Narrative policy framework at the macro level—cultural theory-based beliefs, science-based narrative strategies, and their uptake in the Canadian policy process for genetically modified salmon
| Author | Teshanee T Williams,Jennifer Kuzma |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/09520767211065609 |
| Published date | 01 October 2022 |
| Date | 01 October 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Public Policy and Administration
2022, Vol. 37(4) 480–515
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/09520767211065609
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppa
Narrative policy framework at
the macro level—cultural
theory-based beliefs,
science-based narrative
strategies, and their uptake in
the Canadian policy process for
genetically modified salmon
Teshanee T Williams
School of Government, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Jennifer Kuzma
School of Public and International Affairs, Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Abstract
This study utilizes the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) and cultural theory to examine
the use of policy narratives by coalitions (meso-level) and the institutional uptake (macro-
level). We analyze Parliamentary hearings about genetically modified (GM) salmon in
Canada to associate narrative strategies with certain cultural worldviews and policy-
stances. We explore narrative strategies used by cultural groups with regard to whether
they contain the scope of GM salmon issues to “science-only”(direct health and en-
vironmental impacts) or expand the issues to “science-plus”(to include broader eco-
nomic, social, or cultural impacts). Finally, we examine whether certain framings of GM
salmon issues or specific cultural narratives are preferentially taken up in the final policy
documents generated after the hearings. Our findings reveal significant relationships
between policy-stance (pro-vs anti-GM), the cultural disposition of a policy narrative, the
narrative strategies being used, and ultimately policy uptake. For example, narratives with
hierarchical cultural dispositions were more likely to expand the scope of the issue to
science-plus when supporting their own policy position (typically pro-GM) but contain
Corresponding author:
Teshanee T Williams, School of Government, University of North Carolina - Chapel Hill, 400 South Rd,
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-3916, USA.
Email: twilliams@sog.unc.edu
the scope to “science-only”when refuting an anti-GM policy-stance. With regard to
policy uptake, final government documents referred more to narratives that contained
the scope to “science-only”and expressed hierarchical or individualistic dispositions in
comparison to the hearings. This study has practical implications for understanding whose
perspectives and arguments are legitimized in national policy debates about GM foods. It
also extends NPF theory to how narratives containing specific cultural dispositions and
risk-based framings influence policy uptake at the macro-level.
Keywords
Narrative policy framework, cultural theory, genetically modified food
In controversial debates involving science, policy actors often construct narratives to
ascertain favorable outcomes (McBeth et al., 2014a,2014b;McBeth and Lybecker, 2018;
Schlaufer, 2018). Across a wide range of policy issues, scholars have suggested that the
strategic use of narratives can be identified by studying patterns of use among coalitions
(Brewer, 2020;Crow and Berggren, 2014). Others have suggested that narratives can be
used differently to maintain a policy actor’s cultural belief (Ripberger et al., 2014;
Shanahan et al., 2011). According to McBeth et al. (2007),“narratives are both the visible
outcome of differences in policy beliefs and the equally visible outcome of political
strategizing”(p. 88).
The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) offers a systematic approach for examining
the content and role of narratives in policy processes (McBeth et al., 2014a,2014b). It
allows scholars to measure socially constructed realities such as those based on cultural
perspectives and used in narratives (Crow and Jones, 2018;Ripberger et al., 2014). While
some scholars have found support to show that scientific evidence is embedded in
narratives (McBeth et al., 2014a,2014b;Schlaufer, 2018;Shanahan et al., 2017), others
have stated that narratives are sometimes not as persuasive as the basic facts (Jones, 2014).
Still, many studies have provide support for the NPF’s central claim: influential arguments
are presented as stories (see for example, Jones et al., 2014;Jones and McBeth, 2010;
Schlaufer, 2018), and these stories are often shaped by a belief system (Ripberger et al.,
2014). The study of narratives can provide deeper insights into the meanings and beliefs
that influence the policy process in comparison to statistical models and quantitative
correlations, which may investigate relationships among variables but lack explanatory
power (Bevir and Rhodes, 2006). The NPF provides both a structured way to analyze
narratives quantitatively and to explore underlying beliefs of actors in a policy system.
Unsurprisingly, some narratives are more effective than others in policy processes, and
the framing of policy issues matters. Narratives affect how the public and stakeholders
engage in the policy process and have their voices be heard. The approval of genetically
modified (GM) foods reflects an area of controversy where narrative issue-framing has
affected whose perspectives are legitimized and taken into account in policymaking. For
example, in GM food regulatory policy in the U.S. and Canada, “science-based”decision-
making has been a mantra used by groups in power (typically technology developers and
Williams and Kuzma 481
regulators) to frame GM food issues narrowly around direct risks to human health or the
environment, as these are the risks which federal agencies can review under their limited
regulatory authorities (Kuzma, 2017;Meghani, 2014;Meghani and Kuzma, 2011).
As such, there has been a historic marginalization of concerns that lie outside of these
“science-based,”direct toxicological risks, as national policymakers base their decisions
about whether to approve GM foods on information supplied by natural-science experts
and regulatory studies conducted by the very companies making and promoting the
technology (Kuzma et al., 2009 Meghani, 2014;Meghani and Kuzma, 2011;Thompson
et al., 2007;Winickoff et al., 2005). There is a lack of national policy venues to discuss
broader social, economic, ecosystem, and cultural risks and benefits of GM foods, as they
lie outside of narrowly constructed government regulations (Megahani and Kuzma, 2018;
Thompson et al., 2007). Yet, other, scientific-, evidence- and ethics-based issues remain
important to multiple stakeholders with regard to GM foods, such as longer-term impacts
on biodiversity or public health, animal welfare, equitable distribution of risks and
benefits, economic benefits or harms to small versus large industries, control over the food
supply, transparency and autonomy, and cultural respect (Kuzma, 2017;Meghani, 2014;
Meghani and Kuzma, 2011;Thompson et al., 2007;Winickoff et al., 2005).
We designed our study with the above policy context in mind and utilized the NPF to
analyze a rare window for public participation in GM food decision-making in Canada, a
place where broader narratives about GM foods might be found. The NPF focuses on
three levels of analysis: micro (individual), meso (group/coalition), and macro (insti-
tutional/societal/cultural). NPF studies at the macro-level investigate how narratives at the
institutional- or societal-scale shape policy outcomes (Crow et al., 2017;Jones et al.,
2014). We analyze the hearings with respect to the narratives that are voiced by different
coalition groups (meso-level), the cultural worldviews expressed in those narratives
(using Cultural Theory) (meso-level), and the narrative strategies and cultural views that
are most influential in the final policy documents (macro-level). In comparing narratives
from GM food public hearings to their uptake in final policy reports, our study applies the
NPF at the macro-level, where there has been significantly less theory development and
research (McBeth et al., 2014a,2014b). We develop findings with regard to the cultural
narratives and narrative strategies that resonate most in policy formulation for GM foods
at the national level in Canada. As Sievers and Jones (2020) discuss, macro-level NPF
studies can also examine “third dimensional/preference-shaping power”or the ability of
“a dominant group to shape the beliefs and preferences”through narratives. They also
note that “macro-narratives become proxies for the social and institutional mobilization of
bias”(Sievers and Jones, 2020: 107). Thus, our study is motivated not only by a potential
contribution to macro-level NPF theory, but also by the desire to understand which
cultural arguments or narrative strategies have the most salience in policymaking in order
to raise consciousness about biases and power in the GM-food policy process. Through a
better understanding of narratives that resonate in final policy documents, our findings
might also help those with perspectives that are usually marginalized (e.g., those with
concerns that lie outside of direct risks to human health and the environment) better
advocate for their positions if given the opportunity to participate in GM food dialogs at
the national level.
482 Public Policy and Administration 37(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial