Participating in the growing scholarly attention to the roles of rhetoric and argumentation in policymaking, we examine how the use of research evidence operates in explicitly argumentative legislative hearings characterised by partisanship and polarisation. Conducting a rhetorical analysis of three legislative hearings in the US state of Wisconsin, we discovered that partisanship and polarisation did not influence argument and the use of research evidence uniformly. Instead, legislators and committee witnesses employed a range of uses for research evidence. To understand this usage, we have developed a framework that foregrounds situations of research use. These situations consist of conditions of polarisation (visibility, bipartisan leadership, familiarity, and controversy), modes of interaction (participation, cooperation and (dis)qualification), and conceptions of research use (necessity, relevance, and sufficiency). This situational model recognises that symbolic use provides the foundation for the use of research evidence in legislative settings. This model also reconfigures the relationship between research evidence and decision making.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In a context of neoliberalism, decisions made for a “public” good are often articulated as what makes the most financial sense, and citizenship is exercised as a matter of consumer choice. Neoliberal theory positions choice as an unmitigated good, and as universally available when markets are deregulated and goods and services are privatized. Examining rhetorics of choice, however, illuminates the often-invisible power relations that shape choice, and makes visible the ways in which choice is conditioned by inequality. This essay attends to the cost–benefit analysis used to promote the spread of Housing First, an approach to addressing chronic homelessness in the United States. It argues that a neoliberal discourse of choice reconfigures possibilities for rhetorical citizenship by constructing “good” and “bad” consumer citizen subjectivities, constraining agency for “expensive” people while concentrating responsibility for public decision-making among “taxpayers.” These discourses thus limit membership to neoliberal publics to people with access to private resources.