IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/qtuek_v1.html

Framing with facts: How frames shape evidence use in Switzerland’s pesticide policy discourse

Author

Listed:
  • Reber, Ueli
  • Ingold, Karin

Abstract

How evidence is used to frame policy issues plays a crucial role in shaping which knowledge is deemed relevant to policymaking. Drawing on argumentation theory and framing literature, we argue that evidence functions as a tool that speakers use strategically and systematically to support specific elements of frames (regarding causes, consequences, or solutions), thereby determining which bodies of knowledge are mobilised in political discourse. Using quantitative content analysis of media, trade, and parliamentary discourse in Switzerland from 2013 to 2022, we identified four frames relating to the issue of pesticide risk reduction: health, environment, economy, and practice. We found that across all frames, the most emphasised frame element is also the one most likely to be supported by evidence. Overall, consequence claims were more likely to be backed by evidence than claims about causes or policy solutions. These patterns reveal which bodies of knowledge are mobilised in political discourse in support of certain policy stances and where the presented frames lack supporting evidence. Recognising the role of framing in evidence use can thus support more transparent and reflexive policymaking by helping researchers and policymakers to identify unavailable or overlooked knowledge and addressing gaps in both research and policymaking.

Suggested Citation

  • Reber, Ueli & Ingold, Karin, 2026. "Framing with facts: How frames shape evidence use in Switzerland’s pesticide policy discourse," SocArXiv qtuek_v1, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:qtuek_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/qtuek_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/69d028fb206e24992e7f6d53/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/qtuek_v1?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giliberto Capano & Anna Malandrino, 2022. "Mapping the use of knowledge in policymaking: barriers and facilitators from a subjectivist perspective (1990–2020)," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(3), pages 399-428, September.
    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. Jesper Dahl Kelstrup & Jonas Videbæk Jørgensen, 2024. "Explaining differences in research utilization in evidence-based government ministries," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(2), pages 257-280, June.
    2. Azad Singh Bali & M Ramesh, 2023. "Knowledge–practice gap in healthcare payments: the role of policy capacity," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 42(3), pages 406-418.
    3. Wouter Lammers & Valérie Pattyn & Sacha Ferrari & Sylvia Wenmackers & Steven Van de Walle, 2024. "Evidence for policy-makers: A matter of timing and certainty?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 57(1), pages 171-191, March.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:socarx:qtuek_v1. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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.