Discourse network analysis: policy debates as dynamic networks

Political discourse is the verbal interaction between political actors. Political actors make normative claims about policies conditional on each other. This renders discourse a dynamic network phenomenon. Accordingly, the structure and dynamics of policy debates can be analyzed with a combination of content analysis and dynamic network analysis. After annotating statements of actors in text sources, networks can be created from these structured data, such as congruence or conflict networks at the actor or concept level, affiliation networks of actors and concept stances, and longitudinal versions of these networks. The resulting network data reveal important properties of a debate, such as the structure of advocacy coalitions or discourse coalitions, polarization and consensus formation, and underlying endogenous processes like popularity, reciprocity, or social balance. The added value of discourse network analysis over survey-based policy network research is that policy processes can be analyzed from a longitudinal perspective. Inferential techniques for understanding the micro-level processes governing political discourse are being developed

The Historical Turn in Democratization Studies: A New Research Agenda for Europe and Beyond. CES Working Paper Series No. 177, 2010

The paper lays the theoretical and methodological foundations of a new historically-minded approach to the comparative study of democratization, centered on the analysis of the creation, development and interaction of democratic institutions. Historically, democracy did not emerge as a singular coherent whole but rather as a set of different institutions, which resulted from conflicts across multiple lines of social and political cleavage that took place at different moments in time. The theoretical advantage of this approach is illustrated by highlighting the range of new variables that come into focus in explaining democracy's emergence. Rather than class being the single variable that explains how and why democracy came about, we can see how religious conflict, ethnic cleavages, and the diffusion of ideas played a much greater role in Europe's democratization than has typically been appreciated. Above all, we argue that political parties were decisive players in how and why democracy emerged in Europe and should be at the center of future analyses

Taking up the cudgels against gay rights? Trends and trajectories in African Christian theologies on homosexuality

Against the background of the HIV epidemic and the intense public controversy on homosexuality in African societies, this article investigates the discourses of academic African Christian theologians on homosexuality. Distinguishing some major strands in African theology, that is, inculturation, liberation, women’s and reconstruction theology, the article examines how the central concepts of culture, liberation, justice, and human rights function in these discourses. On the basis of a qualitative analysis of a large number of publications, the article shows that stances of African theologians are varying from silence and rejection to acceptance. Although many African theologians have taken up the cudgels against gay rights, some “dissident voices” break the taboo and develop more inclusive concepts of African identity and African Christianity

The presidential politics of climate discourse: energy frames, policy, and political tactics from the 2016 Primaries in the United States

his study presents the results of an investigation into the frequency in which four candidates of the 2016 United States Presidential Primary season communicated their political positions on climate change, and how they subsequently framed these stances in numerous contextual drivers alongside energy policies. A systematic content analysis of political debates, campaign speeches, and press statements reveals how Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz undertook in vote-seeking behaviour to create distinct stances on energy and climate issues. Results indicate not only partisan polarization, but also that stakeholder dynamics, control of communications and communication frequency are inter-dependent and reinforcing in generating differing climate positions. Institutional dynamics exacerbate these ‘logic schisms’ rather than providing a means of collective decision making. We test such climate discourse according to a typology of scientific, economic, national security, and moral frames. We also assess how particular frames morph over time, and are impacted by exogenous factors such as global climate change negotiations, national environmental crises (such as the Flint Water Crisis), and contestation over stranded assets and fossil fuel divestment. We find that political climate discourse must communicate to collective, bipartisan interests whilst avoiding politically divisive climate frames

Topic Independent Identification of Agreement and Disagreement in Social Media Dialogue

Research on the structure of dialogue has been hampered for years because large dialogue corpora have not been available. This has impacted the dialogue research community's ability to develop better theories, as well as good off the shelf tools for dialogue processing. Happily, an increasing amount of information and opinion exchange occur in natural dialogue in online forums, where people share their opinions about a vast range of topics. In particular we are interested in rejection in dialogue, also called disagreement and denial, where the size of available dialogue corpora, for the first time, offers an opportunity to empirically test theoretical accounts of the expression and inference of rejection in dialogue. In this paper, we test whether topic-independent features motivated by theoretical predictions can be used to recognize rejection in online forums in a topic independent way. Our results show that our theoretically motivated features achieve 66% accuracy, an improvement over a unigram baseline of an absolute 6%.Comment: @inproceedings{Misra2013TopicII, title={Topic Independent Identification of Agreement and Disagreement in Social Media Dialogue}, author={Amita Misra and Marilyn A. Walker}, booktitle={SIGDIAL Conference}, year={2013}

A conflict of visions: Ideas shaping wildlife trade policy toward African megafauna

Among factors that threaten wild populations of African megafauna, wildlife trade has gained prominence as a global policy issue, with concerted international campaigns aiming to influence the trade of species such as elephants, rhinos and lions. Trade policy is strongly contested, confounding attempts to develop coherent approaches across jurisdictions and through international mechanisms such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). This undermines conservation efforts. Understanding the drivers of such conflict may help to address this problem. Scholars of political science increasingly recognise the power of ideas as drivers within policy processes. Guided by this literature, we developed an analytical framework and conducted a thematic analysis to examine the ideas driving wildlife trade policy conflict. Our nested case study approach examined debates over trade policy toward African elephants, rhinos and lions at two levels: the international policy arena of CITES and within a single country, South Africa. Informed by earlier literature, we tracked the evolution of international trade policy debates over a 4‐year period (2016–2019) and analysed submissions to a national policy review process in South Africa that took place during 2020. During the study period, state and non‐state actors contributed to vigorous trade policy debates within seven key thematic issues across the case study species. Arguments were driven by both cognitive ideas, which specify cause‐and‐effect relationships, and normative ideas, which are values‐based and especially salient elements of anti‐trade stances. Fusing these cognitive and normative ideational elements, we identified three distinct overarching narratives relating to wildlife trade policy. These three narratives align with broader environmental policy and political narratives and elucidate inherent tensions within the CITES arena. They also reveal differing ethical interpretations and perceptions of risk and precaution. Policy implications. Wildlife trade policy conflict is driven at least in part by competing ideological visions, which may be entrenched by the CITES Appendix listing system. The structural role of CITES in perpetuating this polarisation—and the consequences thereof—warrants further research. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog

Legal Classics: After Deconstructing the Legal Canon

The debate over the canon has gripped the University in recent years. Defenders of the canon argue that canonical texts embody timeless and universal themes, but critics argue that the process of canonization subordinates certain people and viewpoints within society in order to assert the existence of a univocal tradition. Originating primarily in the field of literary criticism, the canon debate recently has emerged in legal theory. Professor Francis J. Mootz argues that the issues raised by the canon debate are relevant to legal scholarship, teaching and practice. After reviewing the extensive commentary on the literary canon, Professor Mootz criticizes the polemical structure of the debate and asserts that an appreciation of classical, as opposed to canonical, texts opens the way for a productive inquiry. He defines a classical text as one that both shapes contemporary concerns and also serves as a point of reference for revising these concerns. Classical texts enable critical perspectives rather than submitting to them, he continues, because they provide the arena for debates about issues of public concern. Using Hadley v. Baxendale as an example of a legal classic, Professor Mootz contends that the power of such a classical text is its ability to shape hotly contested legal debates. Our time . . . seems unpropitious for thinking about the question of the classic, for . . . it seems to be a simple either/or that requires merely a choosing of sides: for or against? back to the classics or away from them? Our time calls not for thinking but a vote. And it may well be too late for thinking about the classic in any case, for the vote is already in, and the nays have it

Attitude Extremity and Party Identification Strength on Perceived Polarization

Political polarization is a theme common in the media especially during presidential elections. Not everyone sees America as being extremely polarized. Some people view political parties as being more similar rather than opposites (Fiorina, Abrams, \u26 Pope, 2010). Why do some people perceive more political polarization than others? What influences perceived polarization? This paper looks at how one’s own attitude extremity and party identification strength relate to perceived polarization. For our study we examined six different political issues, political ideology and party identification by measuring participant’s self-attitude and perceived attitudes of political parties. We suggest that the extremity of an individual’s attitude on a political will predict how much polarization they perceive between political parties on that political issue. This could be partly due to the projection of attitudinal processes. If an individual reflects on the process of the formation of their own attitudes, such as extensive thought or emotional arousal, that person might project that same process onto members of the other political party (Van Boven, Judd, \u26 Sherman, 2012). Therefore the more extreme someone’s own attitude is, the more extreme they may perceive others’ attitudes, but on the opposite side of an issue. We suggest that party identification might be formed differently than political attitudes and therefore does not predict perceived polarization between parties. Influences of perceived polarization and the consequences of greater perceived polarization are discussed