Narrative policy framework at the macro level—cultural theory-based beliefs, science-based narrative strategies, and their uptake in the Canadian policy process for genetically modified salmon

Abstract

This study utilizes the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) and cultural theory to examine the use of policy narratives by coalitions (meso-level) and the institutional uptake (macro-level). We analyze Parliamentary hearings about genetically modified (GM) salmon in Canada to associate narrative strategies with certain cultural worldviews and policy-stances. We explore narrative strategies used by cultural groups with regard to whether they contain the scope of GM salmon issues to “science-only” (direct health and environmental impacts) or expand the issues to “science-plus” (to include broader economic, social, or cultural impacts). Finally, we examine whether certain framings of GM salmon issues or specific cultural narratives are preferentially taken up in the final policy documents generated after the hearings. Our findings reveal significant relationships between policy-stance (pro-vs anti-GM), the cultural disposition of a policy narrative, the narrative strategies being used, and ultimately policy uptake. For example, narratives with hierarchical cultural dispositions were more likely to expand the scope of the issue to science-plus when supporting their own policy position (typically pro-GM) but contain the scope to “science-only” when refuting an anti-GM policy-stance. With regard to policy uptake, final government documents referred more to narratives that contained the scope to “science-only” and expressed hierarchical or individualistic dispositions in comparison to the hearings. This study has practical implications for understanding whose perspectives and arguments are legitimized in national policy debates about GM foods. It also extends NPF theory to how narratives containing specific cultural dispositions and risk-based framings influence policy uptake at the macro-level.

With great power comes great responsibility: why ‘safe enough’ is not good enough in debates on new gene technologies

“…Exemplified in the Danish Council on Ethics' report on GMOs and Ethics in a New Time, the re-framing of the present and immediate future in terms of climate crisis justifies the speedy implementation of new technological measures, like NGTs, and a new direction in ethics. 6 Climate change narratives like the above tacitly reinscribe ideas about gene technology's status as a form of 'applied science' (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993) capable of producing 5 A recent case-study on Canadian policy decisions to allow genetically modified salmon exposes the existence of a positive cognitive bias towards 'science only' arguments at the level of institutional policy uptake (Williams and Kuzma 2022). The study further displays that "the predisposition of those in positions of power and expertise … is to go beyond the science when arguing for the approval of GM animals by making appeals to the economy, markets, or sustainability, but to refute arguments of those who oppose GM animals … by forcing them to stick to the scientific risks" (Williams and Kuzma 2022, p. 29).…”

Introducing subplot in policy narratives: A structural narrative analysis of the debate over the Pebble Mine project in Bristol Bay in Alaska, United States

“…Policy narrative research (see, e.g., Fischer & Gottweis, 2012;Hajer, 2003;Hajer & Versteeg, 2012;Huda, 2021;Jones & McBeth, 2010;Kuenzler & Stauffer, 2022;McMorris et al, 2018;Miller, 2012;Roe, 1994;Shanahan et al, 2018;Schlaufer et al, 2022;Stone, 2002;Uldanov et al, 2021;Williams & Kuzma, 2022) has focused on one story or plot that forms narratives in policy controversies without attention to the subplot, picturing a reduced policy narrative structure. For instance, scholars (see, e.g., Jones & McBeth, 2010;Roe, 1994;Stone, 2002) defined policy narratives as plots or stories consisting of beginnings, middles, and ends (BME) as narrative structures.…”