Tamara Metze

This paper redefines wicked problems to better include the emotional dimensions in the social construction of these problems. Drawing on research into policy controversies and the cultural politics of emotions, it examines how government leaders use emotional storylines tied to specific objects and thereby shape the contested‐ness of such problems. The study is based on an interpretative analysis of 2381 newspaper articles (2012–2018) and 68 policy documents concerning earthquakes induced by natural gas‐production in the north of the Netherlands. The findings show a shift from emotional storylines about material impacts of the earthquakes to those about distrust in relationships between governmental layers. The study highlights that government leaders must account for evolving emotional dynamics in governing wicked problems, as they add complexity. It underscores the importance of relational dimensions, including interactions between emotions, objects, and different levels of government.

Policymakers in the European Union embrace collaborations of businesses, governments, and academia to develop a sustainable and circular bioeconomy. These so-called Triple Helix clusters aim to stimulate innovation and learning. However, Triple Helix collaborators also face conflicting perspectives on the desirability and directionality of the bioeconomy transition, either within a cluster or with societal actors affected by a cluster’s innovations. While previous Triple Helix research focussed on how to broaden the cluster collaboration towards a more inclusive range of actors to handle such contestations, we study how cluster partners deal with uninvited input from societal actors that do not form part of a cluster. We conceptualize this input as societal back talk and distinguish organizational hearing, listening, and learning capabilities to explore how back talk contributes to innovation in three bioeconomy clusters in the Netherlands, Germany, and Ireland. Our qualitative case study analysis is based on interview transcripts, newspaper articles, and policy and planning documents. Results indicate that collaborating partners generally do not hear uninvited back talk that fundamentally challenges their tacit beliefs, because partners focus on informing the public about what they consider techno-economic benefits of their projects. As a consequence, collaborators become ‘insiders’, which hinders listening to divergent problem definitions and alternative solutions of ‘outsiders’. Learning from uninvited back talk is therefore restricted to minor adjustments. To avoid innovative solutions remaining unexplored as a result of this discursive lock-in, Triple Helix collaborators must engage in hearing and listening to critical societal actors by establishing a reflective, two-directional dialogue.

Climate change is a heated discussion topic in public arenas such as social media. Both texts and visuals play key roles in the debate, as they can complement, contradict, or reinforce each other in nuanced ways. It is therefore urgently needed to study the messages as multimodal objects to better understand the polarized debate about climate change impacts and policies. Multimodal representation models such as CLIP are known to be able to transfer knowledge across domains and modalities, enabling the investigation of textual and visual semantics together. Yet they are not directly able to distinguish the nuances between supporting and sceptic climate change stances. This paper explores a simple but effective strategy combining modality fusion and domain-knowledge enhancing to prepare CLIP-based models with knowledge of climate change stances. A multimodal Dutch Twitter dataset is collected and experimented with the proposed strategy, which increased the macro-average F1 score across stances from 51% to 86%. The outcomes can be applied in both data science and public policy studies, to better analyse how the combined use of texts and visuals generates meanings during debates, in the context of climate change and beyond.

Since Rein and Schön developed their approach to policy framing analysis in the1990s, a range of approaches to policy framing have emerged to inform our understanding of policy processes. Prior attempts to illuminate the diversity of approaches to framing in public policy have largely “stayed in their lane,” making distinctions in approaches within shared epistemic communities. The aim in this paper is to map different approaches to framing used in policy sciences journals, to articulate what each contributes to the understanding of the policy process, and to provide a heuristic to aid in deciding how to use the diverse approaches in framing analysis and to further the dialogue across different approaches. To develop the heuristic, we manually coded and analyzed 68 articles published between 1997 and 2018 using “frame” or “framing” in their title or abstract from four policy journals: Critical Policy Studies, Journal of European Public Policy, Policy Sciences, and Policy Studies Journal. We identified five approaches, which we label: sensemaking, discourse, contestation, explanatory and institutional. We have found that these approaches do not align with a simple binary between interpretive and positivist but show variation, particularly along the lines of aims, methodology and methods. In the discussion, we suggest that these five approaches raise four key questions that animate framing studies in policy analysis: (1) Do frames influence policies or are policies manifestations of framing? (2) What is the role of frame contestation in policy conflict? (3) How can the study of frames or framing reveal unheard voices? And (4) how do certain frames/framings become dominant? By introducing these questions, we offer a fresh way scholars might discuss frames and framing in the policy sciences across approaches, to highlight the distinct yet complementary ways they illuminate policy processes.

In response to a growing understanding that scientific knowledge is not always trusted at face value, many universities organise dialogues to `open up' to society. In four exploratory case studies at the Dutch Wageningen University & Research, we looked into the adherence to dialogue principles and the