separate narrative from other message
structures such as lists, chronologies, frames, discourses or memes…” (Jones et al. 2014, p. 5).
The NPF provides these elements with specific definitions and posits their generalizability. The
5

setting is the context within which a policy problem is situated. Characters include heroes,
victims, and villains defined as: fixers of policy problems, those harmed by policy problems,
and those causing policy problems. A plot has a beginning, middle, and end connecting
characters to their setting. Finally, the moral of the story is the proposed solution to the policy
problem (Jones & McBeth 2010; Jones et al. 2014). One purpose of the NPF is to break from
past interpretive narrative inquiry by providing falsifiability to the study of narratives (Jones &
McBeth 2010). Having a specific and operational definition of policy narratives is important for
falsifiable empirical inquiry. McBeth et al., “[the] NPF takes a structuralist position on defining
the form of narrative by consistently defining policy narratives as having specific narrative
elements that are generalizable across space and time to different contexts” (2014, p. 228).
Conducting qualitative constant comparative analysis on past theoretical and applied
peer-reviewed articles by Michael Jones, Mark McBeth, and Elizabeth Shanahan provides an
interesting pattern of narrative structure development and variation. Table 1 below examines the
identification of the different narrative elements from 11 NPF articles and book chapters by
Jones, McBeth, and Shanahan from 2005 – 2014. Table 1 shows the first article to include all
four elements (characters, setting, plot, and moral of the story) was Jones and McBeth (2010).
Since then, Shanahan et al. (2011), Shanahan et al. (2013), Jones et al. (2014), and McBeth et al.
(2014) have all included these four elements. Articles proceeding the 2010 articulation of the
NPF as a process theory did not include all four elements introduced in 2010 (Jones & McBeth
2010). It appears that since 2010 (Jones & McBeth), setting, characters, plot, and moral of the
story have become the settled upon structure of NPF policy narratives.
6

Table 1. Structure of Policy Narratives by Definition over Time
Narrative Elements
Narrative
Strategie
s
P
o
l
i
c
y
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
Source (n=11)
Character
s Setting Plot Moral Other
McBeth et al. 2005 1
use of
science 1
McBeth et al. 2007 1 1
Shanahan et al.
2008 1 1
McBeth et al.
2010A 1 1 1
McBeth et al.
2010B 1 1 1
7

Jones & McBeth
2010 1 1 1 1
Shanahan et al.
2011 1 1 1
1
(preferred
policy
outcome)
McBeth et al. 2012 1 1
1
(solution) 1
Shanahan et al.
2013 1
1
(evidence) 1
1 (policy
stance or
judgement)
Statement of
a problem,
causal
mechanism,
evidence,
solution 1 1
Jones et al. 2014 1 1 1 1 1 1
McBeth et al. 2014 1 1 1 1 1 1
Totals 9/11 5/11 7/11 6/11 8/11
7
/
1
1
As discussed previously, the NPF envisions narrative components as falling into two
categories: structural elements (setting, plot, characters, and moral of the story) and content
(narrative strategies and belief systems). Narrative strategies and belief systems are identified
and discussed in NPF-related publications prior to Jones & McBeth (2010); however, NPF
publications since the codification of the four structural elements in 2010 (Jones & McBeth)
show interesting variation in reference to the four elements, specific narrative content
components (strategies and beliefs), and other narrative variables. For example, McBeth et al.
(2012) includes reference to causal mechanisms specifically, although Jones & McBeth (2010)
includes these as plot content (p. 340), as well as story types: “Policy narratives are composed of
specific elements: characters, a plot, a story type, a solution, and a causal mechanism” (McBeth
et al. 2012, p. 168). Interestingly, McBeth et al. (2012) go on to identify 11 variables within the
two more general categories of narrative components: the characters heroes, victims, villains; the
8

plot components, plot (general presence) , causal stories, causal mechanisms; the moral of the
story (solution) as either micro or macro; and the narrative strategies rhetorical devices, costs and
benefits, and stance (p. 163). Published the same year as Jones & McBeth (2010), McBeth et al.
(2010A) includes reference to frames, as is present in McBeth & Shanahan (2004), and themes
“one type of framing technique is a policy narrative which utilizes the context of a story and thus
contains plot, characters, themes, and structure to frame an issue” (McBeth et al. 2010A, p. 6).
Additionally, citing earlier NPF-related works, another McBeth et al. (2010B) article makes
reference to “policy beliefs” specifically instead of belief systems or policy preferences and
“narrative tactics” instead of narrative strategies: “policy narratives consist of both core policy
beliefs (McBeth et al. 2005) and political narrative tactics (McBeth et al. 2007)” (McBeth et al.
2010B, p. 393). Such variation in reference to the elements and structure of policy narratives by
Jones, McBeth, and Shanahan illustrates the variety of elements these generalizable categories
may include and encourages innovation in operationalization; however, a stable concept for
operationalization of narrative structure is necessary to aid in the generalizability of NPF
research.
Currently, Jones, McBeth, and Shanahan define policy narrative structure as consisting of
“… a minimum of one character and a referent to the public policy of interest (e.g., problem,
solution, evidence for, etc.) (see Shanahan et al. 2013; McBeth et al. 2014, p. 229)” (Jones et al.
2014, p. 7). Therefore, a policy narrative based on necessary conditions has a character and only
refers to public policy. This broad definition of narrative structure leaves doubt about what is a
policy narrative? For example, Clemons et al. (2012) in a study about policy narratives explicitly
states that the following statement is not a policy narrative but rather a “scientific statement.”
9

A recent study has revealed that one in five U.S. teenagers have cholesterol
problems. In addition, a few years ago, the U.S. Surgeon General stated in 2003
that two out of every three Americans are overweight and illnesses related to
obesity cost society more the longer people live. The health consequences of
obesity are many including heart disease, cancer, Type II diabetes, and many other
life-threatening illnesses. Public health experts have declared that America’s over-
eating is an epidemic and have suggested several policies including regulating
advertising of food, taxing unhealthy foods, and removing unhealthy concessions
from schools (p. 20).
Upon closer inspection of this statement it clearly has characters including U.S.
teenagers, U.S. Surgeon General, public health experts, and the American public. It also
has a clear discussion about policy in terms of a problem, cholesterol, obesity, and public
health, and even offers a policy solution in terms of regulation. Beyond just these
elements of characters and referents to a public policy, other elements of policy narrative
can be identified, including setting, over-eating and obesity in America; a plot with a
beginning (recent study), middle (public health consequences) and an end (proposed
future regulatory action); and a moral of the story (policy solution of new regulations
proposed by health experts). Yet, according to Clemons et al. (2012) this is not a policy
narrative.
Clemons et al. (2012) crafted this statement specifically to compare the effects
that different types of policy narratives have in comparison to non-policy narratives.
While this study and others develop their own narratives to test in quasi-experiments
through surveys (e.g., Jones 2013; Jones & Song 2014), many others studying policy
narratives examine their effect through public consumption documents (e.g., McBeth et
al. 2005; McBeth et al. 2007; Shanahan et al. 2010; McBeth et al. 2010B; Shanahan et al.
2013; Heikkila et al. 2014). Therefore, many who apply the NPF need to apply a concept
10

definition and structure to differentiate between policy narratives and non-policy
narratives to public consumption documents.
Sources of public consumption documents vary widely. Jones and McBeth (2010)
suggest that the sources of data for studying policy narratives include either media
coverage or public consumption documents generated by interest groups. Early NPF-
related applications collected data from and analyzed press releases from interest groups
(e.g., McBeth & Shanahan 2004; McBeth et al. 2005; McBeth et al. 2007). Other
examples include newsletters (e.g., Shanahan et al. 2013), editorials and newspaper
opinion editorials (e.g., Shanahan et al. 2008), and YouTube videos by interest groups and
the media (e.g., McBeth et al. 2012), reports produced by government agencies (e.g.,
Radaelli et al. 2013), quotes from politicians in media coverage (e.g., Rad 2012),
personal interviews with stakeholders (e.g., Knox 2013), and blogs, fact sheets, and
public hearing testimony (e.g., Heikkila et al. 2014).
Are all of these public consumption documents identified by the authors also
policy narratives? According to Shanahan et al. (2013) not all public consumption
documents are policy narratives. In fact,
…we assert that there are two necessary conditions for a public
consumption document to be considered a policy narrative. First, a policy
narrative must contain a policy stance of judgment on a policy-related
behavior … this condition differentiates a policy narrative from other texts
such as lists or chronologies. Second, a policy narrative must contain at
least one character who is cast as a hero, villain, or victim (p. 457).
Therefore, there are clear necessary conditions for what should be included and not
included when examining public consumption documents when collecting policy
narratives. However, these necessary conditions do not appear to hold in practice.
11

The authors of various applications of the NPF either do not state or do not reject
any public consumption documents as not being policy narratives, although it is unlikely
that all such documents meet the necessary conditions stated by Shanahan et al. (2013).
The practice for collecting data on policy narratives appears to include all public
consumption documents produced by interest groups, the media, or politicians about a
public issue. Additionally, frequently no indication of applying the necessary conditions
of having characters and a referent to a public policy is present in these applications.
McBeth et al. (2012) identified all 88 YouTube videos of an interest group on a YouTube
channel as policy narratives. They utilized a definition of policy narratives that had 11
components including characters and policy beliefs among others, and they reported that
at least three videos had only one component and that at least 15 had five or fewer. They
were not specific on which videos had at least characters and a policy referent, but at
least three that were included as policy narratives do not meet this definition. Other
examples include Radaelli et al. (2012) and Heikkila et al. (2014), both included multiple
documents that did not identify characters. Additionally, Rad (2012) and Knox (2013) did
not explicitly identify any characters from their public consumption documents. This
raises the question if the latter two applications even qualify as being within the spectrum
of the NPF, yet the authors clearly state that they are applying the framework. Similar
issues arise when investigating if applications include setting, plot, and moral of the story
(Pierce et al. 2014).
What is clear is whether identifying policy narratives from public consumption
documents or creating non-policy narratives to test in surveys, NPF scholars at least in
practice are unclear on what is and is not a policy narrative.
12

Analysis
To better understand policy narratives we need to investigate its ontology. Goertz
(2006) provides recommendations and examples for how to construct social science
concepts that can be tested either using quantitative or qualitative methods in an
empirical manner that is falsifiable. This type of modeling is similar to confirmatory
factor analysis (e.g., DiStefano & Hess 2005). The key is to understand the concept’s
internal structure and its constituent parts.
There are two options for how components combine to make a concept either
necessary and sufficient conditions or family resemblance (Goertz 2006). Family
resemblance means that categories generated by concepts do not have clear boundaries
and exist on a continuum, while necessary and sufficient conditions exist in an explicit
dichotomy.
McBeth et al. (2012) clearly put forward a family resemblance in their study of
interest group YouTube videos. The authors identified 11 components of policy narratives
and develop a narrativity index based on their presence. The narrativity index was the
result of aggregating how many components were in each video ranging from 1 to 11. By
simply adding up the components and not giving weight or differentiating between them,
this article utilized pure substitutability that is family resemblance logic.
However, in other applications and theoretical work discussed above (e.g., Jones
& McBeth 2010; Shanahan et al. 2013) the definition of policy narratives put forward
include necessary and sufficient conditions. In terms of necessary and sufficient
13

conditions they identify actors and a policy referent as necessary for identifying a policy
narrative.
According to Goertz (2006), there are three related important issues when it
comes to basic social science concepts such as policy narratives. First, the concept must
have a negative and a positive pole. Second, substantive content must exist between the
poles. Last, continuity must be present that does or does not exist between the poles (i.e.,
either dichotomy or continuum). A negative pole represents what the concept is not. It is
the opposite of the positive pole that is the definition of the concept. Logically and
statistically, the negative pole represents a lack of presence or a zero in terms of the
dimensions that define the positive pole. Once these two poles are established it must be
decided if the two exist in a dichotomy or in a continuum.
The simplest form of developing a negative pole for a policy narrative is to state
that it lacks the presence of any of the four components (setting, characters, plot, or moral
of the story). Therefore, if all of the components are missing there is no policy narrative.
Based on the definitions provided by theoretical works and the discussion of past
applications, many policy narratives are missing some of these components. The lack of
identifying these components did not prevent the authors from applying and arguing that
they are studying policy narratives (e.g., McBeth et al. 2012). If this is true, this means
that the relationship between the two poles is a continuum and not a dichotomy. In
summary, we now have two poles a positive pole that possess all of the components of a
policy narrative (setting, characters, plot, and moral of the story), a negative pole that
possesses none of the components of a policy narrative (setting, characters, plot, and
14

moral of the story), and a continuum between the two poles where we have partial policy
narratives that contain some of the components.
Necessary and sufficient conditions for concept building utilize a three level or
dimension structure (Goertz 2006). The first level or dimension is the basic concept and
in this case is the policy narrative. The policy narrative has four components that make up
the secondary level (setting, characters, plot, and moral of the story). These components
at the secondary level possess dimensions of substituitability (Goertz 2006). These
dimensions of substituitability range from none, such as a necessary condition, to
complete substituitability between components. For most phenomenon some secondary-
level components are more important than others (Goertz 2006). In the case of the NPF it
is clear that the characters and some form of policy referent are more important than the
other components.
Each of these components have indicators. These indicators combine to create the
third level of the concept. This is the level where the data is collected (Goertz 2006). In
the case of the policy narrative each secondary level component (setting, characters, plot,
and moral of the story) has at least three indicators. Table 2 below specifies these
indicators corresponding to each secondary level component based on Jones et al. (2014).
Table 2. Policy Narrative Components and Indicator Level
Character
s
Setting Plot Moral of the
Story
Hero Accepted facts with Beginnin Status quo
15

low-levels of
disagreement
g
Villain Legal and
constitutional
parameters
Middle Policy change
Victim Characteristics of
geographic region
End Communication
Characteristics of
the environment
Demographic
characteristics
Institutions
These third level indicators are all identified and listed as part of the definitions
and operationalizations of the corresponding components found in Jones et al. 2014 (pp.
6-7). The relationships between these second level components and the indicators may
include: concept causes the indicator, indicator causes the concept, or a non-causal
relationship (Goertz 2006). Also, much like the secondary level components the structure
of these third level indicators may be a minimum, maximum, or a mean (Goertz 2006).
The rationale for why the third level indicators are necessary is because secondary level
components are too abstract to give guidance for data gathering (Goertz 2006).
Applied to the NPF some of the relationships between indicator level and secondary level
components are clearer than others. Based on Shanahan et al. (2013), it is evident that any one of
the characters needs to be present to conduct analysis. This means that the characters have
complete substituitability for each other and that having the concept of a character causes the
indicator to exist. This is similar to the relationship between moral of the story and its indicators.
Each of the three types of morals of the story can be substituted for each other (status quo, policy
16

change, and communication) and the moral of the story causes the presence of the indicators.
However, the relationships in terms of the setting and the plot are not as clear. Little research has
been completed on these components (Pierce et al. 2014), and what has been applied in terms of
plot has generally relied on Deborah Stone’s story types (2002) or causal mechanisms (1989).
The relationship here between indicator level and concept simply needs more research before it
can be determined its level of substituitability.
By applying sufficient and necessary conditions and the application of a three level model
the NPF can be modeled as in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Necessary and Sufficient Three Level Model of Policy Narratives
17

This figure demonstrates the necessary and sufficient conditions for identifying and
studying policy narratives. It includes two necessary components at the secondary level. These
two components are characters and moral of the story. In this case, moral of the story has
substituted for “referent to public policy” as identified by Shanahan et al. (2013) and McBeth et
al. (2014). As this is the only element that focuses on communicating about public policy and
using the three indicators of status quo of policy, policy change, and communication about policy
it explicitly examines policy referents. The secondary level components of setting and plot are
both sufficient. This means that the inclusion of them makes a policy narrative more complete,
but their presence is not necessary. They also may be substituted for each other or not present at
all.
The relationships between necessary components is identified by a solid arrow, while
those between sufficient items is identified using a broken line (Goertz 2006). This is also
complimented by the presence of (+) representing OR and (X) representing AND. In the case of
(+) this represents sufficient conditions because it is equivalent to adding zero, while the (X)
represents a necessary component because it is equivalent to multiplying by zero.
Conclusion
The NPF continues to grow in terms of applications and in part because it betters our
understanding of the policy process. However, the concept of the policy narrative needs clear
concept validity in order for falsification and generalizability. For this reason we have developed
a model of policy narrative structure using necessary and sufficient conditions. This step is
necessary to identify and understand the components and indicators of concepts in order for them
to be applied and compared across time and space (Goertz 2006), which is an explicit goal of the
NPF (Jones & McBeth 2010). In order for scholars to better understand the effect and
18

relationship policy narratives have on the policy process policy narrative structures must be
portable. In order for operationalizations of narrative structure to be falsifiable they must have
positive as well as negative poles. By modeling the concept of policy narrative utilizing
necessary and sufficient conditions, policy narratives are now portable in testing and falsifiable
in empirical research. The allowance for increased falsifiability of concept and generalizability of
NPF analysis enables NPF empirical applications to engage in a more robust dialogue with one
another. We hope that the increased internal validity and generalizability provided by our model
of necessary and sufficient conditions for policy will aid in future NPF analysis and more
generally in NPF theory-building.
19

References
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Berinksy, Adam J., and Donald R. Kinder. 2006. Making Sense of Issues Through Media
Frames: Understanding the Kosovo Crisis. Journal of Politics. 68(3): 640–656.
Berry, Frances Stokes, and William D. Berry. 1990. State lottery adoptions as policy innovations:
An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84(2): 395-415.
Bransford, John D. 1979. Human Cognition: Learning, Understanding and Remembering.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Bransford, John D., J. Richard Barclay, and Jeffery J. Franks. 1972. Sentence Memory: A
Constructive Versus Interpretive Approach. Cognitive Psychology. 3(2): 193-209.
Bruner, Jerome. 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Harvard University Press.
Clemons, R. S., McBeth, M. K., & Kusko, E. 2012. Understanding the Role of Policy Narratives
and the Public Policy Arena: Obesity as a Lesson in Public Policy Development. World Medical
& Health Policy, 4(2), 1-26.
DiStefano, Christine, and Brian Hess. 2005. Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Construct
20

Validation: An Empirical Review. Journal of Pschoeducational Assesment, 23(3): 225-241.
Ferreira, Debora Carvalho, and Cesar Augusto Orazem Favoreto. Analysis of the narrative of
HIV patients: the building of therapeutical adhesion. Physis: Revista de Saúde Coletiva 21.3
(2011): 917-936.
Fischer, Frank, and John Forrester. 1993. The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
Goertz, Gary. 2006. Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University.
Goodson, Ivor F., Gert Biesta, Michael Tedder, and Norma Adair. 2010 Narrative Learning.
Routledge.
Greenhalgh, Trisha, and Brian Hurwitz. 1999. Why Study Narrative? BMJ : British Medical
Journal 318.7175 (1999): 48–50. Print.
Hajer, Maarten A., 1993. Discourse Coalitions and the Institutionalization of Practice: The Case
of Acid Rain in Britain. In The Argumentative Turn, eds. Frank Fischer, and John Forester.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 43–76.
Heikkila, T., Pierce, J.J., Gallaher, S., Kagan, J., Crow, D.A., & Weible, C.M. 2014.
Understanding a Period of Policy Change: The case of hydraulic fracturing disclosure policy in
Colorado. Review of Policy Research 31(2): 65-86.
Jones, Anne Hudson. 1999. The Color of the Wallpaper: Training for Narrative Ethics. HEC
Forum. Vol. 11. No. 1. Springer Netherlands, 1999.
Jones, Michael, D. 2013. Cultural Characters and Climate Change: How Heroes Shape Our
Perception of Climate Science. Social Science Quarterly 95 (1): 1-39.
Jones, Michael D. 2014. Communicating Climate Change: Are Stories Better than ‘Just the
Facts’? Policy Studies Journal, 42 (4): 644-673.
Jones, Michael D. and Mark K. McBeth. 2010. A Narrative Policy Framework: Clear Enough to
Be Wrong? The Policy Studies Journal. 38 (2): 329-353.
Jones, Michael D., Mark K. McBeth, and Elizabeth A. Shanahan. 2014. Introducing the
Narrative Policy Framework. In Michael D. Jones, Elizabeth Shanahan, and Mark K. McBeth
(Eds.) The Science of Stories: Applications of the Narrative Policy Framework in Public Policy
Analysis. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Jones, Michael D., and Geoboo Song. 2014. Making Sense of Climate Change: How Story
Frames Shape Cognition. Political Psychology, 35(4): 447-476.
Johnson, Mark. 1993. Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics. Vol. 190.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21

Knox, Claire Connolly. 2013. Distorted Communication in the Florida Everglades: A Critical
Theory Analysis of ‘Everglades Restoration.’ Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 15
(2): 269-284.
Mar, Raymond. A., 2004. The Neuropsychology of Narrative: Story Comprehension, Story
Production, and their Interrelation. Neuropsychologia, 42(10), 1414-1434.
Mattila, Anna S. 2000. The Role of Narratives in the Advertising of Experiential Services.
Journal of Service Research 3(1): 35–45.
McAdams, Dan P. 1996. Personality, Modernity and the Storied Self: A Contemporary
Framework for Studying Persons. Psychological Inquiry 7: 295–321.
McBeth, Mark K., and Elizabeth A. Shanahan. 2004. Public Opinion for Sale: The Role of Policy
Marketers in Greater Yellowstone Policy Conflict. Policy Sciences 37 (3): 319–338.
McBeth, Mark K., Elizabeth A. Shanahan, and Michael D. Jones. 2005. The Science of
Storytelling: Measuring Policy Beliefs in Greater Yellowstone. Society and Natural Resources
18: 413–29.
McBeth, Mark K., Elizabeth A. Shanahan, Ruth J. Arnell, and Paul L. Hathaway. 2007. The
Intersection of Narrative Policy Analysis and Policy Change Theory. Policy Studies Journal 35:
87–108.
McBeth, Mark K., Lybecker, Donna L., Garner, Kacee A. 2010A. The Story of Good
Citizenship: Framing Public Policy in the Context of Duty-Based versus Engaged Citizenship.
Politics and Policy, 38(1): 1-23.
McBeth, Mark K., Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Hathaway, Paul L., Tigert, Linda E., & Sampson,
Lynette J. 2010B. Buffalo Tales: Interest group policy stories in Greater Yellowstone. Policy
Sciences, 43: 391-409.
McBeth, Mark K., Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Anderson, Molly C. Arrandale, & Rose, Barbara.
2012. Policy Story or Gory Story? Narrative Policy Framework Analysis of Buffalo Field
Campaign’s Youtube Videos. Policy and Internet, 4(3-4): 159-183.
McBeth, Mark K., Michael D. Jones, and Elizabeth A. Shanahan. 2014. The Narrative Policy
Framework. In Theories of the Policy Process eds. Paul A. Sabatier and Christopher M. Weible.
225-266.
Nussbaum, Martha. 1997. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal
Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action. Cambridge University Press.
Pierce, Jonathan J., Aaron Smith-Walter, and Holly L. Peterson. 2014. Research Design and the
Narrative Policy Framework. In Michael D. Jones, Elizabeth Shanahan, and Mark K. McBeth
22

(Eds.) The Science of Stories: Applications of the Narrative Policy Framework in Public Policy
Analysis. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Polkinghorne, Donald. 1988. Narrative Knowing and the Human Sciences. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Rad, Masoud Gholampour. 2012. Identification of a new plot line in public policy narratives
using Narrative policy Framework (NPF) in order to Predict Public Policy Changes. Journal of
International Public Administration. 4 (3): 31-54.
Radaelli, Claudio M., Claire A. Dunlop, and Oliver Fritsch. 2013. Narrating Impact Assessment
in the European Union. European Political Science. 12 (4): 500-521.
Roe, Emery. 1994. Narrative Policy Analysis: Theory and Practice. Durham, CT: Duke
University Press.
Sabatier, Paul A. 1991. Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process. PS: Political Science and
Politics. 24 (2): 147–56.
Sabatier, Paul A. ed. 1999. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sabatier, Paul A. 2000. Clear Enough to Be Wrong. Journal of European Public Policy 7: 134–
40.
Schneider, Anne Larsen, and Helen M. Ingram. 1993. Social Construction of Target Populations:
Implications for Politics and Policy. The American Political Science Association. 87 (2): 334-
347.
Sabatier, Paul A., and Christopher Weible (Eds). 2014. Theories of the Policy Process Third
Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Shanahan, Elizabeth A., McBeth, Mark K., Hathaway, Paul L., & Arnell, Ruth J. 2008. Conduit
or Contributor? The role of media in policy change theory. Policy Sciences, 41: 115-138.
Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Michael D. Jones, and Mark K. McBeth. 2011. Policy Narratives and
Policy Process. Policy Studies Journal. 39 (3): 535-561.
Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Michael D. Jones, Mark K. McBeth, and Ross R. Lane. 2013. An Angel
on the Wind: How Heroic Policy Narratives Shape Policy Realities. Policy Studies Journal. 41
(3): 453-483.
Stone, Deborah A. 1989. Causal Stories and the Formation of Policy Agendas. Political Science
Quarterly. 104 (2): 281-300.
Stone, Deborah A. 2002. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-Making Revised Edition.
New York: W.W. Norton.
Walker, Mary Jean. 2012. Neuroscience, Self-Understanding, and Narrative Truth. AJOB
23

Neuroscience 3(4):63–74.
24