IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v43y2026i2ne70085.html

Scientists, Knowledge, and Coalitions: A Discourse Network Analysis of Offshore Wind Debates

Author

Listed:
  • Aerang Nam

Abstract

What role do scientists play in providing policy knowledge in public debates? Drawing on the Advocacy Coalition Framework, this study examines how scientists express elements of policy knowledge—namely, policy problems, causal explanations, and expected impacts—within a contentious offshore wind policy debate in the United States. Utilizing a combined dataset of 1275 policy statements from news articles and public meeting testimonies, the study applies statistical network analysis, offering a methodological contribution to policy research. The findings show that scientists, though often viewed as neutral actors, tend to align with coalitions, distinguish themselves by emphasizing policy problems and causes supported by evidence, and play a more central role when government policy positions oppose those of their coalition. This study advances understanding of scientists' behavior as coalition members in policy conflicts and highlights the distinctive character of their policy discourse. ¿Qué papel desempeñan los científicos en la aportación de conocimiento político en los debates públicos? Basándose en el Marco de Coalición de Defensa, este estudio examina cómo los científicos expresan elementos de conocimiento político —en concreto, problemas de política, explicaciones causales e impactos esperados— en un polémico debate sobre políticas eólicas marinas en Estados Unidos. Utilizando un conjunto de datos combinado de 1275 declaraciones políticas de artículos periodísticos y testimonios de reuniones públicas, el estudio aplica el análisis estadístico de redes, ofreciendo una contribución metodológica a la investigación de políticas. Los hallazgos muestran que los científicos, aunque a menudo se consideran actores neutrales, tienden a alinearse con las coaliciones, se distinguen por enfatizar los problemas y causas de las políticas respaldadas por la evidencia, y desempeñan un papel más central cuando las posturas políticas del gobierno se oponen a las de su coalición. Este estudio profundiza en la comprensión del comportamiento de los científicos como miembros de la coalición en conflictos políticos y destaca el carácter distintivo de su discurso político. 科学家在公共辩论中提供政策知识方面扮演着怎样的角色?本研究基于倡导联盟框架,考察了科学家在美国一场备受争议的海上风电政策辩论中如何表达政策知识要素——即政策问题、因果解释和预期影响。本研究利用包含1275条政策声明的综合数据集(这些声明来自新闻报道和公众会议证词),运用统计网络分析方法,为政策研究提供了方法论贡献。研究结果表明,科学家虽然通常被视为中立角色,但他们倾向于加入联盟,并通过强调有证据支持的政策问题和原因来凸显自身立场,并在政府政策立场与其联盟立场相悖时发挥更为核心的作用。本研究加深了我们对‘科学家作为联盟成员在政策冲突中的行为’的理解,并突显了他们政策话语的独特特征。

Suggested Citation

  • Aerang Nam, 2026. "Scientists, Knowledge, and Coalitions: A Discourse Network Analysis of Offshore Wind Debates," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 43(2), March.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:43:y:2026:i:2:n:e70085
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.70085
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.70085
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.70085?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:revpol:v:43:y:2026:i:2:n:e70085. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.html .

    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.