The influence of visualizations on decision-making about controversial policy issues is increasingly recognized in the political and policy sciences. In this paper, we explore how combinations of visuals and text on Twitter (now X) lead to the formation of networks of actors sharing similar textual and visual framings about a policy issue in an online setting, which we conceptualize as Multimodal Online Discourse Coalitions (MODCs). MODCs struggle over the meaning of contested policy issues. We examine multiple MODCs in 2018 in the context of the regulatory decisions in that year about CRISPR-Cas gene editing technology in the USA, Mercosur, and the EU. Based on an SNA and a qualitative visual and discursive analysis in three languages on Twitter in 2018 (covering in total ~ 427 k Tweets), we show that MODCs in English and Spanish focused on technocratic aspects of CRISPR-Cas, resembling the regulatory decisions in the USA and Mercosur. In Europe, next to technocratic MODCs, an MODC in French formed around ethical/normative framings of the consequences of CRISPR-Cas applications, using visuals of embryos to represent “GMO babies.” These visuals were emotional triggers in their framing of CRISPR technology. The ethical/normative framing reflected the argument brought to the CJEU by a group of French actors involved in the court case which categorized CRISPR-Cas as a GMO technology in the EU. These results suggest that the French MODC and their visualization was of influence on the EU decision-making process; however, more research is needed to verify the role of this online debate in the decision-making process.@en

In response to a growing understanding that scientific knowledge is not always trusted at face value, many universities organise dialogues to ‘open up’ to society. In four exploratory case studies at the Dutch Wageningen University & Research, we looked into the adherence to dialogue principles and the roles that researchers performed while engaging in dialogues. We found that researchers face three challenges when interacting with societal stakeholders in dialogues: (1) moving from knowledge provider to “letting in” and listening to different perspectives (2) balancing attention toward knowledge with attention toward values and emotions (3) navigating different aspired and perceived roles of researchers in dialogue (e.g. Pure Scientist versus Issue Advocate).@en

Since Rein and Schön developed their approach to policy framing analysis in the1990s, a range of approaches to policy framing have emerged to inform our understanding of policy processes. Prior attempts to illuminate the diversity of approaches to framing in public policy have largely “stayed in their lane,” making distinctions in approaches within shared epistemic communities. The aim in this paper is to map different approaches to framing used in policy sciences journals, to articulate what each contributes to the understanding of the policy process, and to provide a heuristic to aid in deciding how to use the diverse approaches in framing analysis and to further the dialogue across different approaches. To develop the heuristic, we manually coded and analyzed 68 articles published between 1997 and 2018 using “frame” or “framing” in their title or abstract from four policy journals: Critical Policy Studies, Journal of European Public Policy, Policy Sciences, and Policy Studies Journal. We identified five approaches, which we label: sensemaking, discourse, contestation, explanatory and institutional. We have found that these approaches do not align with a simple binary between interpretive and positivist but show variation, particularly along the lines of aims, methodology and methods. In the discussion, we suggest that these five approaches raise four key questions that animate framing studies in policy analysis: (1) Do frames influence policies or are policies manifestations of framing? (2) What is the role of frame contestation in policy conflict? (3) How can the study of frames or framing reveal unheard voices? And (4) how do certain frames/framings become dominant? By introducing these questions, we offer a fresh way scholars might discuss frames and framing in the policy sciences across approaches, to highlight the distinct yet complementary ways they illuminate policy processes.@en

Numerous research efforts have centered on identifying the most influential players in networked social systems. This problem is immensely crucial in the research of complex networks. Most existing techniques either model social dynamics on static networks only and ignore the underlying time-serial nature or model the social interactions as temporal edges without considering the influential relationship between them. In this paper, we propose a novel perspective of modeling social interaction data as the graph on event sequence, as well as the Soft K-Shell algorithm that analyzes not only the network’s local and global structural aspects, but also the underlying spreading dynamics. The extensive experiments validated the efficiency and feasibility of our method in various social networks from real world data. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first of its kind.@en

To realize sustainability transitions, there is a need for broad societal support. A study now shows that images can be influential in building that support, even in the case of policy decisions to invest in greener urban transportation, which more sceptical citizens would typically not endorse.@en

Three decades after the argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, interpretive approaches have become part of mainstream policy analysis. Increasingly, researchers work within these traditions. Researchers new to these approaches might struggle to make conceptual and methodological choices. We therefore compare three prominent interpretive approaches: discourse analysis, framing analysis and narrative analysis. Discourse analysis is the study of hegemonic, dominant and recessive discursive structures. It explores how power is embedded in language and (re)produces dominant social structures. Framing analysis involves studying processes of meaning construction. It explores what elements of reality are strategically or tacitly foregrounded or backgrounded in conversations and text, and how this includes and excludes voices, ideas and interests in policy and decision-making. Narrative analysis investigates the work of storytelling. It explores how people make sense of events through the selection and connection of story elements: events, settings and characters. These approaches share ontological and epistemological starting points, but offer different results. In this paper, we show what they each contribute to critical policy analysis and develop a heuristic for selecting or combining approaches. We give a renewed entry point for interpretive work and contribute to dialogs on commonalities and differences between approaches@en

Three decades after the argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, interpretive approaches have become part of mainstream policy analysis. Increasingly, researchers work within these traditions. Researchers new to these approaches might struggle to make conceptual and methodological choices. We therefore compare three prominent interpretive approaches: discourse analysis, framing analysis and narrative analysis. Discourse analysis is the study of hegemonic, dominant and recessive discursive structures. It explores how power is embedded in language and (re)produces dominant social structures. Framing analysis involves studying processes of meaning construction. It explores what elements of reality are strategically or tacitly foregrounded or backgrounded in conversations and text, and how this includes and excludes voices, ideas and interests in policy and decision-making. Narrative analysis investigates the work of storytelling. It explores how people make sense of events through the selection and connection of story elements: events, settings and characters. These approaches share ontological and epistemological starting points, but offer different results. In this paper, we show what they each contribute to critical policy analysis and develop a heuristic for selecting or combining approaches. We give a renewed entry point for interpretive work and contribute to dialogs on commonalities and differences between approaches@en

Three decades after the argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning, interpretive approaches have become part of mainstream policy analysis. Increasingly, researchers work within these traditions. Researchers new to these approaches might struggle to make conceptual and methodological choices. We therefore compare three prominent interpretive approaches: discourse analysis, framing analysis and narrative analysis. Discourse analysis is the study of hegemonic, dominant and recessive discursive structures. It explores how power is embedded in language and (re)produces dominant social structures. Framing analysis involves studying processes of meaning construction. It explores what elements of reality are strategically or tacitly foregrounded or backgrounded in conversations and text, and how this includes and excludes voices, ideas and interests in policy and decision-making. Narrative analysis investigates the work of storytelling. It explores how people make sense of events through the selection and connection of story elements: events, settings and characters. These approaches share ontological and epistemological starting points, but offer different results. In this paper, we show what they each contribute to critical policy analysis and develop a heuristic for selecting or combining approaches. We give a renewed entry point for interpretive work and contribute to dialogs on commonalities and differences between approaches@en