Strategic policy narratives: A narrative policy study of the Columbia River Crossing
| Author | Adam M Brewer |
| Published date | 01 October 2021 |
| Date | 01 October 2021 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0952076720904434 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Strategic policy
narratives: A narrative
policy study of the
Columbia River Crossing
Adam M Brewer
University of Montana, Missoula, USA
Abstract
This study examines how coalitions in local policy contexts implore policy narratives to
expand or contain the scope of policy issues. The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), a
maturing theory of the policy process, is utilized in thisstudy to conduct content analysis
on 370 public documents from competing coalitions in relation to the Columbia River
Crossing project; a “wicked” policy issue in the Portland, OR/Vancouver, WA region of
the Pacific Northwest. From this case selection, it is hypothesized that competing coa-
litions will use narrative strategies of containment and expansion to achieve their desired
policy outcomes. It is also theorized that shocks to a policy subsystem may result in a
shift to coalitional narrative strategies. This research will shed light on how coalitions
strategically implore policy narratives in cohesive and less cohesive ways to influence
policy outcomes.
Keywords
Columbia River Crossing Project, Narrative Policy Framework
Introduction
Scholars of the policy process have contended for decades that the policy process is
intricately connected to what occurs in “policy subsystems” where competing
coalitions contend for favorable policy outcomes (Baumgartner and Jones, 1993;
Corresponding author:
Adam M Brewer, University of Montana, 32 Campus Dr., School of Law #145, Missoula, MT 59808, USA.
Email: adam.brewer@umontana.edu
Public Policy and Administration
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0952076720904434
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppa
2021, Vol. 36(4) 496 –517
Brewer 497
Jones and McBeth, 2010; Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993). The Narrative Policy
Framework (NPF) attempts to systematically study the use of policy narratives by
coalitions in various policy settings (McBeth et al., 2014b) to make sense of the
policy process. The NPF “posits that interest groups and other policy actors stra-
tegically craft narratives to advance their goals” (Merry, 2018: 749). The “narrative
strategies” can be defined as “the tactical portrayal and use of narrative elements
to expand, contain, or otherwise manipulate involvement in the policy arena”
(Shanahan et al., 2013). Although several narrative strategies are explored in var-
ious NPF studies (e.g. use of characters, angel-shift, devil-shift), less hypothesis
testing has been done regarding how coalitions use narrative to expand or contain
the scope of conflict in a variety of policy contexts. O’Donovan (2018: 534) notes
that “it is critical to apply theoretical frameworks, like the NPF, to local level
issues to better help us understand how the dynamics of the policy process directly
affect people as customers and recipients of public services.” Accordingly, under-
standing if coalitions strategically expand or contain policy issues and how they do
it in local policy contexts will provide an important contribution to NPF scholar-
ship and application. This research attempts to provide that contribution. Using
the Columbia River Crossing (CRC project) as the policy context of choice, this
study will seek to answer the following question:
1. In the context of the selected policy issue, do coalitions use narrative strategies of
containment or expansion in pursuit of their preferred policy outcome? Furthermore,
when there is a shock (or the fear of a shock) to the policy subsystem causing a switch
in coalitional status (winning to losing or losing to winning), will their narratives
strategies of containment and expansion switch corresponding with the shock?
Through the study and content analysis of 370 policy narratives, spanning a
10-year period of time, this research will strive to more fully understand how
coalitions strategically use policy narratives. The results suggest that coalitions
strategically expand or contain the scope of conflict using policy narratives.
Additionally, the results suggest that coalition’s use of expansion and containment
narrative strategies may correspond with shocks in a policy subsystem.
Theoretical focus
The NPF “is an attempt to systematically study policy narratives and their role in
both policy processes and policy outcomes” (McBeth et al., 2014a: 136) and it
asserts that policy narratives are powerful tools used by coalitions to promote their
policy agenda. Moreover, it confirms the idea that “to change public opinion
requires less emphasis on policy details and more on telling a good story”
(Smith and Larimer, 2013: 190). After more than a decade of research, the NPF
is now a widely accepted theory in the field of public policy (McBeth et al. 2014b:
227). The NPF is used to analyze a number of public policy issues including
Yellowstone Bison (McBeth et al., 2007) recycling policy (Lybecker et al., 2012;
2Public Policy and Administration 0(0)
To continue reading
Request your trial