IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v51y2018i3d10.1007_s11077-018-9322-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Aristotelian framing: logos, ethos, pathos and the use of evidence in policy frames

Author

Listed:
  • Iris Stucki

    (KPM Center for Public Management at the University of Bern)

  • Fritz Sager

    (KPM Center for Public Management at the University of Bern)

Abstract

In this research note, we propose to complement the analytical toolbox for framing analyses with the categories of Aristotelian rhetoric. As our case, we analyse the function of the use of evidence in frame building in the context of Swiss direct-democratic campaigns preceding votes on smoking bans. Based on rhetoric, a frame can be considered to contain three interrelated elements: (1) political arguments (logos), (2) cultural symbols (ethos), and (3) emotional appeal (pathos). By comparing evidence-based arguments with arguments that do not refer to evidence, the research note illustrates that backing arguments (logos) by evidence increases their trustworthiness (ethos) but not their emotional appeal (pathos). We consider the Aristotelian categories a fruitful tool to enlarge existing framing research with regard to the use of evidence.

Suggested Citation

  • Iris Stucki & Fritz Sager, 2018. "Aristotelian framing: logos, ethos, pathos and the use of evidence in policy frames," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 373-385, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:51:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11077-018-9322-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-018-9322-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-018-9322-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-018-9322-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    2. Kevin Arceneaux, 2012. "Cognitive Biases and the Strength of Political Arguments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 56(2), pages 271-285, April.
    3. Ryane Straus, 2011. "Citizens’ use of policy symbols and frames," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(1), pages 13-34, March.
    4. Alan Finlayson, 2012. "Rhetoric and the Political Theory of Ideologies," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 60(4), pages 751-767, December.
    5. Wolf, Eva & Van Dooren, Wouter, 2017. "How Policies Become Contested: A Spiral of Imagination and Evidence in a Large Infrastructure Project," SocArXiv 8grp4, Center for Open Science.
    6. Jennifer Jerit, 2009. "How Predictive Appeals Affect Policy Opinions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 411-426, April.
    7. Farhad Mukhtarov & Andrea Gerlak, 2014. "Epistemic forms of integrated water resources management: towards knowledge versatility," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(2), pages 101-120, June.
    8. E. E. A. Wolf & Wouter Van Dooren, 2017. "How policies become contested: a spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(3), pages 449-468, September.
    9. Nancy Shulock, 1999. "The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 226-244.
    10. Michael Gruszczynski & Sarah Michaels, 2012. "The evolution of elite framing following enactment of legislation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(4), pages 359-384, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Graham Haughton & Phil McManus, 2022. "Becoming WestConnex – Becoming Sydney: Object-oriented politics, contested storylines and the multi-scalar imaginaries of building a motorway network in Sydney, Australia," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(4), pages 913-932, June.
    2. Stucki, Iris, 2018. "Evidence-based arguments in direct democracy: The case of smoking bans in Switzerland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 148-156.
    3. Maarten Loopmans & Linde Smits & Anneleen Kenis, 2022. "Rethinking environmental justice: capability building, public knowledge and the struggle against traffic-related air pollution," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 40(3), pages 705-723, May.
    4. Jennifer A. Kagan & Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible & Duncan Gilchrist & Ramiro Berardo & Hongtao Yi, 2023. "Advancing scholarship on policy conflict through perspectives from oil and gas policy actors," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(3), pages 573-594, September.
    5. Imrat Verhoeven & Tamara Metze, 2022. "Heated policy: policy actors’ emotional storylines and conflict escalation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 223-237, June.
    6. Lars Dorren & Wouter Dooren, 2021. "Chameleonic knowledge: a study of ex ante analysis in large infrastructure policy processes," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(2), pages 289-312, June.
    7. Coppens, Tom & Van Dooren, Wouter & Thijssen, Peter, 2018. "Public opposition and the neighborhood effect: How social interaction explains protest against a large infrastructure project," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 633-640.
    8. van Helden, Jan & Caperchione, Eugenio & Pattaro, Anna Francesca, 2023. "Use and non-use of accounting information: The case of controversial projects in public and non-profit settings," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    9. Heine Klaus & Mause Karsten, 2003. "Politikberatung als informationsökonomisches Problem," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 223(4), pages 479-490, August.
    10. MÃ¥ns Nilsson, 2005. "The Role of Assessments and Institutions for Policy Learning: A Study on Swedish Climate and Nuclear Policy Formation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 38(4), pages 225-249, December.
    11. Michael Howlett, 2009. "Policy Advice in Multi-Level Governance Systems: Sub-National Policy Analysts and Analysis," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(3), pages 1-16, January.
    12. Pannell, David J., 2004. "Effectively communicating economics to policy makers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 1-21.
    13. Yolanda Kodrzycki & Pingkang David Yu, 2005. "New approaches to ranking economics journals," Working Papers 05-12, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
    14. Justin Longo & Alan Rodney Dobell, 2018. "The Limits of Policy Analytics: Early Examples and the Emerging Boundary of Possibilities," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 5-17.
    15. Arthur Cheng-Hsui Chen & Hsiu-Hui Wu, 2020. "How Should Green Messages Be Framed: Single or Double?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-16, May.
    16. Anna Wesselink & Hal Colebatch & Warren Pearce, 2014. "Evidence and policy: discourses, meanings and practices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(4), pages 339-344, December.
    17. Herkes, Feie J. & Zouridis, Stavros, 2023. "The legitimacy of land use decisions by public authorities in the Netherlands: Results from a survey experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    18. Claire A Dunlop, 2014. "The Possible Experts: How Epistemic Communities Negotiate Barriers to Knowledge Use in Ecosystems Services Policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 32(2), pages 208-228, April.
    19. Michael Gruszczynski & Sarah Michaels, 2012. "The evolution of elite framing following enactment of legislation," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(4), pages 359-384, December.
    20. Schlaufer, Caroline, 2018. "The contribution of evaluations to the discourse quality of newspaper content," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 157-165.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:51:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11077-018-9322-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.