June 6, 2018 at 12:23PM
via SpringerLink
Abstract
In this research note, we propose to complement the analytical toolbox for framing analyses with the categories of Aristotelian rhetoric. As our case, we analyse the function of the use of evidence in frame building in the context of Swiss direct-democratic campaigns preceding votes on smoking bans. Based on rhetoric, a frame can be considered to contain three interrelated elements: (1) political arguments (logos), (2) cultural symbols (ethos), and (3) emotional appeal (pathos). By comparing evidence-based arguments with arguments that do not refer to evidence, the research note illustrates that backing arguments (logos) by evidence increases their trustworthiness (ethos) but not their emotional appeal (pathos). We consider the Aristotelian categories a fruitful tool to enlarge existing framing research with regard to the use of evidence.
Keywords
Logos Ethos Pathos Policy framing Aristotle Use of evidence Policy arguments
Notes
Acknowledgements
Funding was provided by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant No. CRSII1_141893/1).
References
-
Andsager, J. (2000). How interest groups attempt to shape public opinion with competing news frames.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77
(3), 577–592.
-
Arceneaux, K. (2012). Cognitive biases and the strength of political arguments.
American Journal of Political Science, 56
(2), 271–285.
-
Aristotle. (1926).
The “art” of rhetoric
(Vol. XXII) (J. H. Freese, transl.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
-
Atkins, J., & Finlayson, A. (2014). “As Shakespeare so memorably said…”: Quotation, rhetoric, and the performance of politics.
Political Studies, 62
(1), 1–18.
-
Baumgartner, F., De Boef, S., & Boydstun, A. (2008).
The decline of the death penalty and the discovery of innocence
. New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
Bonfadelli, H., & Friemel, T. (2012). Learning and knowledge in political campaigns. In H. Kriesi (Ed.),
Political communication in direct democratic campaigns. Enlightening or manipulating? Challenges to democracy in the 21st century series
(pp. 168–187). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
-
Boswell, C. (2009).
The political uses of expert knowledge. Immigration policy and social research
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Brader, T. (2006).
Campaigning for hearts and minds. How emotional appeals in political ads work
. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
-
Brockriede, W., & Ehninger, D. (1960). Toulmin on argument: An interpretation and application.
Quarterly Journal of Speech, 1006,
45–53.
-
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. (2007). Framing theory.
Annual Review of Political Science, 10,
103–126.
-
Cobb, M. (2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology.
Science Communication, 27
(2), 221–239.
-
Cranmer, M., Petit, R., & Sager, F. (2011). Die argumentative Logik der Tabakmandate des Alten Bern: Eine historische Policy-Analyse.
Swiss Political Science Review, 17
(4), 432–446.
-
D’Angelo, P., & Kuypers, J. A. (2010).
Doing news framing analysis
. New York: Routledge.
-
Damasio, A. R. (2007).
Descartes’ Irrtum. Fühlen, Denken und das menschliche Gehirn
. Berlin: List.
-
Druckman, J., & Bolsen, T. (2011). How scientific evidence links attitudes to behaviors. In D. A. Dana (Ed.),
The nanotechnology challenge
(pp. 85–102). New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
Druckman, J., & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the framing of risky choice.
Political Behavior, 30
(3), 297–321.
-
Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.
Journal of Communication, 43
(4), 51–58.
-
Finlayson, A. (2012). Rhetoric and the political theory of ideologies.
Political Studies, 60
(4), 751–767.
-
Fischer, F. (2009).
Democracy and expertise: Reorienting policy inquiry
. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (2012). The argumentative turn revisited. In F. Fischer & H. Gottweis (Eds.),
The argumentative turn revisited: Public policy as communicative practice
(pp. 1–30). Durham: Duke University Press.
-
Flyvbjerg, B. (2001).
Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach.
American Journal of Sociology, 95
(1), 1–37.
-
Garsten, B. (2011). The rhetoric revival in political theory.
Annual Review of Political Science, 14
(1), 159–180.
-
Gottweis, H. (2007). Rhetoric in policy making: Between logos, ethos, and pathos. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.),
Handbook of public policy analysis. Theory, politics, and methods
(pp. 237–250). Sound Parkway, NW: CRC Press.
-
Gross, K., & D’Ambrosio, L. (2004). Framing emotional response.
Political Psychology, 25
(1), 1–29.
-
Gruszczynski, M., & Michaels, S. (2012). The evolution of elite framing following enactment of legislation.
Policy Sciences, 45
(4), 359–384.
-
Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology.
Science, 316
(998), 998–1002.
-
Haidt, J. (2012).
The righteous mind. Why good people are divided by politics and religion
. England: Penguin.
-
Hajer, M. A. (2002). Discourse analysis and the study of policy making.
European Political Science, 2
(1), 61–65.
-
Jerit, J. (2008). Issue framing and engagement: Rhetorical strategy in public policy debates.
Political Behavior, 30
(1), 1–24.
-
Jerit, J. (2009). How predictive appeals affect policy opinions.
American Journal of Political Science, 53
(2), 411–426.
-
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.),
The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning
(pp. 267–293). New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
Kohring, M., & Matthes, J. (2002). The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: How the German press framed modern biotechnology.
Public Understanding of Science, 11
(2), 143–154.
-
Kriesi, H. (2012). Political communication: An integrated approach. In H. Kriesi (Ed.),
Political communication in direct democratic campaigns. Enlightening or manipulating?
(pp. 1–16). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
-
Kühne, R. (2014).
Political news, emotions, and opinion formation: Toward a model of emotional framing effects
. National Center of Competence in Research (NCCR) Democracy Working Paper No. 68.
-
Kuypers, J. (2009). What is rhetoric? In J. Kuypers (Ed.),
Rhetorical criticism. Perspectives in action
(pp. 1–28). New York: Lexington Books.
-
Lakoff, G. (2002).
Moral politics. How liberals and conservatives think
. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
-
Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.),
The policy sciences
(pp. 3–15). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
-
Levin, D. (2005). Framing peace policies: The competition for resonant themes.
Political Communication, 22
(1), 83–108.
-
Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Social cognitive neuroscience: A review of core processes.
Annual Review of Psychology, 58
(1), 259–289.
-
Lodge, M., & Tabor, C. (2005). Implicit affect for political candidates, parties and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis.
Political Psychology, 26
(6), 455–482.
-
Majdik, Z., & Keith, K. (2011). Expertise as argument: Authority, democracy, and problem-solving.
Argumentation, 25
(3), 371–384.
-
Marcus, G. E. (2000). Emotions in politics.
Annual Review of Political Science, 3
(1), 221–250.
-
Marcus, G., MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., & Keele, L. (2006). The measure and mismeasure of emotion. In D. Redlawsk (Ed.),
Feeling politics. Emotion in political information processing
(pp. 31–46). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
-
Marx Ferree, M., Gamson, W., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002).
Shaping abortion discourse. Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
McAuliffe Straus, R. (2011). Citizens’ use of policy symbols and frames.
Policy Sciences, 44
(1), 13–34.
-
McDermott, R. (2004). The feeling of rationality: The meaning of neuroscientific advances for political science.
Perspectives on Politics, 2
(04), 691–706.
-
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34
(2), 57–111.
-
Mukhtarov, F., & Gerlak, A. K. (2014). Epistemic forms of an integrated water resources management: towards knowledge versatility.
Policy Sciences, 47
(2), 101–120.
-
Nutley, S., Morton, S., Jung, T., & Boaz, A. (2010). Evidence and policy in six European countries: Diverse approaches and common challenges.
Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate & Practice, 6,
131–144.
-
Olausson, U. (2009). Global warming—global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty.
Public Understanding of Science, 18
(4), 421–436.
-
Peters, H. P., Heinrichs, H., Jung, A., Kallfass, M., & Petersen, I. (2008). Medialization of science as a prerequisite of its legitimization and political relevance. In D. Cheng, M. Claessens, T. Gascoigne, J. Metcalfe, B. Schiele, & S. Shi (Eds.),
Communicating science in social contexts
(pp. 71–92). Dordrecht: Springer.
-
Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). Feeling politics: New research into emotion and politics. In D. R. Redlawsk (Ed.),
Feeling politics. Emotion in political information processing
(pp. 1–10). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
-
Sager, F. (2017). Evaluation and democracy: Do they fit? In
Evaluation and program planning
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.08.005
.
-
Sager, F., Ingold, K., & Balthasar, A. (2017a).
Policy-Analyse in der Schweiz. Besonderheiten, Theorien, Beispiele
. Zürich: NZZ Verlag.
-
Sager, F., Widmer, T., & Balthasar, A. (Eds.). (2017b).
Evaluation im politischen System der Schweiz—Entwicklung, Bedeutung und Wechselwirkungen
. Zürich: NZZ Verlag.
-
Sager, F., & Zollinger, C. (2011). The Swiss political system in comparative perspective. In C. Trampusch & A. March (Eds.),
Switzerland in Europe. Continuity and change in the Swiss political economy
(pp. 27–42). London: Routledge.
-
Sanderson, I. (2006). Complexity, “practical rationality” and evidence-based policy making.
Policy & Politics, 34
(1), 115–132.
-
Schlaufer, C., Stucki, I., & Sager, F. (2018). The political use of evidence and its contribution to democratic discourse.
Public Administration Review
.
https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12923
.
-
Schmidt, V. A. (2012). Discursive institutionalism. Scope, dynamics, and philosophical underpinnings. In F. Fischer & H. Gottweis (Eds.),
The argumentative turn revisited. Public policy as communicative practice
(pp. 85–113). Durham: Duke University Press.
-
Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1995).
Frame reflection: Toward the resolution if intractable policy controversies
. New York: Basic Books.
-
Schram, S. F., Flyvbjerg, B., & Landman, T. (2013). Political political science: A phronetic approach.
New Political Science, 35
(3), 359–372.
-
Self, L. (1979). Rhetoric and phronesis: The Aristotelian ideal.
Philosophy and Rhetoric, 12
(2), 130–145.
-
Shulock, N. (1999). The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it?
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18
(2), 226–244.
-
Snow, D., & Benford, R. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow (Eds.),
From structure to action: Social movement participation across cultures
(pp. 197–217). Greenwich: JAI.
-
Steenbergen, M., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index.
Comparative European Politics, 1,
21–48.
-
Stucki, I. (2016). Evidence-based arguments in direct democracy: The case of smoking bans in Switzerland.
Evaluation and Program Planning
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.08.019
.
-
Stucki, I. (2017). Arguing about smoking bans: The role of evidence in the social construction of conflicting policy ideas.
Critical Policy Studies, 11
(4), 411–432.
-
Stucki, I., Pleger, L., & Sager, F. (2018). The making of the informed voter: A split-ballot survey on the use of scientific evidence in direct-democratic campaigns.
Swiss Political Science Review
.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12290
.
-
Tenbensel, T. (2006). Policy knowledge for policy work. In
The work of policy: An international survey
(pp. 199–216). Latham MC: Lexington Books.
-
Tersky, A., & Kahneman, D. (2000).
Choices, values, and frames
. New York: Cambridge University Press.
-
Turner, J., & Stets, J. (2005).
The sociology of emotions
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-
Wesselink, A., Colebatch, H., & Pearce, W. (2014). Evidence and policy: Discourses, meanings and practices.
Policy Sciences, 47
(4), 339–344.
-
Wolf, E. E. A., & Van Dooren, W. (2017). How policies become contested: A spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project.
Policy Sciences, 50
(3), 449–468.
-
Yanow, D. (2000).
Conducting interpretative policy analysis
. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Copyright information
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018