How policies become contested

A spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project

Eva Wolf, Wouter Van Dooren

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

This article investigates how framing processes lead to polarization in the public debate on a large infrastructure project. Drawing on an analysis of newspaper articles about the “Oosterweel connection” in Antwerp (Belgium), it concludes that imaginative framing (appeals to emotions via symbolic language) and framing through evidence (appeals to rationality via factual language) mutually reinforce each other. Because of the mutual reinforcement, we talk of a spiralling motion. When evidence backs up appeals to the imagination, such as when facts back up metaphors, these appeals are endowed with authority and hence legitimacy. While this strengthens appeals that have been “proven” to be true, it also makes actors backing these appeals increasingly frustrated with other parties that still refuse to accept them. Because of their frustration, the former are spurred to launch new imaginative appeals conveying their anger and to seek new evidence to substantiate these new appeals. Going back and forth between imaginative appeals and appeals to evidence, all parties in a conflict develop their own vision of the contested issue and their own evidence base for the policy position. Over time, their tolerance for ambiguity decreases and the debate polarizes.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)449-468
Number of pages20
JournalPolicy Sciences
Volume50
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sep 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

appeal
infrastructure
evidence
imagination
project
policy
refuse
frustration
language
anger
Belgium
reinforcement
polarization
rationality
tolerance
metaphor
newspaper
legitimacy
emotion

Keywords

  • policy framing, policy frames, frame analysis, policy analysis, sense-making, naming, categorizing,
  • CONFLICT
  • planning
  • evidence-based
  • Policy Making
  • Infrastructure
  • Belgium

Cite this

@article{e8bfce529314488a83303c85ef9a008d,
title = "How policies become contested: A spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project",
abstract = "This article investigates how framing processes lead to polarization in the public debate on a large infrastructure project. Drawing on an analysis of newspaper articles about the “Oosterweel connection” in Antwerp (Belgium), it concludes that imaginative framing (appeals to emotions via symbolic language) and framing through evidence (appeals to rationality via factual language) mutually reinforce each other. Because of the mutual reinforcement, we talk of a spiralling motion. When evidence backs up appeals to the imagination, such as when facts back up metaphors, these appeals are endowed with authority and hence legitimacy. While this strengthens appeals that have been “proven” to be true, it also makes actors backing these appeals increasingly frustrated with other parties that still refuse to accept them. Because of their frustration, the former are spurred to launch new imaginative appeals conveying their anger and to seek new evidence to substantiate these new appeals. Going back and forth between imaginative appeals and appeals to evidence, all parties in a conflict develop their own vision of the contested issue and their own evidence base for the policy position. Over time, their tolerance for ambiguity decreases and the debate polarizes.",
keywords = "policy framing, policy frames, frame analysis, policy analysis, sense-making, naming, categorizing,, CONFLICT, planning, evidence-based, Policy Making, Infrastructure, Belgium",
author = "Eva Wolf and {Van Dooren}, Wouter",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11077-017-9275-3",
language = "English",
volume = "50",
pages = "449--468",
journal = "Policy Sciences",
issn = "0032-2687",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",

}

How policies become contested : A spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project. / Wolf, Eva; Van Dooren, Wouter.

In: Policy Sciences, Vol. 50, No. 3, 01.09.2017, p. 449-468.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - How policies become contested

T2 - A spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project

AU - Wolf, Eva

AU - Van Dooren, Wouter

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - This article investigates how framing processes lead to polarization in the public debate on a large infrastructure project. Drawing on an analysis of newspaper articles about the “Oosterweel connection” in Antwerp (Belgium), it concludes that imaginative framing (appeals to emotions via symbolic language) and framing through evidence (appeals to rationality via factual language) mutually reinforce each other. Because of the mutual reinforcement, we talk of a spiralling motion. When evidence backs up appeals to the imagination, such as when facts back up metaphors, these appeals are endowed with authority and hence legitimacy. While this strengthens appeals that have been “proven” to be true, it also makes actors backing these appeals increasingly frustrated with other parties that still refuse to accept them. Because of their frustration, the former are spurred to launch new imaginative appeals conveying their anger and to seek new evidence to substantiate these new appeals. Going back and forth between imaginative appeals and appeals to evidence, all parties in a conflict develop their own vision of the contested issue and their own evidence base for the policy position. Over time, their tolerance for ambiguity decreases and the debate polarizes.

AB - This article investigates how framing processes lead to polarization in the public debate on a large infrastructure project. Drawing on an analysis of newspaper articles about the “Oosterweel connection” in Antwerp (Belgium), it concludes that imaginative framing (appeals to emotions via symbolic language) and framing through evidence (appeals to rationality via factual language) mutually reinforce each other. Because of the mutual reinforcement, we talk of a spiralling motion. When evidence backs up appeals to the imagination, such as when facts back up metaphors, these appeals are endowed with authority and hence legitimacy. While this strengthens appeals that have been “proven” to be true, it also makes actors backing these appeals increasingly frustrated with other parties that still refuse to accept them. Because of their frustration, the former are spurred to launch new imaginative appeals conveying their anger and to seek new evidence to substantiate these new appeals. Going back and forth between imaginative appeals and appeals to evidence, all parties in a conflict develop their own vision of the contested issue and their own evidence base for the policy position. Over time, their tolerance for ambiguity decreases and the debate polarizes.

KW - policy framing, policy frames, frame analysis, policy analysis, sense-making, naming, categorizing,

KW - CONFLICT

KW - planning

KW - evidence-based

KW - Policy Making

KW - Infrastructure

KW - Belgium

U2 - 10.1007/s11077-017-9275-3

DO - 10.1007/s11077-017-9275-3

M3 - Article

VL - 50

SP - 449

EP - 468

JO - Policy Sciences

JF - Policy Sciences

SN - 0032-2687

IS - 3

ER -