The NPF Community Shares its Perspective on Priorities for Future Development of the Framework
In the spring of 2024, after about a decade or so of development of the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), the community determined it was time to take stock of where we are and where we need to go. NPF researchers across the globe showed up for our assessment in many ways – online zoom forums, personal emails, survey feedback and more– in an impressive demonstration of our shared commitment to progress and the collegiality of our growing community of researchers. Your thoughtful and strategic ideas about the values, strengths, weaknesses, and priorities of our research community are shaping the foundational concepts for our Research Coordination Network (RCN) proposal for the US National Science Foundation. As our small drafting team moves towards our goal of submitting this proposal in early 2025, we find ourselves turning again and again to the insights and ideas that emerged from these discussions and from our online survey.
We received over 100 “hits” on the online survey, which yielded 68 responses appropriate for analysis. We were pleased to reach a broad cross-section of our community: 14 individuals who are new to the NPF, diving into the literature and attending conference presentations; 19 people who are becoming well-acquainted with the NPF (presenting at conferences, teaching the NPF and/or using its tools in your advocacy); and 35 of you who are experienced with the NPF, with a publication track record in addition to other activities. Our 12 student respondents are represented across all three levels; we included them there and also pulled them out for separate analysis.
The figures below represent the answers to the two prioritization questions on the survey. Q4 asked your opinions of what new or enhanced activities would most benefit the community as a whole and Q5 referred to what would be best for you personally. (The survey is now closed, but you can review the full text of the questions and answers here.) We’ll highlight a few observations about the responses here.
Several areas rated highly among most groups and for both the community and personal benefit: opportunities to get together for discussions and works-in-progress presentations at workshops, a hub for sharing research tools like codebooks and methods guides, developing financial resources for research and dissertation support, as well as promoting stronger connections between researchers and advocacy communities outside of academia.
A couple of activities diverged in terms of their perceived importance to individual researchers vis-a-vis the community as a whole. For example, regular dissemination of information with jobs, projects, updates and other relevant NPF content showed up on the low end of community priorities, as did creating a hub with teaching tools, such as videos and slide decks. However, both of these appeared to be much more valuable for you personally, especially to specific groups such as students (info dissemination) and those experienced in the NPF (sharing teaching tools). In the other direction, many people prioritized the importance of integrating NPF concepts into new methods and software for the community as a whole, but rated it more in the middle of the pack in terms of the personal importance and value of that activity.
The survey also asked four open-ended questions; one about priorities for growth and development; two about culture, values and commitments; and a concluding catch-all “Anything else you’d like to tell us?”
Several important themes emerged (with some specific comments highlighted):
We need to focus on methods.
“Methods continue to be the area needed for most development.”
“Increase access to important datasets. Expand methods using new technologies. Collaborative coding work and publishing.”
We need to focus on theoretical elaboration, too.
“There are a lot of weak hypotheses and unclear concepts; these need both concentrated theoretical attention and to be applied to multiple datasets to make them more clear.”
“Theoretical expansion (narrativity scales, salience of character types, macro research development).”
We want more opportunities to spend time together and work together (and a structure to organize convenings and shared resources.)
“I would like for there to be more interaction among NPF researchers that goes beyond presenting papers at workshops, convenings to think through conceptual questions together, and beginners and orientation workshops to welcome in students, teachers and practitioners.”
“I would hope that the construction of a system that provides basic resources to demonstrate the value of the NPF and its operation (online videos, workshops, trainings, etc.). I also think that a priority should be connecting scholars, students, and practitioners to one another in order to pursue grants, support dissertations, and conduct analyses in response to community needs/desires.”
We have important opportunities for multiple types of connections.
Global application and cross-country collaboration:
“The NPF was initially used to analyze policies from the United States or Canada. Although the number of papers applying the framework to analyze policies from other countries keeps growing, I hope that the RCN will encourage researchers from other countries to apply the NPF tools to analyze their domestic policies.”
“Conducting comparative research across countries. The NPF community should research the same issue with the same data collection instruments in several countries. This would really further the NPF as a theory and the integration of the community.”
With scholars from other traditions and disciplines.
“Exploring opportunities to further integrate NPF within other policy process theories would be helpful.”
“There should be less emphasis on trying to establish NPF as some sort of dominant framework (it's not) but more efforts at linking with other narrative researchers who use narrative approaches that differ from the NPF.”
With public administrators and policy advocates.
“Priority is to connect with the people working around the world using NPF, researchers, industrialists, government, and bureaucrats. It is essential to build a community using narratives in their work to establish a policy or a framework.”
“Reimagine collaborations with public institutions and non-profits to study and boost their mission-related work involving narratives and imagery.”
“I would love a list of scholars tied to specialties that [public and nonprofit] administrators can turn to for consultation regarding communicating policy change.”
The survey shared the recently drafted statement of principles and asked which of these (and other) positive attributes, values and commitments of NPF’s culture should be preserved and cultivated. Many people mentioned the openness, warmth and collegiality of NPF researchers, as well as the community’s commitment to rigorous scholarship and constructive feedback. Several survey respondents commented positively on the “flat hierarchies” among scholars and the interaction of early career and experienced scholars as a distinguishing and valuable feature of the NPF community. One comment encapsulates widespread sentiment here: “The NPF community has, in my opinion, emerged as a leader within the policy sciences in terms of its ability to create an open source framework. Very few communities can boast the level of rigor and transparency as the NPF community. I'd also be remiss if I didn't add that as a relative newcomer to the NPF community, I've found it to be very welcoming and collegial.” Many also remarked that the generalizability and practicality of the framework were important attributes to continue to foster, including this respondent, “‘Clear enough to be wrong’ and practical enough for practitioners are hugely important principles to me.” People frequently mentioned the importance of normative values and advancing democratic governance as “vital in today’s world,” with one respondent asserting a common sentiment that “A theoretical framework should have a meaningful and valuable contribution to the democratic discourse.”
When asked about possible improvements to our community’s culture, values and commitments, several areas stood out. While improving global connections (especially outside the US) rated towards the middle-to-low end of priority rankings in Q4 and Q5, it was the most common response to our open-ended question about culture change. Respondents shared a strong desire to improve inclusion of scholars working on research topics outside of North America through better cross-national collaboration, more dialogue with researchers in the Global South and other underrepresented geographies, and intentional international community development and mentorship: “More regional NPF communities outside of US (and Europe), focusing on mentoring young scholars from around the world that might lack supervisors or senior colleagues with knowledge of the NPF (or even theories of the policy process).”
Almost as frequently, respondents mentioned a need to elevate qualitative research and interpretive approaches, both within NPF methodology and through closer collaboration with other traditions. One respondent called for “deeper appreciation of alternative perspectives beyond neopositivism & deductive theory testing. Better guidance for qualitative research designs” while another shared that “I am under the impression that researchers in the (expanding) NPF qualitative/interpretive tradition may have difficulties in getting recognition for their work.” Several people voiced an interest in improving the NPF’s ability to account for the interaction of human difference (such as socioeconomic status and race) and narratives on policy outcomes: “I would like for the NPF to take a more critical turn, that is, to intentionally try to theorize about policy stories in the contexts of racial difference and discrimination, gender, etc. It lacks tools, for example, to explain how policy stories with Black villains and white villains would have different effects in our policy systems. This body of work could require both a cultural shift and a shift in research themes.”
These comments provide valuable opportunities for reflection. Many of you offered thoughtful critiques of biases, habits, leanings and tendencies in the NPF that are ripe opportunities for improvement; these are very much seen and appreciated. If this blog post has spurred some additional thoughts and ideas, we welcome you to share them by sending an email to narrativepolicy@gmail.com.
Overall, survey responses reflected a very positive view of the NPF and a hopeful outlook on our future. Several of you used the adjectives “exciting” and even “thrilling” to discuss the prospect of securing an RCN grant. A few final quotations represent these sentiments:
“I have always found the community to truly aspire to #5 [an open source framework that welcomes diverse ideas, perspectives, methods, and experiences], being very welcome and open to those interested in the NPF. NPF scholars maintain a rigor that I respect while encouraging researchers to push the boundaries of NPF in ways that help it grow.”
________
“I think it’s [the RCN] a great idea. We need more spaces for policy scholars that value theoretical development, methodological sophistication, and practical value. I’m increasingly thinking about steering students away from taking a field in policy, because I fear that the policy theory community isn’t growing enough to support new scholars. This idea makes me hopeful that there can be new avenues for growth.”
________
“It’s a wonderful community and I’m so glad to be a part of it!”
– Kathy Colville, PhD, on behalf of the NPF Strategic Plan Steering Committee
Ariell Bertrand, Doctoral Student of Education Policy, Michigan State University
Hilda Broqvist, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Mid-Sweden University
Deserai Anderson Crow, PhD, Professor, School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver
Mike Jones, PhD, Professor of Public Policy and Public Affairs, University of Tennessee Knoxville
Johanna Kuenzler, PhD, Research Associate, German University of Administrative Sciences - Speyer
Rachel McGovern, MPA, Doctoral Student of Political Science, University of Tennessee Knoxville
Melissa Merry, PhD, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Louisville
Honey Minkowitz, PhD, Assistant Professor of Policy, University of Nebraska Omaha
Aaron Smith-Walter, PhD, Associate Professor of Political Science at University of Massachusetts Lowell
Comments