How policies become contested: a spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project
This article investigates how framing processes lead to polarization in the public debate on a large infrastructure project. Drawing on an analysis of newspaper articles about the “Oosterweel connection” in Antwerp (Belgium), it concludes that imaginative framing (appeals to emotions via symbolic language) and framing through evidence (appeals to rationality via factual language) mutually reinforce each other. Because of the mutual reinforcement, we talk of a spiralling motion. When evidence backs up appeals to the imagination, such as when facts back up metaphors, these appeals are endowed with authority and hence legitimacy. While this strengthens appeals that have been “proven” to be true, it also makes actors backing these appeals increasingly frustrated with other parties that still refuse to accept them. Because of their frustration, the former are spurred to launch new imaginative appeals conveying their anger and to seek new evidence to substantiate these new appeals. Going back and forth between imaginative appeals and appeals to evidence, all parties in a conflict develop their own vision of the contested issue and their own evidence base for the policy position. Over time, their tolerance for ambiguity decreases and the debate polarizes.
KeywordsFrame analysis Conflict Planning Evidence-based policy-making Spatial policy Belgium
Funding was provided by Province of Antwerp and University of Antwerp Research Foundation.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 2016: Feiten en cijfers. (2016). Cijferboekje 2016. Retrieved from http://www.portofantwerp.com/nl/publications/brochures-kaarten/cijferboekje-2015.
- Bateson, G. (1987). A theory of play and fantasy. In G. Bateson (Ed.), Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, pshychiatrie, evolution, and epistemology (pp. 138–148). Northvale: Jason Aronson Inc.Google Scholar
- Brillouet, W. (2014, February 12). Regering moet kiezen: Mobiliteit vs leefbaarheid. Gazet van Antwerpen, p. 16.Google Scholar
- Claeys, M. (2005, September 7). Schuif de Oosterweelbrug dan noordwaarts. De Standaard, p. 36.Google Scholar
- De Baere, M. (2009, March 7). Hoe de Lange Wapper crashte aan een keukentafel in Borgerhout. De Morgen, p. 26.Google Scholar
- Demeester-De meyer, W. (2009, October 16). Wivina Demeester vindt dat Oosterweel past bij een ambitieuze stad. De Morgen, p. 26.Google Scholar
- Dewulf, A., Craps, M., & Dercon, G. (2004). How issues get framed and reframed 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(3), 177–192. doi: 10.1002/casp.772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Edelman, M. (1977). Political language: Words that succeed and policies that fail. New York: Academic press.Google Scholar
- Falter, R. (2005, September 24). Diesel over de dokken. De Tijd, p. 13.Google Scholar
- Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
- Gottweis, H. (2007). Rhetoric in policy making: Between logos, ethos, and pathos. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 237–250). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
- Gray, B. (2003). Framing of environmental disputes. In R. J. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliott (Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts (pp. 11–34). Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
- Gusfield, J. R. (1981). The culture of public problems: Drinking-driving and the symbolic order. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Healey, P. (2007). Urban complexity and spatial strategies. Towards a relational planning for our times. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Laws, D., & Rein, M. (2003). Reframing practice. In M. A. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Deliberative policy analysis. Understanding governance in the network society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic books.Google Scholar
- “Stad speelt met vuur.” (2005). Het Nieuwsblad/Antwerpen, p. 20.Google Scholar
- Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox. The art of political decision making (Revised ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
- van Eeten, M. J. (1999). Dialogues of the deaf: Defining new agendas for environmental deadlocks. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
- van Lieshout, M., Dewulf, A., Aarts, N., & Termeer, C. (2011). Do scale frames matter? Scale frame mismatches in the decision making process of a “mega farm” in a small Dutch village. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 38.Google Scholar
- Verelst, J. (2009a). Een brug te ver? Hoe de Lange Wapper aan het wankelen ging. Antwerpen: Manteau.Google Scholar
- Verelst, J. (2009b, October 17). Campagne voeren op enthousiasme en overtuiging. De Morgen, p. 26.Google Scholar
- Verelst, J. (2009c, October 19). Patrick Janssens: ‘Dit wordt geen boksmatch maar een schaakspel, elke zet is van belang.’ De Morgen, p. 2.Google Scholar
- Wagenaar, H., & Hajer, M. (2003). Deliberative policy analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar