IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v55y2022i3d10.1007_s11077-022-09455-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Space for stories: legislative narratives and the establishment of the US Space Force

Author

Listed:
  • Jonathan W. A. Ruff

    (Oregon State University)

  • Gregory Stelmach

    (Oregon State University)

  • Michael D. Jones

    (University of Tennessee-Knoxville)

Abstract

In June 2018, President Trump directed the development of a sixth branch of the US Armed Forces—the Space Force—whose primary mission is to enhance the space operations of the USA and its allies. In this paper, we utilize the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) to examine legislative meso-level narratives surrounding the advocacy for and in opposition to the establishment of a US Space Force. After reviewing the literature on the NPF and US space-defense policy, we conduct a content analysis to discern the policy narratives within congressional testimonies encompassing the development of the Space Force. Included in this content analysis is a unique contribution to the NPF literature’s conceptualization of plot. Leveraging these data, we describe and analyze the policy narratives produced by Republicans and Democrats. Our main findings highlight significant partisan differences in the construction of narratives on the US Space Force, including contrasting viewpoints on the role of the Space Force, the setting of space as a domain of war, and military cooperation with commercial and international groups. We conclude with a discussion of the substantive implications of our findings, including the potential impacts of partisan narratives on the future role of the Space Force. Finally, we propose a new route to improve reliability in the study of NPF plots using a two-dimensional orientation to plot: policy outcome and time.

Suggested Citation

  • Jonathan W. A. Ruff & Gregory Stelmach & Michael D. Jones, 2022. "Space for stories: legislative narratives and the establishment of the US Space Force," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 509-553, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:55:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11077-022-09455-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-022-09455-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-022-09455-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-022-09455-5?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. Deserai A. Crow & Andrea Lawlor, 2016. "Media in the Policy Process: Using Framing and Narratives to Understand Policy Influences," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 33(5), pages 472-491, September.
    2. Clio Andris & David Lee & Marcus J Hamilton & Mauro Martino & Christian E Gunning & John Armistead Selden, 2015. "The Rise of Partisanship and Super-Cooperators in the U.S. House of Representatives," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-14, April.
    3. Hannes R. Stephan, 2020. "Shaping the Scope of Conflict in Scotland’s Fracking Debate: Conflict Management and the Narrative Policy Framework," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(1), pages 64-91, January.
    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. Caroline Schlaufer & Marina Pilkina & Tatiana Chalaya & Tatiana Khaynatskaya & Tatiana Voronova & Aleksandra Pozhivotko, 2022. "How do civil society organizations communicate in an authoritarian setting? A narrative analysis of the Russian waste management debate," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 730-751, November.
    2. Neal, Zachary & Domagalski, Rachel & Yan, Xiaoqin, 2020. "Party Control as a Context for Homophily in Collaborations among US House Representatives, 1981 -- 2015," OSF Preprints qwdxs, Center for Open Science.
    3. Huremović, Kenan & Ozkes, Ali I., 2022. "Polarization in networks: Identification–alienation framework," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    4. Hannes R. Stephan, 2020. "Shaping the Scope of Conflict in Scotland’s Fracking Debate: Conflict Management and the Narrative Policy Framework," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(1), pages 64-91, January.
    5. Stone, Daniel F., 2019. "“Unmotivated bias” and partisan hostility: Empirical evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 12-26.
    6. Andrew Pattison & William Cipolli & Jose Marichal, 2022. "The devil we know and the angel that did not fly: An examination of devil/angel shift in twitter fracking “debates” in NY 2008–2018," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(1), pages 51-72, January.
    7. Brownback, Andy & Novotny, Aaron, 2018. "Social desirability bias and polling errors in the 2016 presidential election," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 38-56.
    8. Stone, Daniel, 2018. ""Unmotivated Bias" and Partisan Hostility: Empirical Evidence," SocArXiv hr5ba, Center for Open Science.
    9. Juha Peltomaa, 2018. "Drumming the Barrels of Hope? Bioeconomy Narratives in the Media," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-14, November.
    10. Kai Gehring & Matteo Grigoletto, 2023. "Analyzing Climate Change Policy Narratives with the Character-Role Narrative Framework," CESifo Working Paper Series 10429, CESifo.
    11. Heather Millar, 2020. "Problem Uncertainty, Institutional Insularity, and Modes of Learning in Canadian Provincial Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(6), pages 765-796, November.
    12. S. Glenn Baker & Niraj Patel & Curtis Von Gunten & K. D. Valentine & Laura D. Scherer, 2020. "Interpreting politically-charged numerical information: The influence of numeracy and problem difficulty on response accuracy," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(2), pages 203-213, March.
    13. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:2:p:203-213 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Alina Sîrbu & Dino Pedreschi & Fosca Giannotti & János Kertész, 2019. "Algorithmic bias amplifies opinion fragmentation and polarization: A bounded confidence model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-20, March.
    15. Simon Schaub, 2021. "Public contestation over agricultural pollution: a discourse network analysis on narrative strategies in the policy process," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 783-821, December.
    16. Chien Thang Pham & Trang Ta Thi Nguyet, 2022. "Using Media to Influence Consumer Attitudes to Domestic Goods in Vietnam by Framing Public Interest: A Media Framing Effect Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, November.
    17. Aryal, Saroj Kumar & Bharti, Simant Shankar, 2022. "Changing the media landscape in India under the Modi government: a case study based on the Narrative Policy Framework," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, November.
    18. Xi Liu & Clio Andris & Bruce A Desmarais, 2019. "Migration and political polarization in the U.S.: An analysis of the county-level migration network," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-16, November.

    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:55:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11077-022-09455-5. 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.