Policy Sciences

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 63–81 | Cite as

“My forest, my kingdom”—Self-referentiality as a strategy in the case of small forest owners coping with government regulations



Social research that informs the implementation of natural resource policies is frequently driven by the logic of the policy system itself. A prevailing concern with achieving policy outcomes can lead, however, to lack of attention to equally important aspects, for example the challenges the policy instruments present to those they are targeting and the consequences this might have for government–citizen relationships. To help guide research into these issues we have developed a situational–interactional approach to interpretive policy analysis that seeks to examine the processes involved when people collectively make sense of government instruments. The theoretical basis is provided to a large extent by Luhmann’s theory of self-referential social systems. In addition, we operationalise the concepts of interactional framing and resemiotisation to capture the active work of the citizens in sense-making processes. We then apply our situational–interactional analysis to small-scale forest ownership in Flanders. Analysis of data from focus groups with forest owners reveals how interactions build on each other in the co-development of particular strategies to cope with government intervention. Finally, we discuss two future directions for research. First, the forest owners find themselves in an inescapable relationship with the government, and feel their autonomy is threatened. Government intervention, therefore, will almost necessarily lead to resistance. Second, forest groups enhance compatibility between the government system and the forest owners, but rather than narrowing the gap between the two worlds they tend to emphasise it.


Interpretive policy analysis Policy implementation Frame analysis Resemiotization Resistance Non-industrial private forest owners 


  1. Aarts, N., & van Woerkum, C. (2006). Frame construction in interaction. In N. Gould (Ed.), Multi-organisational partnerships, alliances and networks (pp. 229–237). Pontypridd: University of Glamorgan.Google Scholar
  2. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps toward an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
  3. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergmann, S. A., & Bliss, J. C. (2004). Foundations of cross-boundary cooperation: Resource management at the public-private interface. Society and Natural Resources, 17, 377–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bliss, J. C., & Martin, A. J. (1989). Identifying NIPF management motivations with qualitative methods. Forest Science, 35(2), 601–622.Google Scholar
  6. Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M., & Robson, K. (2001). Focus groups in social research. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Brans, M., & Rossbach, S. (1997). The autopoiesis of administrative systems: Niklas Luhmann on public administration and policy. Public Administration, 75, 417–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buizer, M., & Van Herzele, A. (2012). Combining deliberative governance theory and discourse analysis to understand the deliberative incompleteness of centrally formulated plans. Forest Policy and Economics, 16, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cvetkovich, G., & Winter, P. L. (2003). Trust and social representations of the management of threatened and endangered species. Environment and Behavior, 35(2), 286–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dewulf, A., Craps, M., & Dercon, G. (2004). How issues get framed when different communities meet: A multi-level analysis of a collaborative soil conservation initiative in the Ecuadorian Andes. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewulf, A., Gray, B., Putnam, L., Lewicki, R., Aarts, N., Bouwen, R., et al. (2009). Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A meta-paradigmatic perspective. Human Relations, 62(2), 155–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drake, L. D., & Donohue, W. A. (1996). Communicative framing theory in conflict resolution. Communication Research, 23, 297–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Felstiner, W., Abel, W., & Sarat, A. (1980). The emergence and transformation of disputes: Naming, blaming and claiming. Law and Society Review, 15, 630–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer, F. (2000). Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Durham and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy—Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ford, J. D. (1999). Organizational change as shifting conversations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(6), 480–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & McNamara, R. T. (2002). Resistance and the background conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 14(2), 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper Colophon.Google Scholar
  20. Hook, D. (2001). Discourse, knowledge, materiality, history: Foucault and discourse analysis. Theory & Psychology, 11(4), 521–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Iedema, R. (1999). Formalizing organizational meaning. Discourse & Society, 10(1), 49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Iedema, R. (2001). Resemiotization. Semiotica, 137, 23–39.Google Scholar
  23. Jessop, B. (2001). State theory, regulation, and autopoiesis: debates and controversies. Capital & Class, 25(3), 83–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  25. Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.Google Scholar
  26. Luhmann, N. (1990). Essays on self-reference. New York: Colombia University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Luisi, P. L. (2003). Autopoiesis: A review and appraisal. Naturwissenschaften, 90, 49–59.Google Scholar
  29. Maturana, H., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Boston: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Puchta, C., & Potter, J. (2004). Focus group practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(4), 410–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rickenbach, M. G., & Reed, A. S. (2002). Cross-boundary cooperation in a watershed context: The sentiments of private forest landowners. Environmental Management, 30(4), 584–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. Journal of Politics, 52, 510–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schön, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  36. Serbruyns, I., & Luyssaert, S. (2006). Acceptance of sticks, carrots and sermons as policy instruments for directing private forest management. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(3), 285–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Siebert, R., Toogood, M., & Knierim, A. (2006). Factors affecting European farmers’ participation in biodiversity policies. Sociologia Ruralis, 46(4), 318–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Teubner, G. (1989). How the law thinks: Toward a constructivist epistemology of law. Law & Society Review, 23(5), 727–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Teubner, G. (2009). Self-subversive justice: Contingency or transcendence formula of law? The Modern Law Review, 72(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Gossum, P., & De Maeyer, W. (2006). Performance of forest groups in achieving multifunctional forestry in Flanders. Small-Scale Forest Economics, Management and Policy, 5(1), 19–36.Google Scholar
  41. Van Herzele, A., Dendoncker, N., & Acosta-Michlik, L. (2011). Mobilisation capacity for agri-environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 92, 1023–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Herzele, A., & Van Gossum, P. (2008). Typology building for owner-specific policies and communications to advance forest conversion in small pine plantations. Landscape and Urban Planning, 87, 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Herzele, A., & Van Gossum, P. (2009). Owner-specific factors associated with conversion activity in secondary pine plantations. Forest Policy and Economics, 11(4), 230–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Herzele, A., & van Woerkum, C. (2011). On the argumentative work of map-based visualisation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 396–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Verheyen, K., Lust, N., Carnol, M., Hens, L., & Bouma, J. J. (2006). Feasibility of forest conversion: Ecological, social and economic aspects (FEFOCON). Final Report MA/04, Belgian Science Policy, Brussels.Google Scholar
  46. Wagemans, M. (2002). Institutional conditions for transformations. A plea for policy making from the perspective of constructivism. In C. Leeuwis & R. Pyburn (Eds.), Wheel barrows full of frogsSocial learning in rural resource management (pp. 245–255). Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  47. Walsh, K. C. (2004). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  49. Yanow, D. (1993). The communication of policy meanings—Implementation as interpretation and text. Policy Sciences, 26(1), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Qualitative research methods series 47. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO)BrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Communication ScienceWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations