Introduction—Stories of the old world: The Narrative Policy Framework in the European context

Since their evolution, people around the world communicate stories—or narratives; be it ancient customs carried from one generation to the next concerning most diverse subjects such as Christmas, carnival, or agricultural traditions like cattle drive to and from the alpine pastures; be it today's international debates on climate change where for instance Brazil's president Jair Bolsonaro tells the story of “practically untouched” Amazon rain forests¹ compared to the climate activist Greta Thunberg who angrily speaks about collapsing ecosystems and “the beginning of a mass extinction”²; or be it Jeff Bezos, former Amazon CEO, who banned PowerPoint presentations and instead relied on self-written memos that present the issue to be discussed and decided upon in the form of a story.³ In short, narratives are and have always been on everyone's lips. From a neurologic perspective, this is not at all surprising, because narratives are a common form of information processing and communication for humans’ limited cognitive capacities (Berinsky & Kinder, 2006). Stories impose order on a complex and chaotic environment by bundling attention and emotion to certain facets while fading others.

In policy analysis, the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) embraces the analysis of narratives and their impact on the policy process. Like many policy process theories, this framework originates from the United States, where a plethora of studies applying the NPF have been conducted (see e.g., Gottlieb et al., 2018; Gupta et al., 2018; Jones, 2014; McBeth et al., 2012; Merry, 2019; Shanahan et al., 2013). This special issue demonstrates that there is also an active NPF research community outside the United States that is using and advancing the framework in significant and multifaceted ways. In the following, the special issue presents a diverse bouquet of NPF applications from Europe. It, thereby, also pays tribute to the NPF's versatility in application, from agenda setting to policy implementation, and in a wide variety of institutional and geographic settings.

The goal of this special issue fits well with European Policy Analysis (EPA), which aims to present the European perspective on policy analysis and to test mainstream approaches in the European context. Previous EPA contributions or themed issues thus focused for instance on the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Nohrstedt & Olofsson, 2016), the Multiple Streams Framework (Deruelle, 2016; Leeuw et al., 2016; Sager & Thomann, 2017; Zohlnhöfer et al., 2015), or the Programmatic Action Framework (Bandelow & Hornung, 2021). The NPF is now the next to follow in this tradition.

The NPF developed in the 1990s from work by Elizabeth Shanahan, Marc McBeth, and Michael Jones. It was first named and published in 2010 (Jones & McBeth, 2010). The framework assumes the central role of narratives in human communication and cognition, which consequently also exert a significant influence on policy actors and policy processes. In addition to this basic assumption, the NPF is based on four others (Shanahan et al., 2017, 178–79; Shanahan et al., 2018, 334): First, political reality is socially constructed. Second, social constructions of political realities, while variable, are not random but depend on factors such as values, norms, and beliefs (bounded relativity). Third, policy narratives are characterized by specific, generalizable structures (structuralist view). Fourth, policy narratives operate at three interacting levels of analysis, micro (individual), meso (group), and macro (institutions and culture).

According to the NPF, a policy narrative consists of several components, which can be quantified and compared in a standardized manner: On the one hand, a narrative has a specific structure (or narrative form; Shanahan et al., 2017, 175–76). This includes the setting, which describes the context and the problem, the moral, which shows the solution, the plot, which organizes the action and finally different characters. The most used characters in NPF studies are the villain who causes a problem, the victim who suffers from it and the hero who solves the problem.

On the other hand, a narrative has specific content, which varies depending on the context and the policy issue. To capture this, the NPF uses the concept of policy beliefs and three so-called narrative strategies. First, narratives can be used to enlarge or reduce the scope of conflict. Second, policy actors can use their narratives to portray opponents as evil and themselves as heroes (devil–angel shift). Third, narratives can be strategically constructed to establish causal links between a policy problem and its cause, thereby assigning responsibility or blame (causal mechanisms; Shanahan et al., 2017, 177–78).

Despite the fact that the NPF has become an acknowledged policy process theory that features numerous theoretical and empirical applications, its potential remains far from being exploited (see e.g., Shanahan et al., 2017, 198–202). The European NPF community can contribute to this in a meaningful way by broadening the narrative research perspective. For instance, in addition to different historically grown cultures, institutions, societal beliefs, and values, European countries differ from the United States in having other political systems and forms of government such as multi-party systems, direct democracy but also authoritarian regimes. Furthermore, transnational institutionalized forms of co-operation such as the European Union (EU), which not only need to function across nations but also across linguistic and cultural borders, play a prominent role in Europe. To date, these perspectives have been barely incorporated into existing NPF research. The special issue at hand aimed to change this by providing a first platform to European NPF scholars, deriving avenues for future research from their contributions, and ultimately by bringing the two research communities closer together.

The seven contributions in this special issue tap into the NPF’s potential by expanding it not only geographically and thematically but also conceptually. Table 1 provides an overview of the contributions. In the following, we discuss their findings in more detail and derive avenues for future NPF research.

Four articles in this special issue focus on the further development of NPF components. Kuhlmann and Blum are concerned with the conceptualization of an important element of narratives that so far has received little attention compared to characters or strategies: plots. They refine the concept by saying that plots each have a universal and a policy-specific element; while the former element bases on Stone’s (2012) widely used plot types, the latter builds upon Lowi's well-known distinction between regulative, distributive, and redistributive policies. This new conceptualization gives rise to a typology, which, in turn, may be used for hypotheses within the NPF. Their empirical analysis examines the occurrence of different plot types in tweets from the German government during the first COVID-19 wave.

Schlaufer et al. argue that despite the underlying importance of the policy problem within the NPF, a consistent approach of how to study this element is lacking. The authors indicate how this gap could be closed conceptually and suggest that the policy problem should be treated as a separate NPF component. In their contribution, they explore how problem definition in terms of complexity is strategically used in narratives to expand or contain a policy conflict in the context of Moscow's waste management. Thereby, they simultaneously demonstrate the NPF’s transferability to a non-democratic context.

Vogeler et al. examine policies that are not in the center of public attention—unlike most NPF studies, which focus on highly politicized debates—and show the dominant role of the beneficiary character in such a context. They investigate two policy debates on new agri-food technologies in the European Parliament and convincingly argue that “(u)sing beneficiaries as part of a narrative strategy (…) is plausible in the context of policies that are negotiated among experts and largely without a public” (p. 340).

Tosun and Schaub are concerned with the use of evidence as a potential new NPF strategy. In investigating the narrative construction of European Citizen Initiatives (ECI)—which have to be able to mobilize across countries, languages, and cultures—the authors show that evidence is strategically used by ECI initiators to expand the scope of conflict, that is, to underline the policy problem, to push their own solution, or to undermine the opposing solution. They also rely upon the devil-shift strategy to convince their audiences.

Three articles combine the NPF with additional theories and frameworks. Dunlop et al., start this endeavor with an innovative combination of the NPF and the Institutional Grammar Tool (IGT); two frameworks that at first sight seem very different, but which—as the authors convincingly argue—have a common core and advance the NPF by “uncovering not only the stories policy actors tell but also what these stories mean in terms of institutional statements” (p. 365). The authors provide a demonstration of their combined approach by analyzing the four cases of EU, Malta, Finland, and Ireland regarding their guidelines for consultation processes during policy formulation. The IGT enriches the NPF by complementing findings on actors’ communication with information on their actions. Conversely, the NPF broadens results from the IGT by highlighting the moral and normative aspects of institutional grammar elements and by teasing out different narration styles found in official documents.

Gjerstad and Fløttum present a combination of the NPF with a linguistic approach. Based on a Norwegian survey, the study analyzes what story citizens tell about whether they are willing to change their way of life to contribute to solutions against climate change. The survey answers are analyzed according to several linguistic concepts and mechanisms—capturing the narrative text sequence, the use of negation or polyphony, that is, multivoicedness—combined with the use of NPF characters. The results show that Norwegians simultaneously depict themselves as part of a collective that mostly plays a villain role, but also as heroic individuals. Furthermore, thanks to the analysis of polyphony, this linguistic NPF analysis not only allows to unravel the dominant narratives in a policy debate, but also “traces of the conflict characterizing the issue at a societal (thus macro-) level” (p. 402). In addition with their survey data, they are the only authors in this special issue conducting a microlevel NPF analysis, while all others investigate narratives at the mesolevel.

Kuenzler suggests linking the NPF with research on the reputation of public organizations, an increasingly popular field of theory development in public administration research. By capturing the narratives circulating in the public about an organization, the NPF proves to be a fruitful approach to draw conclusions about an organization's reputation, as well as about developments over time. Empirically, the author analyzes the case of the Swiss Child and Adult Protection Agencies, a young agency type that experienced the "reputational worst-case scenario" p.408 and is nowadays known as "Switzerland's most-hated authority" (p. 408). The analysis reveals power shifts between the agencies and their target groups, and it allows for an in-depth look at specific criticisms that have been expressed about the agencies over time. For example, the narrative analysis shows how the target groups of the child and adult protection policy underwent changes from problem-causing villains to victims and even heroes, thereby demonstrating that the implementing agencies’ legitimacy was increasingly questioned over time.

Besides advancing the NPF on a conceptual level, this special issue also demonstrates the framework's thematic and geographic versatility. While the thematic breadth has increased somewhat in recent years, since its inception the NPF’s focus has mostly been on environmental policy (Jones, 2018). Contributions in this special issue focus instead on topics as varied as COVID-19, waste management, agri-food technologies, climate change lifestyles, consultation procedures, and child and adult protection policy. In terms of geography, the following countries are represented: Finland, Germany, Ireland, Malta, Norway, Russia, and Switzerland. In addition, research on the institutional level of the EU is included.

Inspired by the findings of the contributions in this special issue, we would like to share some concluding thoughts on avenues for future NPF research.

First, the NPF’s components are at the heart of the framework. Their application and testing in as many policy contexts as possible, as well as their continuous further development, is key for the significance of the NPF as an established policy process theory. In this regard, we consider it promising to test further the plot typology developed by Kuhlmann and Blum, which “show(s) how, for regulatory, distributive, and redistributive types of policies, plots link policy-specific themes with universal themes in clearly distinguishable ways” (p. 295) and their newly formulated NPF hypothesis stating that “(g)roups and individuals employ plots to link policy-specific narrative elements and universal narrative elements” (p. 295). We also consider it promising to test the conceptualization of the policy problem along the notion of complexity as suggested by Schlaufer et al., the role of beneficiaries in more and less politicized debates as investigated by Vogeler et al., and the use of evidence as a potentially separate narrative strategy (Tosun and Schaub).

Second, the NPF can be fruitfully linked to other theoretical approaches. In the past, this has for instance been done successfully with the Multiple Streams Framework (Ceccoli, 2019; McBeth & Lybecker, 2018). In this special issue, Gjerstad and Fløttum, Dunlop et al., and Kuenzler demonstrate the framework's versatility again by combining the NPF with approaches from linguistics, political science, and public administration. Such combinations—which of course have to be chosen with care and adapted if deemed necessary—on the one hand allow a deeper understanding of the research subject and on the other hand strengthen the NPF itself by refining or even complementing its components and hypotheses.

Third, Vogeler et al. suggest that narrative use in more or less politicized debates may differ distinctly. Systematic comparative analysis of narratives in different types of policy processes—be they more technical, apolitical, or consensual versus highly contested and politicized—is, therefore, another promising approach for further advancing the NPF.

Fourth, Schlaufer et al. begin to explore a potential avenue for further research on the use of narratives and the applicability of the NPF in non-democratic contexts. Their results show that similar mechanisms are at work compared to democratic settings—although the institutional features, limiting or enhancing participation and influence of various policy actor groups, obviously differ widely. To broaden the applicability of the NPF and learn more about policy actors’ use of narratives in different political contexts, additional research from Russia and from other non-democratic countries is needed.

Fifth, we would like to mention a few aspects with a more specific regard to European policy issues. Tosun and Schaub show how narratives in the EU have to operate across countries, languages and cultures to make a difference. This multidimensionality may be a European specificity. However, we think that future research on this issue would also be an added value for large regions such as for instance Middle and South America or Asia.

In a similar vein, with the European Parliament, Vogeler et al. focus on a venue where these different dimensions come together, and narratives have to convince in direct confrontations. This confluence of countries, languages and cultures is exciting, and the direct contrast or interaction could also give new insights into the macrolevel characteristics of narratives, an issue that is so far under-researched. Other multinational institutions and organizations such as the United Nations, the NATO, or Mercosur might be further interesting venues to investigate such inter-cultural dynamics.

Sixth, Schlaufer et al. and Kuenzler shed light on another fascinating area: The role of narratives in policy implementation. Research on this stage of the policy cycle (Cairney, 2012) is generally scarce within the NPF, with a few notable exceptions (see e.g., Boscarino, 2020; O’Donovan, 2018). During implementation, a policy takes proper shape. Ideas, expectations, and interests of many different actors, such as street-level bureaucrats or interests groups representing target populations, come together. The program is refined and implementation structures are formed (see e.g., Lipsky, 2010; Pülzl & Treib, 2007)—in short, the policy process continues during implementation. Therefore, we see no reason to assume that narratives should not play an equally influential role in shaping a policy in this stage. Still, a systematic and broadly applied approach in conducting implementation NPF analyses is far from being established and would clearly contribute to advancing the whole framework.

Finally, Dunlop et al. are the only authors in this special issue to conduct a comparative case study that includes multiple nations. Following this direction, we could imagine some promising further studies, such as comparative NPF research combining cases from the United States or Europe with African or Central-Asian cases. Such studies would enable us to learn more about cultural, institutional, or societal effects on the creation and impact of policy narratives. Furthermore, they would contribute to the goal we mentioned earlier, that is, to bring NPF research across the oceans closer together.

This is a goal we consider absolutely worth striving for—especially when we consider how narratives affect us all and are to be found in every human activity around the globe, independent of the geographic region where we live, the policy issue that is at stake, or the values and beliefs we hold. We are all storytelling human beings, or in NPF’s terminology homini narrantes.

自人类进化起, 全球人民便传播故事—或叙事; 无论是一代传给下一代的古老习俗, 例如圣诞节、狂欢节或农业传统 (从高山牧场来回赶牛) 等不同主题; 或是当下关于气候变化的国际辩论, 例如巴西总统雅伊尔·博索纳罗讲述“几乎未受影响的”亚马逊热带雨林的故事, 与之相对的是气候活跃人士格蕾塔·桑伯格愤怒讲述崩溃的生态系统和“一次集体灭绝的开端”; 抑或是前亚马逊CEO杰夫·贝索斯, 他禁用PowerPoint演示文稿并依赖手写备忘录, 以故事的形式呈现待讨论和决定的问题。简而言之, 一直以来每个人都在表达叙事。从神经系统视角来看, 这一点也不奇怪, 因为叙事是人类有限的认知能力在信息处理及传播方面的通用形式 (Berinsky & Kinder, 2006)。通过将关注和情感倾注于一些方面 (同时冷落其他方面), 故事给复杂且混乱的环境带来了秩序。

在政策分析中, 叙事政策框架 (NPF) 聚焦于分析叙事及其对政策过程的影响。与许多政策过程理论一样, 该框架源自美国, 并且美国已大量进行了NPF研究 (Gottlieb et al., 2018; Gupta et al., 2018; Jones, 2014; McBeth et al., 2012; Merry, 2019; Shanahan et al., 2013) 。本期特刊证明, 除美国以外的地区也存在活跃的NPF研究社群, 它们以重要和多方面的方式对NPF加以应用和提升。接下来, 本期特刊将呈现来自欧洲的不同NPF研究。因此, 特刊也展示了从议程设置到政策执行, 以及在一系列制度背景和地理背景下NPF应用的多用途性。

本期特刊的目标与《欧洲政策分析》 (EPA) 相契合, 后者致力呈现欧洲的政策分析视角, 并在欧洲情境下检验主流方法。以往EPA收录的文章或主题期刊因此聚焦于例如倡导联盟框架 (Nohrstedt & Olofsson, 2016)、多源流框架 (Deruelle, 2016; Leeuw et al., 2016; Sager & Thomann, 2017; Zohlnhöfer et al., 2015)、或计划行动框架 (Bandelow & Hornung, 2021)等。NPF现加入这一行列。

Elizabeth Shanahan、Marc McBeth和Michael Jones在1990年代提出了NPF。NPF于2010年首次被命名和发表 (Jones & McBeth, 2010)。该框架假设, 叙事在人类传播和认知中占据中心作用, 因此也对政策行动者和政策过程产生显著影响。除该基本假设外, NPF还基于其他四个假设 (Shanahan et al., 2017, 178–79; Shanahan et al., 2018, 334): 第一, 政治现实是一种社会建构。第二, 政治现实的社会建构尽管多样, 但并不是随机的, 而是依赖诸如价值、规范和信念 (有限的相对性) 等因素。第三, 政策叙事有特定的、可一般化的结构 (结构主义视角) 。第四, 政策叙事发生在三个相互作用的分析层面, 即微观 (个体) 、中观 (群体) 和宏观 (制度和文化) 层面。

NPF认为, 一个政策叙事由不同部分组成, 这些部分能以标准化的形式被量化和比较: 一方面, 叙事有特定的结构或叙事形式 (Shanahan et al., 2017, 175–76)。这包括用于描述情境和问题的“背景” (setting), 用于提示解决方案的“寓意” (moral), 用于组织行动的“情节” (plot), 以及不同的“角色” (character) 。NPF研究中使用最多的角色分别是: 制造问题的“反面人物” (villain) 、受问题困扰的受害者 (victim) 以及解决问题的正面人物 (hero) 。

另一方面, 叙事有具体的内容, 该内容会因情境和政策议题的不同而存在差异。为阐述这一点, NPF使用政策信念这一概念和三个所谓的叙事策略。第一, 叙事能被用于扩大或减少冲突范围 (scope of conflict) 。第二, 政策行动者能使用叙事来丑化政治对手, 美化政治盟友 (devil-angel shift) 。第三, 叙事能通过策略性建构来建立政策问题及其起因之间的因果关系, 因此能分配义务或责任 (因果机制) (Shanahan et al., 2017, 177–78)。

尽管NPF已成为公认的政策过程理论, 拥有大量的理论和实证应用, 但其潜能根本还未充分开发 (参见 Shanahan et al., 2017, 198–202)。欧洲NPF社群能通过拓宽叙事研究视角, 对挖掘NPF潜能作出有意义的贡献。比如, 除不同的历史文化、制度、社会信念和价值观之外, 欧洲国家与美国的不同之处还在于拥有其他政治系统和政府形式, 例如多党制、直接民主和威权制度。此外, 制度化的跨国合作形式—例如欧盟 (EU), 不仅需要在各国间运作, 还需跨越语言和文化边界—在欧洲发挥重要作用。迄今为止, 这些视角几乎未融入NPF研究。本期特刊旨在填补该研究空白, 通过为欧洲NPF学者提供首个平台, 从他们的研究中提取用于未来研究的方法, 并最终将这两个研究社群更紧密地联系在一起。

本期特刊收录的7篇文章通过从地理、主题和概念的视角对NPF的潜能加以利用。表1概述了这些文章。接下来, 我们将更详细地探讨文章的研究发现并提出用于未来NPF研究的方法。

表1: 文稿概览.

本期特刊中有四篇文章聚焦于NPF组成部分的进一步发展。Kuhlmann 和Blum研究了情节这一重要叙事要素的概念化, 该要素目前与角色或策略相比获得的关注较少。通过主张每个情节都有一个普遍的要素和一个具体政策要素, 他们对情节的概念加以改进; 普遍的要素基于Stone (2012) 提出的广泛使用的情节类型, 而具体政策要素基于Lowi提出的监管政策、分配政策和再分配政策之间的差异。这一新的概念化产生了一种新的分类, 后者反过来能用于NPF假设。Kuhlmann 和Blum的实证分析研究了第一波新冠肺炎期间德国政府推文中的不同情节类型。

Schlaufer等人主张, 尽管NPF中的政策问题存在重要性, 但就如何研究该要素而言还缺乏一致的方法。作者表明了能如何从概念上填补该研究空白, 并暗示政策问题应被视作单独的NPF成分。他们的文章探究了针对复杂性的问题定义如何能通过策略用于叙事中, 以期扩大或抑制莫斯科废物管理情境下的政策冲突。因此, 他们同时证明了NPF在非民主情境中的适用性。

Vogeler等人分析了不被公众重点关注的一系列政策—与大多数NPF 研究不同, 后者聚焦于高度政治化的辩论—并展示了受益者角色在这类情境下的主导作用。他们研究了欧洲议会中关于新农产品技术的两次政策辩论, 并以具有说服力的方式主张: “在经过专家协商且基本没有公众参与的政策情境下, 将受益者作为叙事策略的一部分加以使用是可行的”。

Tosun 和Schaub研究了将证据作为潜在的新NPF策略的应用。通过研究欧洲公民倡议 (ECI) 的叙事建构—ECI必须能在不同国家、语言和文化之间进行动员—作者表明, ECI发起者以策略的方式使用证据, 以期扩大冲突范围, 即强调政策问题, 推动其提出的解决方案, 或削弱持反对意见的解决方案。他们还依靠丑化对手—美化盟友的策略来说服各自的受众。

三篇文章将其他理论和框架与NPF相结合。Dunlop等人将NPF和制度语法工具 (IGT) 进行创新性结合; 这两个框架乍一看十分不同, 但作者以具有说服力的方式主张, 二者有一个共同的核心, 并通过“不仅能发现政策行动者的叙事, 还能解释这些叙事在制度表述 (institutional statements) 方面的意义”对NPF加以改进。通过分析欧盟、马耳他、芬兰和爱尔兰各自政策制定过程中的咨询过程指南, 作者证明了这两个框架的结合使用。IGT对有关行动者的行动信息传播的研究发现加以补充, 进而丰富了NPF。相反, NPF通过强调制度语法要素的道德方面和规范方面, 并梳理官方文件中的不同叙事风格, 从而拓宽了IGT的研究结果。

Gjerstad 和Fløttum将NPF和语言学方法相结合。基于一项挪威调查, 该研究分析了公民就“是否乐意改变生活方式以对气候变化解决措施作贡献”一事所叙述的故事。用不同语言学概念和机制对调查结果加以分析—阐述叙事文本顺序、否定或多音 (polyphony, 即多声部性) 的使用—并将其与NPF角色相结合。研究结果显示, 挪威人在将自身描绘为集体 (这个集体基本扮演反面角色) 的一部分的同时, 又将个人描绘为正面角色。此外, 通过多音分析, 该语言学NPF分析法不仅能阐述政策辩论中的主导叙事, 还能阐述“以问题的社会 (宏观) 层面为特征的冲突痕迹”。此外, Gjerstad 和Fløttum是本期特刊中应用微观NPF分析的作者, 其他作者都从中观层面研究叙事。

Kuenzler建议将NPF和公共组织声誉研究相联系, 后者是公共管理研究中理论发展的热点领域。通过阐述公众对组织的叙事, NPF能有效总结组织声誉和随时间推移的组织声誉发展。实证上, 作者分析了瑞士儿童和成人保护机构 (CAPA) 这一案例, 该机构较为年轻, 并经历了“最糟糕的声誉场景”, 目前被认为是“瑞士最不受欢迎的权威机构”。分析表明了机构和其目标群体之间的权力转变, 并深入研究了随时间推移该机构受到的特定批判。例如, 叙事分析表明了儿童和成人保护政策的目标群体如何经历了一系列变化, 包括从制造问题的反面角色转变为受害者甚至是正面角色, 这因此证明了该机构的合法性曾越来越受到质疑。

除了从概念层面提升NPF外, 本期特刊还证明了该框架在不同主题和地理上的适应性。尽管近年来主题研究有所增加, 但NPF从一开始就将重点基本都聚焦于环境政策(Jones 2018)。本期特刊收录的文章则聚焦于不同主题, 例如新冠肺炎、废物管理、农产品技术、与气候变化相关的生活方式、咨询程序、以及儿童和成人保护政策。研究地区包括下列国家: 芬兰、德国、爱尔兰、马耳他、挪威、俄罗斯、瑞士。此外, 关于欧盟制度层面的研究也包括在内。

受本期特刊文章的研究发现启发, 我们想分享一些有关未来NPF研究方法的结论性思考。

第一, NPF的组成部分是该框架的核心。其在尽可能多的政策情境中的应用和检验、以及其不断的发展, 对NPF作为著名政策过程理论的重要性而言是关键的。对此, 我们认为对由Kuhlmann 和Blum提出的情节分类、以及他们新提出的NPF假设进行进一步检验是有用的, 该分类表明了“对监管政策、分配政策和再分配政策而言, 情节如何将具体政策主题和普适主题相联系”, 并且他们提出的NPF假设认为“团体和个人运用情节来联系特定政策的叙事要素和普适的叙事要素”。我们还认为, 对—由Schlaufer等人提出的政策问题的复杂性定义的概念化、由Vogeler等人研究的政治化辩论中受益者发挥的作用、以及由Tosun 和Schaub研究的将证据作为潜在的独立叙事策略—加以检验也是有用的。

第二, NPF能有效地与其他理论方法相结合。例如, 过去曾成功将NPF与多源流框架相结合 (Ceccoli, 2019; McBeth & Lybecker, 2018)。本期特刊中, Gjerstad 和Fløttum、Dunlop等人、以及Kuenzler都分别证明了该框架的适用性, 他们将NPF和语言学方法、政治学方法、公共管理方法相结合。这类结合—必须经过谨慎选择并在必要情况下加以修改—一方面允许对研究主题进行深入理解, 另一方面通过改进甚至是补充NPF的组成部分及假设, 进而巩固了NPF。

第三, Vogeler等人暗示, 高度或低度政治化辩论中的叙事使用可能存在显著差异。对不同政策过程类型中的叙事进行系统性比较分析—无论叙事是更技术层面的、去政治化的、双方意见一致的、或者存在高度竞争的、高度政治化的—则是能进一步提升NPF的另一种有用方法。

第四, Schlaufer等人开始探究可能的方法, 以进一步研究非民主情境下的叙事使用和NPF的适用性。他们的研究发现表明, 与民主情境相比, 非民主情境存在相似机制, 尽管制度特征 (限制或提高不同政策行动者团体的参与度及影响) 存在明显差异。为拓宽NPF的适用性并更多地了解不同政治情境中政策行动者对叙事的使用, 还需要更多有关俄罗斯和其他非民主国家的研究。

第五, 我们想提及几个方面, 特别是关于欧洲政策议题。Tosun 和Schaub展示了欧盟内的叙事如何必须在跨越不同国家、语言和文化的情况下开展。这种多维度性可能是欧洲的一个特点。不过, 我们认为, 关于这一点的未来研究可能也对中美洲、南美洲或亚洲这类大型区域具有价值。

相似地, Vogeler等人聚焦于欧洲议会, 这个地方汇集不同维度, 并且叙事必须以直接的交流展开。不同国家、语言和文化的汇集是令人兴奋的, 并且直接对比或互动也能对叙事的宏观层面特征给予新的见解, 叙事的宏观层面特征是目前很少被研究的。其他多国家机构和组织, 例如联合国、北约组织或南方共同市场, 可能是用于研究这类文化间动态的有趣场所。

第六, Schlaufer等人和Kuenzler阐述了另一个有趣的领域: 叙事在政策执行中的作用。关于政策执行的NPF研究基本很少, 个别重要的研究除外 (Boscarino, 2020; O’Donovan, 2018) 。政策执行过程中, 政策已经成型。许多不同行动者 (例如街头官僚和代表目标群体的利益集团) 的观念、预期和利益汇集在一起。政策计划得以改进, 政策执行结构也得以形成 (Lipsky, 2010; Pülzl & Treib, 2007), 简而言之, 政策过程在执行期间继续进行。因此, 我们没有理由认为, 叙事不应在政策执行阶段发挥同等重要的作用。尽管如此, 一个系统的、广泛应用的方法 (用于政策执行NPF分析) 根本还未建立, 并且这种方法一定能对整个NPF框架的提升作贡献。

最后, 本期特刊中只有Dunlop等人对多个国家进行了比较案例研究。按照这个方向, 我们能设想一些有前景的研究, 例如将美国或欧洲与非洲或中亚案例相结合的NPF比较研究。这类研究将允许我们更多地了解文化、制度或社会对政策叙事的创造和影响所产生的效果。此外, 这还将对我们之前提及的目标作贡献, 即把不同大陆的NPF研究更紧密地联系在一起。

这是我们认为完全值得为之奋斗的目标, 尤其是当我们考量叙事如何对所有人产生影响并且存在于全球每个人类活动中, 无论我们身处何处、重要的政策问题是什么, 或者怀有什么样的价值观和信念。我们都是讲故事的人, NPF将这称为“homini narrantes”。

我们首先感谢投稿者的辛勤付出, 这组成了本期多样化的创新内容。我们还要感谢评审员, 他们的批判性反思在改进文稿一事中发挥了重要作用。最后, 我们感谢《欧洲政策分析》期刊的编辑和编辑主任允许发表本期特刊, 并感谢他们对期刊准备的持续支持。