A qualitative narrative policy framework? Examining the policy narratives of US campaign finance regulatory reform
| Author | Michael D Jones,Garry Gray |
| Published date | 01 July 2016 |
| Date | 01 July 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0952076715623356 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Public Policy and Administration
2016, Vol. 31(3) 193–220
!The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0952076715623356
ppa.sagepub.com
Article
A qualitative narrative
policy framework?
Examining the policy
narratives of US campaign
finance regulatory reform
Garry Gray
Department of Sociology, University of Victoria, Canada
Michael D Jones
School of Public Policy, Oregon State University, USA
Abstract
In 2010, the narrative policy framework was introduced as a positivist, quantitative, and
structuralist approach to the study of policy narratives. Deviating from this central tenet
of the narrative policy framework, in this article we show that the framework is quite
compatible with qualitative methods—and the various epistemologies associated with
them. To demonstrate compatibility between qualitative methods and the Narrative
Policy Framework, we apply classic qualitative criteria to an illustrative case examining
policy narratives in US campaign finance reform. Drawing on elite interviews, we illu-
minate competing policy narratives rooted in distinct democratic values that exhibit
variation in how victims and harm are defined, how blame is attributed to villains, what
policy solutions are put forth, and policy narrative communication strategies. Our
incorporation of qualitative methods within the narrative policy framework is critical
for the framework’s overall development as it provides opportunities for more detailed
description, inductive forms of inquiry, and grounded theory development in policy
areas where sample sizes, access, and salience may limit quantitative approaches.
Keywords
Campaign finance, narrative policy framework, qualitative NPF, regulation, qualitative
methods
Corresponding author:
Michael D Jones, School of Public Policy, Oregon State University,310 Gilkey Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA.
Email: jonemic1@gmail.com
Introduction
In complex policy debates, narratives are strategically deployed by competing
stakeholders to influence policy. In this article, we apply the narrative policy frame-
work (NPF) to qualitatively study these policy narratives. The NPF provides
theoretical means to disaggregate the component parts of competing policy narra-
tives, examine how they vary, and identify patterns. However, to date, the NPF has
primarily drawn upon quantitative methods such as surveys, statistical content
analysis, and experiments to study policy narratives, with only a small number
of qualitative studies (Pierce et al., 2014). In this article, we propose to build
upon this small number of qualitative studies by providing a guide on how to
conduct Qualitative NPF research. However, to formally situate qualitative meth-
ods within the NPF requires a conceptual re-calibration of the framework as quali-
tative research often has different intended ends, epistemological assumptions, and
methodological criteria than quantitative research.
Given the NPF’s postpositive origins (Jones and McBeth, 2010), and the rich
history therein of qualitative narrative analyses (cf. Riessman, 1993), we posit that
the framework’s theoretical scaffolding is well-suited to incorporate qualitative
methodologies—including their potentially divergent epistemologies and
goals—without compromising the original aspirations of the NPF. In our view,
the solution is quite simple. First, we set aside debates about quantitative versus
qualitative and propose that the NPF’s central assumptions, theory, and structure
remain intact. Next, we argue that different qualitative standards for evaluating
research can be inserted in lieu of quantitative standards when conducting
Qualitative NPF research. Using this “plug-and-play” approach, we argue that
the framework could be improved through more frequent use of induction,
grounded theory, and thick description. Such research benefits the NPF by
allowing for the examination of policy phenomena that is less amenable to quan-
titative approaches, while also potentially expanding its ability to speak to norma-
tive policy concerns. Additionally, showing that the NPF is consistent with
qualitative research embracing alternate standards and epistemologies exhibits a
theoretical platform that is not just multi-method, but also epistemologically adap-
tive. If readers accept our contention and subsequent analyses, then the NPF has
the potential to become a genuine bridge between rival methodological approaches
(i.e., positive and post-positive) within the discipline of public policy that have
heretofore billed themselves as mutually exclusive (Jones and McBeth, 2010).
To illustrate Qualitative NPF, we examine elite policy narratives in contentious
debates about campaign finance reform taking place in the United States. Drawing
on elite interviews, we show how campaign finance regulation stakeholders engage
in a narrative battle rooted in two competing democratic values: equality and
individual expression. While some believe that money amplifies democracy by rep-
resenting political interest and commitment, others view money in politics as a
threat to the very fabric of democracy, arguing that it corrodes political equality
by giving a select few a louder voice in the political process. We apply the NPF’s
traditional deductive policy narrative elements to illustrate that these competing
194 Public Policy and Administration 31(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial