by Johanna Kuenzler & Bettina Stauffer
The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) is a handy tool for policy scholars, shedding light on the strategic uses of narratives in policy debates. However, a critical distinction often remains overlooked in existing literature: the separation of narrative elements focusing on substance from those centered on process. In our study, we emphasize the significance of this differentiation.
When we talk about a policy’s “substance,” we refer to its design — the core problem it addresses and the instruments applied to solve the problem. On the other hand, “process” pertains to the dynamics of influence and power surrounding the policy. To illustrate this distinction, consider the following example:
Narrative 1: We need to stop fossil fuel companies from jeopardizing our children’s future by preventing them from extracting climate-damaging energy sources.
Narrative 2: We need to stop fossil fuel companies from jeopardizing our children’s future by curbing their excessive lobbying against the introduction of a Green New Deal.
Both narratives cast fossil fuel companies as villains, thus signaling to readers that their behavior is problematic. However, Narrative 1 delves into the substance of the issue, focusing on the environmental consequences of the companies’ business. In contrast, Narrative 2 centers on the policy process, highlighting the lobbying practices of these companies that impede progress in climate policy.
To situate this distinction within the NPF, we introduce the concept of “policy dimension.” This dimension classifies narrative content as either substance-focused or process-focused. To assess its utility, we applied this concept to the case of the Child and Adult Protection Policy (CAPP) in Zurich, Switzerland.
Our methodology involved compiling a comprehensive dataset of parliamentary debates and newspaper articles. We then scrutinized these sources to ascertain the analytical value of the policy dimension within narrative content. Our findings revealed the prevalence of both substance and process narratives in CAPP debates. Additionally, we observed that the context in which a narrative is presented influences its policy dimension. Parliamentary debates, for instance, exhibited higher rates of process-oriented narrative elements compared to newspapers.
In summary, the “policy dimension” concept provides researchers with a more nuanced and precise tool for analyzing how narratives function in the policy process, and we look forward to seeing future applications.
We thank Eli Polley for supporting us in the drafting of this blog post.
You can read the original article in Policy Studies Journal at
Kuenzler, Johanna and Stauffer, Bettina. 2023. “ Policy dimension: A new concept to distinguish substance from process in the Narrative Policy Framework.” Policy Studies Journal, 51, 11–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12482.
About the Authors
Johanna Kuenzler is a research associate for public policy at the German University for Administrative Sciences Speyer. Her main areas of expertise are the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) and organizational reputation. Empirically, she focuses on social and environmental policies as well as on animal welfare.
Learn more at: www.johanna-kuenzler.com
Follow her on X: @jo_kuenzler
Bettina Stauffer is a research associate for public policy at the Center for Public Management of the University of Bern. Her research focuses on policy making and public policy implementation, particularly in the areas of social and health policy as well as child and adult protection.
Policy Studies Journal Blog 