农业食品技术政治:探索欧洲议会的政策叙述

IF 2.7 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Colette S. Vogeler, Sandra Schwindenhammer, Denise Gonglach, Nils C. Bandelow
{"title":"农业食品技术政治:探索欧洲议会的政策叙述","authors":"Colette S. Vogeler,&nbsp;Sandra Schwindenhammer,&nbsp;Denise Gonglach,&nbsp;Nils C. Bandelow","doi":"10.1002/epa2.1114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) highlights the role of arguments and emotions included in stories to influence the policy process. Most applications refer to highly politicized issues. How are narratives used in less politicized debates? This paper applies the NPF to two debates within the European Parliament (EP) which generally gain less public media attention than national debates. By conducting a discourse network analysis of two policy debates on agri-food technologies in the EP, we show that both debates do not rely as much on emotions as compared to public debates, but are to a greater degree based on argumentative and scientifically grounded reasoning. The use of the NPF characters of victims, villains, and heroes are fairly limited. Instead, the recently introduced character of the beneficiary is used frequently to highlight the advantages and benefits of the preferred policies.</p>","PeriodicalId":52190,"journal":{"name":"European Policy Analysis","volume":"7 S2","pages":"324-343"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/epa2.1114","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agri-food technology politics: Exploring policy narratives in the European Parliament\",\"authors\":\"Colette S. Vogeler,&nbsp;Sandra Schwindenhammer,&nbsp;Denise Gonglach,&nbsp;Nils C. Bandelow\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/epa2.1114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) highlights the role of arguments and emotions included in stories to influence the policy process. Most applications refer to highly politicized issues. How are narratives used in less politicized debates? This paper applies the NPF to two debates within the European Parliament (EP) which generally gain less public media attention than national debates. By conducting a discourse network analysis of two policy debates on agri-food technologies in the EP, we show that both debates do not rely as much on emotions as compared to public debates, but are to a greater degree based on argumentative and scientifically grounded reasoning. The use of the NPF characters of victims, villains, and heroes are fairly limited. Instead, the recently introduced character of the beneficiary is used frequently to highlight the advantages and benefits of the preferred policies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":52190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Policy Analysis\",\"volume\":\"7 S2\",\"pages\":\"324-343\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/epa2.1114\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Policy Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/epa2.1114\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/epa2.1114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

叙事政策框架(NPF)强调了故事中包含的论点和情感对政策过程的影响。大多数申请涉及高度政治化的问题。在不那么政治化的辩论中如何使用叙事?本文将NPF应用于欧洲议会(EP)内的两次辩论,这两次辩论通常比国家辩论获得更少的公众媒体关注。通过对EP中关于农业食品技术的两次政策辩论进行话语网络分析,我们发现,与公开辩论相比,这两次辩论都不像公众辩论那样依赖情绪,而是在很大程度上基于议论文和科学推理。受害者、恶棍和英雄的NPF角色的使用相当有限。相反,最近引入的受益人特征经常被用来强调首选保单的优势和好处。在欧洲议会内部的辩论中,关于新农业食品技术的政策叙述是如何构建的?这些叙述与现有NPF研究中确定的叙述有何不同,这些研究主要关注公众或媒体辩论?我们的目的是了解政策参与者如何倡导他们想要的政策,传达他们的政策偏好,并证明为什么需要政策改变。选定的案例都影响到多个部门,包括农业政策、水保护政策和能源政策。因此,它们解决了复杂的跨部门关系挑战。第一个案例是安装沼气厂,目的是增加可再生能源的份额。第二个案例涉及农业生产中处理过的废水的再利用,从而实现水资源的更可持续利用。这两个结果都不像研究那样依赖。在更大程度上基于论证和科学推理。有趣的是,NPF最初使用的受害者、恶棍和英雄角色仅限于少数欧洲议会议员。相反,最近引入的受益人特征被更频繁地用来强调首选政策替代方案的优势和好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Agri-food technology politics: Exploring policy narratives in the European Parliament

Agri-food technology politics: Exploring policy narratives in the European Parliament

The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) highlights the role of arguments and emotions included in stories to influence the policy process. Most applications refer to highly politicized issues. How are narratives used in less politicized debates? This paper applies the NPF to two debates within the European Parliament (EP) which generally gain less public media attention than national debates. By conducting a discourse network analysis of two policy debates on agri-food technologies in the EP, we show that both debates do not rely as much on emotions as compared to public debates, but are to a greater degree based on argumentative and scientifically grounded reasoning. The use of the NPF characters of victims, villains, and heroes are fairly limited. Instead, the recently introduced character of the beneficiary is used frequently to highlight the advantages and benefits of the preferred policies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Policy Analysis
European Policy Analysis Social Sciences-Public Administration
CiteScore
9.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
32
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信