an article by Anna Sanders and Francesca Gains (University of Manchester, UK) and Claire Annesley (University of Sussex, Brighton, UK) published in British Politics Volume 14 Issue 2 (June 2019)
Abstract
The UK Coalition era 2010–2015 was characterised as being detrimental to women. However, to date, research has not comprehensively examined the impact on gender equality of the Coalition’s policies in different policy domains.
This paper examines policies that were introduced to address gender inequality and policies that had a detrimental impact on gender equality during the five years of Coalition Government.
We draw on a typology of gender equality policies which categorises policies as either addressing the class or status basis of gender inequalities and scholarships that demonstrates that the determinants of policy change will vary depending upon which type of policy is brought forward. We find that numerous status-based gender equality policies reached the government agenda as well as some class-based policies.
However, this agenda setting activity around gender equality needs to be set against the Coalition’s austerity policies, which removed significant provision for gender equality and set limits on the effectiveness of some new initiatives.
Showing posts with label policy_change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label policy_change. Show all posts
Tuesday, 25 June 2019
Friday, 21 September 2012
What makes a frame persuasive? Lessons from social identity theory
an article by Frank Mols (affiliation(s) not provided) published in Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice Volume 8 Number 3 (August 2012)
Abstract
We know from the issue-framing literature that politicians “frame” issues strategically to influence public perceptions and preferences.
We also know that there are different framing techniques.
What remains poorly understood, though, is what makes a frame persuasive.
The proposition put forward in this debate paper is that social psychological research into leadership and persuasion can shed light on this question. Social Identity theorists have shown that influential leaders are crafty “identity entrepreneurs”, whose social influence derives, not from their ability to frame issues, but from their ability to redefine the collective self-understanding.
Just how potent this framing technique is becomes visible when examining the way in which radical opposition leaders call the electorate to arms. As will be shown with the help of two examples, by persuading the electorate of an imminent threat to the collective “us”, radical opposition leaders are able to gain considerable control not only over whether an “issue” becomes regarded as a problem requiring a policy-solution, but also over whose evidence/knowledge counts.
Hazel’s comment:
I think that this explains something that most of us instinctively understood about evidence-based policy.
Abstract
We know from the issue-framing literature that politicians “frame” issues strategically to influence public perceptions and preferences.
We also know that there are different framing techniques.
What remains poorly understood, though, is what makes a frame persuasive.
The proposition put forward in this debate paper is that social psychological research into leadership and persuasion can shed light on this question. Social Identity theorists have shown that influential leaders are crafty “identity entrepreneurs”, whose social influence derives, not from their ability to frame issues, but from their ability to redefine the collective self-understanding.
Just how potent this framing technique is becomes visible when examining the way in which radical opposition leaders call the electorate to arms. As will be shown with the help of two examples, by persuading the electorate of an imminent threat to the collective “us”, radical opposition leaders are able to gain considerable control not only over whether an “issue” becomes regarded as a problem requiring a policy-solution, but also over whose evidence/knowledge counts.
Hazel’s comment:
I think that this explains something that most of us instinctively understood about evidence-based policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
