Frame Reflection Toward The Resolution Of Intractable Policy Controversies

By M. Urner. 2016

854 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/98f30940e65e3ba37a012cddaecc2d759086063a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Mapping the challenges of Artificial Intelligence in the public sector: Evidence from public healthcare (2019, methodology): “Similar to approaches taken in analysing public policy-making (Schon & Rein, 1995), we consider framing as the work of “selecting, naming, and categorizing” (Van Hulst & Yanow, 2016, p. 99) that different groups of stakeholders – consciously or unconsciously – carry out when they highlight some…”
The lessons of policy learning: types, triggers, hindrances and pathologies (2018, unknown): “Absent this understanding of science, the epistemic mechanism degenerates into the pathology of the dialogue of the deaf (Schön and Rein, 1994), in this case the lack of understanding between the world of science and the world of public opinion and public policy.”
The political use of knowledge in the policy process (2015, background): “Schön and Rein (1994: 31), for example, discuss the fact that policy frames do not exist in an institutional vacuum, and their research shows that frames are often embedded in administrative decision-making structures (e.g., Rein and Schön 1996: 95; Schön and Rein 1994: 28).”
Transformational change: governance interventions for climate change adaptation from a continuous change perspective (2017, background): “To address these different levels, it has become common in many strands of literature to distinguish between orders of change (Bartunek and Moch 1987; Sch€on and Rein 1994, Argyris and Sch€on 1996; Levy and Merry 1986; Watzlawick, Weakland, and Fisch 1974; Kessener and Termeer 2007).”
Food security governance: a systematic literature review (2014, background): “These interactions may be characterized by various degrees of conflicts of interest, ideational struggles, and institutional deadlocks, as studies in the fields of public administration and policy studies have extensively shown (e.g., March and Olsen 1989; Schön and Rein 1994; Stone 2012).”
The “German model” of integrative multifunctional forest management—Analysing the emergence and political evolution of a forest management concept (2017, background): “More specifically, we follow Schön and Rein (1995), 23) who describe frames as “underlying structures of belief, perception and appreciation” (Schön and Rein, 1995, 23).”
EU climate policy after the crisis (2014, background): “As frames are usually tacit and taken for granted by policy actors, it is necessary to identify them on the basis of either texts and speeches used in policy debates, or decisions, regulations, and routines which constitute practices (Schön and Rein 1994, p. 34).”
Speaking to the Markets or to the People? A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis of the EU's Sovereign Debt Crisis (2014, unknown): “At the most immediate level are the ideas contained in the specific policies, norms, values, and political discourse applied to particular situations which change rapidly when new agendas emerge and ‘windows of opportunity’ open up (Kingdon 1984; Baumgartner and Jones 1993).”
Toward a processual understanding of policy integration (2016, background): “The last remark is particularly relevant for the first dimension of policy frame, which has generally been used to refer to competing or dominant problem definitions of societal problems in public policy debates (Baumgartner and Jones 2009; Schön and Rein 1994).”
Finnish forest policy in the era of bioeconomy: A pathway to sustainability? (2017, background): “How, and which, problems are framed as central sustainability challenges, and by whom, are all key questions (see also Schön and Rein, 1994).”