Merlijn van Hulst

From Policy “Frames” to “Framing” Theorizing a More Dynamic, Political Approach

The concept of frames or framing, especially cast as “frame analysis,” has an established history in public policy. Taking off from the work of Donald Schön and Martin Rein, we develop the idea of policy analytic framing, the more dynamic of the two terms, in ways that strengthen what we see as its promise for a more process-oriented and politically sensitive understanding of the activities it is used to characterize. We argue that such an approach needs to engage the following aspects of the work that framing does: sense-making; selecting, naming, and categorizing; and storytelling. In addition, frame theorizing needs to engage not only the way issues are framed but also the intertwining of framing and frame-makers’ identities, and the meta-communicative framing of policy processes.

The work of exemplary practitioners in neighborhood governance

In order to understand how exemplary work is done in the complex urban environment of disadvantaged neighborhoods, we studied a group of 43 individuals – civil servants, professionals and active citizens – who make a difference. Various so-called ‘exemplary practitioners’ were found in the literature and in the neighborhoods of five cities. The working methods of exemplary practitioners show a mix and a dose of entrepreneurialism, strategic networking and empathic engagement that differ from standard bureaucracy but fit very well with what is needed in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Two striking examples illustrate these working methods.In order to understand how exemplary work is done in the complex urban environment of disadvantaged neighborhoods, we studied a group of 43 individuals – civil servants, professionals and active citizens – who make a difference. Various so-called ‘exemplary practitioners’ were found in the literature and in the neighborhoods of five cities. The working methods of exemplary practitioners show a mix and a dose of entrepreneurialism, strategic networking and empathic engagement that differ from standard bureaucracy but fit very well with what is needed in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Two striking examples illustrate these working methods.

Exemplary practitioners : A review of actors who make a difference in governing

Some actors in the public sphere are excellent at what they do. Even if they could hardly do their work alone, they make a difference. This article presents a search for what are called exemplary practitioners. It describes and compares a group of six practitioners found in the literature: the reflective practitioner, the deliberative practitioner, the street-level bureaucrat, the front-line worker, the everyday maker, and the everyday fixer. It points at differences between the types and changes that occur over time. Also, the article concludes that the more recent types of identified practitioners add crucial skills to the repertoire that practitioners need to make a difference in the public sphere. In the epilogue, the researchers reflect on the research they did on the basis of the ideas in the article.

Quite an experience: Using ethnography to study local governance

Abstract Ethnographic fieldwork brings something special to the study of sense‐making in local governance: the ethnographers access to the experiences lived by the people under study. In addition, ethnographers not only look for the experiences of the people in and around local government, they also draw on their own experiences. Because the experiences of politicians, administrators, bureaucrats, professionals and citizens are both the result of and the basis for their acts, understanding these experiences helps ethnographers to explain the practice of local governance. This paper sketches the background of interpretive ethnography, gives an idea of the use of ethnographic fieldwork in recent research, and explains the idea behind fieldwork. It also discusses the elements of fieldwork. In particular, the paper looks at the usefulness of ethnographic fieldwork for the study of local governance.Abstract Ethnographic fieldwork brings something special to the study of sense‐making in local governance: the ethnographers access to the experiences lived by the people under study. In addition, ethnographers not only look for the experiences of the people in and around local government, they also draw on their own experiences. Because the experiences of politicians, administrators, bureaucrats, professionals and citizens are both the result of and the basis for their acts, understanding these experiences helps ethnographers to explain the practice of local governance. This paper sketches the background of interpretive ethnography, gives an idea of the use of ethnographic fieldwork in recent research, and explains the idea behind fieldwork. It also discusses the elements of fieldwork. In particular, the paper looks at the usefulness of ethnographic fieldwork for the study of local governance.

Shifting repertoires: understanding cultural plurality in policing

The police is one of the most prominent organizations in the frontline of public administration. In order to deal with high external expectations, the organization has been said to develop and nurture multiple police cultures. Applying Grid Group Cultural Theory, or GGCT, we address the following questions: what sets of values, beliefs and practices has the police organization developed to deal with high expectations stemming from their publics? How do cultural tensions play out in real-life practices of policing “under pressure”? We find that cultural patterns described in the general literature on policing can be plotted on the GGCT map. Zooming in on the case of policing in the Netherlands, cultural plurality appears to be not only prominent in the police organization as such, but can also be found in the form of continuous cultural “tap-dancing” – swift, flexible and improvisational shifting – at various levels of active policing.

More than a Friendly Visit: A New Strategy for Improving Local Governing Capacity

Abstract This article argues that in order to take into account changes in the governance era, performance assessment at the local level may well have to be refocused. Researchers will have to reconsider their strategies. They should consider the governance character of public administration and pay attention to co-operative settings and democratic aspects. In addition, researchers should think not just about gathering facts about the performance of local government, they should also try to contribute to a learning process. This paper presents a new strategy for assessing the capacity that local governments have to get things done. This strategy acknowledges the governance context of local authorities and casts a keen eye on the way local governments fulfil their functions and aim to involve various stakeholders. The evaluation of this assessment strategy shows its relevance, although minor improvements could be made.

The riot, the people and the neighbourhood: narrative framing of social disorder in four cases

This article looks at the ways newspaper articles, through their stories, frame social disorder in urban areas. The article compares reporting on four cases – two Dutch, two Belgian – of violent confrontations between societal groups and between societal groups and the police. News articles on the riots through time widen in terms of their geographic and social scale. At the same time, stories are told about a familiar cast of characters, leaving others out. The practices of newspapers seem to reinforce this pattern. The article contributes to the understanding of the role of traditional media in narrative framing of present-day public problems.

Understanding the drama of democracy : Looking back at the Seventh International Conference in Interpretive Policy Analysis

‘It is time for a new era, a new dawn has come. We will be the world’s first Monarchist Anarchy’. With these words, an actor queen opened the Seventh International Conference in Interpretive Policy Analysis (IPA), in a theatrical way. This 2012 IPA conference was held in Tilburg from 5-7 July. The Queen was referring to the theme of the conference, Understanding the Drama of Democracy: Policy Work, Power and Transformation. Over the last 10 years, the political and administrative landscape in the Netherlands, Europe and the rest of the world has been changing radically. In Europe, there was an increasing power of populist and radical right parties. The economic crisis challenges the credibility of European governing. The Arab spring illustrates the increased voice of citizens in illiberal democracies. There is an ever growing influence of China and other ‘nonWestern’ countries on world politics and markets and so on. These are all challenges for politicians, policy-makers and other governing actors. In addition, these developments can be interpreted in a broad variety of ways. In order to understand this changed world, insight into the performative dimension of policy-making is increasingly important. The presentation and interpretation of politicians, of policy-makers, but also of arguments and of facts are of great influence on their credibility. This challenges actors involved to cross boundaries, to learn, to transform, to deal with constantly alternating power relations and, at the same time, to be perceived as authentic or trustworthy. More and more interpretive researchers study how public actors perform in practice. This means that they pay attention not just to language-oriented dimensions of practice, but also to nonlinguistic action and emotion. Moreover, it raises questions about the role of interpretive research in the mediation and transformation of different meanings, and in creating or supporting policy learning. The seventh IPA conference illustrated the wide scope of interpretive policy analysis. The pre-conference (organized for the second time at IPA) hosted 45 participants who were introduced to IPA by Dvora Yanow and were offered an in-depth account of interpretive research in three workshops (ethnography, interpretive design and discourse analysis). Around 320 people from 33 countries registered for the general conference and more than 250 papers were presented in 39 panels. The conference included two roundtables, three methodology workshops, six Authors meet their Critics and, last but not least, three keynote speakers. Prof. Dr. John Forester argued that interpretive policy analysis extends far beyond being an elective choice of academics. It is also a ‘working necessity’ for engaged policy practitioners. As he said,

The bureaucrat and the poor: encounters in French welfare offices, by Vincent Dubois

(p. 190). A solution can be to take into account discursive representation, for example with the help of non-governmental organizations’ or non-citizen tribunes that identify relevant extra-national or transnational discourses and good representatives for them (p. 193). Two other domains are addressed in this part of the book: forums with discursive design mostly within democratic states and deliberative forums within authoritarian states. The chapter on designed spaces in democratic states offers important empirical evidence about how these deliberative settings contribute to building consensus on specific issues and if and how people learn. The chapter on authoritarian states demonstrates that already ongoing deliberative capacity building at the local level is a promising avenue for democratic reforms. For example, if opponents of an old authoritarian regime came from a deliberative public space as opposed to, for example, a militarized resistance movement, they could bring to a political crisis clear democratic commitments (p. 141). The impact of online communities on the recent Arabic revolutions seem to support these arguments. Just as the title suggests, Foundations and Frontiers is a rich book on deliberative governance that attempts to cover all sorts of deliberative systems. It is convincing as it builds on the four turns in deliberative democracy theory. In line with the institutional turn, the authors propose intellectually inspiring solutions such as a Chamber of Discourses to ensure that all discourses are represented in deliberations. Drawing on the practical turn, the book addresses the practicalities of this proposal and of other experiments with deliberative design. Dryzek takes in hand the systemic and empirical turn by empirically demonstrating how deliberations can improve the democratic quality of decision-making and how this can contribute to an enhancement of networked governance, global politics, and the political economy. Still, the book also awakens practical and theoretical questions calling for more evidence about, for example, how rhetoric induces reflectivity that enables bridging and bonding of discourses, and how these discourses gain (discursive) legitimacy. How do rhetoricians cause participants in deliberations to ‘turn back or bend back’ (Hendriks and Grin 2007, p. 142) and create feedback on the dominant discourses they produce and reproduce? Last but not least, this book invites deliberative proponents to be careful and critical about the role of discourse analysts and interpretative research in a discursive democracy. Dryzek points out that discourses in the hands of spin doctors, advertisers and propagandist are a possible threat to discursive legitimacy. But the same warning goes for discourse analysts, interpretative researchers and other people that investigate what discourses should be represented in a collective decision. Even so, the book is inspiring and opens possibilities – both practical and theoretical – for deliberative democracy.