Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 13–34 | Cite as

Citizens’ use of policy symbols and frames

  • Ryane McAuliffe Straus
Article

Abstract

This paper argues that citizens are capable of developing and promoting complex policy symbols, and that these symbols include supporting frames that explain and justify them. Based on a long-term study of education policies in Los Angeles, California, the paper uses interpretive methods to reconstruct and analyze these frames. Citizens developed two specific policy symbols while the district was engulfed in a desegregation debate; citizens identified schools as places where students gained academic knowledge and as institutions that affected broader race relations. However, education policy in Los Angeles could not support these two symbols over a long period of time, and a political movement to end mandatory busing eventually caused the academic symbol (originally the weaker of the two symbols) to become dominant. This trend reflects broader national discussions, in which education is now discussed in terms of standards and accountability and is evidence of continuing racism in US policy.

Keywords

Public policy Interpretive methods Education policy Desegregation Policy narratives Policy symbols 

References

  1. Audubon school has uniform dress code. (1996). Los Angeles Sentinel, May 30, A8.Google Scholar
  2. Barber, B. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books/Doubleday.Google Scholar
  5. Boyarsky, B., & Durant, C. (1977). Mandatory busing—white students’ views. Los Angeles Times, July 4, B1.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, N. (1978). Lawyer defends integration. Los Angeles Sentinel, January 19.Google Scholar
  7. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. (1954). 347 US 483: United States Supreme Court.Google Scholar
  8. Brunner, R. D. (1991). The policy movement as a policy problem. Policy Sciences, 24(1), 65–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cardenas, J. (1996). A higher education for deaf students: Mainstreaming at Granada Hills math and science magnet school offers a more challenging opportunity for college-bound. Los Angeles Times, April 5, B4.Google Scholar
  10. Christmas, F. C. (1977a). Groups support school integration. Los Angeles Sentinel, February 17, A2.Google Scholar
  11. Christmas, F. C. (1977b). School fight draws KKK demonstration. Los Angeles Sentinel, February 3, A1.Google Scholar
  12. Crawford v. Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles. (1976). 17 Cal. 3d 280: California State Supreme Court.Google Scholar
  13. Dahl, R. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dorsey high school magnet initiates project dignity. (1986). Los Angeles Sentinel, March 20, A14.Google Scholar
  15. Edelman, M. (1985). The symbolic uses of politics (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  16. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fleming-Rife, A., & Proffitt, J. M. (2004). The more public school reform changes, the more it stays the same: A framing analysis of the newspaper coverage of Brown v. Board of Education. Journal of Negro Education, 73(3):239–254.Google Scholar
  20. Gerring, J. (2003). What is interpretivism? Qualitative Methods, 1(2):2–6.Google Scholar
  21. Gilens, M. (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gurevitch, M., & Levy, M. R. (1985). Introduction. In M. Gurevitch & M. R. Levy (Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  24. Hajer, M. A. (1993). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: The case of acid rain in Britain. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hajer, M. A. (2003). A frame in the fields: Policymaking and the reinvention of politics. In M. A. Hajer (Ed.), Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. West Nyack: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003). Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hampton, G. (2004). Enhancing public participation through narrative analysis. Policy Sciences, 37, 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harris, L. (1977). Blacks angry over desegregation plan. Los Angeles Times, February 22, B1.Google Scholar
  29. Healy, P. (1986). Interpretive policy inquiry: A response to the limitations of the received view. Policy Sciences, 19, 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  31. Herrnstein, R., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hochschild, J., & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American dream and the public schools. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Howland, D., Becker, M. L., & Prelli, L. J. (2006). Merging content analysis and the policy sciences: A system to discern policy-specific trends from news media reports. Policy Sciences, 39, 205–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson, G. F. (2007). The discourse of democracy in Canadian nuclear waste management policy. Policy Sciences, 40, 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kellstedt, P. M. (2003). The mass media and the dynamics of American racial attitudes. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kinney, N. T. (2006). Engaging in ‘loose talk’: Analyzing salience in discourse from the formulation of welfare policy. Policy Sciences, 38, 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. L.A. School district launches a new program for gifted students. (1999). Los Angeles Sentinel, September 2, A10.Google Scholar
  38. Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In D. Lerner & H. Lasswell (Eds.), The policy sciences: Recent developments in scope and method. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lasswell, H. D., Lerner, D., & de Sola Pool, I. (1952). The comparative study of symbols. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. LAUSD. (2009). Echoices: LAUSD program choices [Website] 2009 [cited January 22 2010]. Available from http://echoices.lausd.net/Magnet/MagnetHome.aspx.
  41. Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  42. MacDonald, C. (2003). The value of discourse analysis as a methodological tool for understanding a land reform movement. Policy Sciences, 36(2), 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Magnet letters to be mailed. (1987). Los Angeles Sentinel, June 11, A12.Google Scholar
  44. Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2006). Stories for research. In D. Yanow & P. Schwartz-Shea (Eds.), Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  45. McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E. A., Arnell, R. J., & Hathaway, P. L. (2007). The intersection of narrative policy analysis and policy change theory. Policy Studies Journal, 35(1), 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McCurdy, J. (1977). Whites seek school case voice. Los Angeles Times, April 12, A3.Google Scholar
  47. McManus, D., & McCurdy, J. (1978). Busing boycott cuts attendance at most schools. Los Angeles Times, September 13, A1.Google Scholar
  48. Medical magnet school to be built. (1996). Los Angeles Sentinel, June 6, A14.Google Scholar
  49. Mitchell, J. L. (1985). Integration passing test at paired schools. Los Angeles Times, June 23, I1.Google Scholar
  50. Newton, L. (2008). Illegal, alien, or immigrant: The politics of immigration reform. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  51. Orfield, G., & Eaton, S. E. (Eds.). (1996). Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  52. Orfield, G., & Yun, J. T. (1999). Resegregation in American schools [Online version]. The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, Retrieved March 6, 2001. Available from http://www.law.harvard.edu.
  53. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. (2007). 555 US 701: United States Supreme Court.Google Scholar
  54. Public Policy Institute of California. (2009). Special elections in California [cited August 7 2008]. Available from http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_SpecialElectionsJTF.pdf.
  55. Pyle, A. (1996). Medical magnet school will get permanent home. Los Angeles Times, May 21, B3.Google Scholar
  56. Rein, M. (1976). Social science and public policy. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  57. Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Ryan, C. (1991). Prime time activism: Media strategies for grassroots organizing. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.Google Scholar
  59. Sabatier, P. (2000). Clear enough to be wrong. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(1), 135–140.Google Scholar
  60. Savage, D. G. (1985). 13 Californians win honors in science contest. Los Angeles Times, January 16, A3.Google Scholar
  61. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  62. School district to study ethnic makeup. (1987). Los Angeles Sentinel, November 26, A10.Google Scholar
  63. School news. (1987). Los Angeles Sentinel, April 30, A9.Google Scholar
  64. School plan scored. (1977). Los Angeles Sentinel, March 3, A1.Google Scholar
  65. Shanahan, E. A., McBeth, M. K., Hathaway, P. L., & Arnell, R. J. (2008). Conduit or contributor? The role of media in policy change theory. Policy Sciences, 41, 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi H. Kriesi, & S. G. Tarrow (Eds.), From structure to action: Comparing social movement research across cultures. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  67. Sonenshein, R. (1993). Politics in black and white: Race and power in Los Angeles (1st ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Speich, J. M. & Don. (1977). School desegregation plan attacked at first hearing. Los Angeles Times, February 25, B1.Google Scholar
  69. Speich, D., & McCurdy, J. (1977). 65,000 students absent in L.A. protest on busing. Los Angeles Times, February 19, A1.Google Scholar
  70. Stein, S. (2001). These are your Title I students: Policy language in educational practice. Policy Sciences, 34(2), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  72. Straus, R. M. (2005). Reconstructing magnet schools: Social construction and the demise of desegregation. Irvine, CA: Political Science, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
  73. Straus, R. M. (2010). Measuring multi-ethnic desegregation. Education and Urban Society, 42(2), 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Torgerson, D. (2003). Democracy through policy discourse. In M. A. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Trombley, W. (1977a). High court won’t bar L.A. school case intervenors. Los Angeles Times, April 23, A1.Google Scholar
  76. Trombley, W. (1977b). Integration plan leans on voluntary approach. Los Angeles Times, January 19, B1.Google Scholar
  77. Trombley, W. (1977c). Noisy opposition to busing voiced at board’s final hearing. Los Angeles Times, March 4, A3.Google Scholar
  78. Yanow, D. (1993). The communication of policy meanings: Implementation as interpretation and text. Policy Sciences, 26, 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Yanow, D. (1996). How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Yanow, D. (2003a). Constructing “race” and “ethnicity” in America: Category-making in public policy and administration. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  81. Yanow, D. (2003b). Interpretive empirical political science: What makes this not a subfield of qualitative methods. Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 9–13.Google Scholar
  82. Young ideas honor roll. (1997). Los Angeles Sentinel, August 14, B7.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Saint RoseAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations