4.6 Understand current thinking in the policy network

When targeting experts in a policy community with a new piece of analysis, advocates strive to persuade them to buy into their interpretation of the problem, their assessment of the options available, and ultimately their recommendations, so that their thinking and proposals become part of the new conventional wisdom on the issue. This speaks to an idea of a commonly shared current interpretation of any policy issue, which is also commonly called the “dominant discourse” or “policy narrative.”¹ Such a narrative or story often includes a framing of the problem, an interpretation of the effectiveness of the current approach, a bank of evidence to support these interpretations, and an elaboration of the possible solutions available. Very importantly, there is also a commonly shared language or jargon around the issue. Of course, there may be competing interpretations of all aspects of the problem; nevertheless, there is usually a significant overlap in the current opinion on the policy challenge itself. Having a good understanding of all aspects of the current narrative or thinking on a policy issue is a crucial foundation for constructing an advocacy message that effectively engages target audiences and is considered a relevant contribution to the policy debate around the issue.

Two more specific points about policy narratives are worth raising:

Policy narratives of the past inform current thinking.

Understanding past policy narratives is also important, especially knowing the kind of information or evidence on which previous decisions have been based.² In our experience of transition contexts, this may be particularly important as many decisions have been made with low-quality and/or very limited empirical data sets. In fact, decisions are often lead by a combination of the current interpretation of international best practice by leading experts in the capital city and the often-limited data available in the central statistics office. This presents both an opportunity as well as the obvious challenge, as any in-depth policy research that is informed by primary data from the national context has an advantage; however, in a culture that is unused to producing or using policy research, you may have to sell the idea of the research itself as a worthwhile contribution to more effective decision-making, in addition to the new evidence it generates. These realities often result in narratives that are value-heavy and evidence-light and may continue to be strongly defended as the main experts have presented and defended these stories for a considerable time.

Shaping your proposals to fit with how the issue is framed ensures your ideas are perceived as relevant.

The way problems are framed is a particularly important aspect of current thinking which impacts greatly on how you frame your own contribution to the debate. For example, a discussion on the lack of delivery of social services to a minority population in the minority language can be framed by various actors as an issue of human rights, public service delivery, or even national security, if some actors view the minority as a threat. Mapping and understanding the various lines, arguments, and evidence in the problem framing and broader thinking about the topic is essential for the development of an advocacy campaign that is immediately seen as relevant and targeted. If you fail to address the issue without at least reference to how it is framed, your contribution can and will be readily perceived as out of touch and irrelevant, no matter how strong your research and evidence may be. One of the cases analyzed is a very good illustration of how reframing the policy narrative can be a powerful strategy in moving the process.