Allameh Tabataba'i University

 News

Khanmohamadi, H., Damiri, H. (2025). A Scoping Review of Theories of Discourse in Public Policy. , 3(9), 51-90. doi: 10.22054/spsa.2026.90136.1096
Hadi Khanmohamadi; Hamidreza Damiri. "A Scoping Review of Theories of Discourse in Public Policy". , 3, 9, 2025, 51-90. doi: 10.22054/spsa.2026.90136.1096
Khanmohamadi, H., Damiri, H. (2025). 'A Scoping Review of Theories of Discourse in Public Policy', , 3(9), pp. 51-90. doi: 10.22054/spsa.2026.90136.1096
Khanmohamadi, H., Damiri, H. A Scoping Review of Theories of Discourse in Public Policy. , 2025; 3(9): 51-90. doi: 10.22054/spsa.2026.90136.1096

A Scoping Review of Theories of Discourse in Public Policy

مطالعات مدیریت خدمات عمومی
Article 2, Volume 3, Issue 9, September 2025, Pages 51-90    PDF (939.24 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.22054/spsa.2026.90136.1096
Authors
Hadi Khanmohamadi1; Hamidreza Damiri* 2
1Associate Professor, Department of Public Administration Faculty of Management and Accounting, Allameh Tabatabaei University ; Tehran, Iran
2PhD student in public administration. Public policy making. Faculty of Management and Accounting. Allameh Tabatabaei University.
Abstract
The present study aims to explain and systematize policy discourse. This field has become one of the main streams of policy analysis after the argumentative turn and the expansion of interpretive approaches. Despite the extensive capacities of discourse approaches such as critical discourse analysis, narrative-centric policy, and discursive institutionalism, the existing literature still faces conceptual fragmentation and the lack of a comprehensive picture of the components of policy discourse. Therefore, the study, using the scoping review method and examining scientific sources, has extracted the fundamental components of policy discourse, explained its main mechanisms, and conducted an analytical critique of each identified dimension. The findings show that policy discourse is not merely a linguistic layer but a mechanism for meaning-making, problem representation, narrative construction, the organization of semantic alliances, the exercise of power, and institutionalization in the policymaking process. Discourse operates within social and institutional contexts and shapes policymakers’ perceptions and interpretations through tools such as framing, argumentation, and discursive action. The research concludes that policy discourse analysis is a powerful tool for understanding the relationships among meaning, power, and action and can help improve decision-making and develop more equitable policies.
References
  1. Bertrand, A. R., Lyon, M. A., & Jacobsen, R(2024). Narrative spillover: A narrative policy framework analysis of critical race theory discourse at multiple levels. Policy Studies Journal, 52(2), 391-423. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12523
  2. Cairney, P. (2019). Understanding public policy: Theories and issues (Vol. 2). Bloomsbury Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1111/1478-9302.12016_5
  3. Durnová, A. (2024). Critical Policy Studies. In Encyclopedia of Public Policy (pp. 1-8). Springer. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783472352.00005
  4. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical policy studies, 7(2), 177-197. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.798239    
  5. Farrelly, M. (2014). Discourse and democracy: Critical analysis of the language of government. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315777948 
  6. Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822381815
  7. Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (2013). The argumentative turn in public policy revisited: Twenty years later. Critical policy studies, 7(4), 425-433. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.851164
  8. Gasper, D., & Apthorpe, R. (1996). Introduction: Discourse analysis and policy discourse. https://doi.org/1080/09578819608426650
  9. Hajer, M. A. (2002). Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: the case of acid rain in Great Britain. In Argument turn policy anal plan (pp. 51-84). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203499467-4
  10. Hellman, C. M. E., Monni, M., & Alanko, A. M. (2017). Declaring, shepherding, managing: The welfare state ethos in Finnish government programmes, 1950-2015. Research on Finnish society, 10(1), 9-22. https://doi.org/51815/fjsr.110762
  11. Hwang, K. (2024). The complex interplay of causal narratives in public policy and political discourse. https://doi.org/24294/jipd.v8i2.3079
  12. Jacobs, R. N., & Sobieraj, S. (2007). Narrative and legitimacy: US congressional debates about the nonprofit sector. Sociological theory,). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2007.00295
  13. Jennings, B., Hoppe, R., Hajer, M. A., Forester, J., & Fischer, F. (2013). Discourse Coalitions and the Institutionalization of Practice: The Case of Acid Rain in Great Britain. In The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 43) Duke University Press. https://doi.org/1215/9780822381815-003
  14. Jones, H. (2009). Policy-making as discourse: a review of recent knowledge-to-policy literature. ODI-IKM Working Paper, 5, 1-37.  https://docs.edtechhub.org/lib/85MXGEIF.
  15. Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2010). A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong? Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 329-353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00364.x
  16. Keller, R. (2018). The sociology of knowledge approach to discourse (SKAD). Human studies, 34(1), 43-65. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315170008-2          
  17. Lamb, E. C. (2013). Power and resistance: New methods for analysis across genres in critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 24(3), 334-360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926512472041
  18. Leifeld, P. (2016). Discourse Network Analysis. Policy Debates as Dynamic Networks,[w:] JN Victor, AH Montgomery, M. Lubell (red.). In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190228217.013.25
  19. Leipold, S., Feindt, P. , Winkel, G., & Keller, R. (2019). Discourse analysis of environmental policy revisited: traditions, trends, perspectives. In (Vol. 21, pp. 445-463): Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2019.1660462
  20. McDermid, P., & Winton, S. (2023). What’s ‘fairness’ got to do with it? Discourse coalitions, arguments, and discursive struggles over public funding of Ontario’s private schools. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 55(3), 341-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2022.2137479
  21. Miller, H. T. (2020). Policy narratives: the perlocutionary agents of political discourse. Critical policy studies, 14(4), 488-501. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2020.1816483
  22. Montessori, N. M. (2023). Critical policy discourse analysis. In The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 610-624). Routledge. https://doi.org/4337/9781788974967
  23. Mulderrig, J., Montessori, N. M., & Farrelly, M. (2019). Introducing critical policy discourse analysis. In Critical policy discourse analysis (pp. 1-22). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788974967.00006
  24. Parsons, D. W. (1995). Public policy: An introduction to the theory and practice of policy analysis. https://doi.org/10.1177/014473949601600112
  25. Rhodes, R., & Bevir, M.(2015) Routledge handbook of interpretive political science. https://doi.org/4324/9781315725314
  26. Riemann, M. (2023). Studying problematizations: The value of Carol Bacchi’s ‘What’s the problem represented to be?’(WPR) methodology for IR. Alternatives, 48(2), 151-169. https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754231155763
  27. Schmidt, V. A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 11(1), 303-326. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.060606.135342 
  28. Schmidt, V. A. (2010). Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’. European political science review, 2(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175577390999021X
  29. Shanahan, E. A., DeLeo, R., Koebele, E. A., Taylor, K., Crow, D. A., Blanch‐Hartigan, D., Albright, E. A., Birkland, T. A., & Minkowitz, H. (2025). Narrative power in the narrative policy framework. Policy Studies Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70038
  30. Stauffer, B. (2023). What's the grand story? A macro‐narrative analytical model and the case of Swiss child and adult protection policy. Policy Studies Journal, 51(1), 33-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12465
  31. Tawell, A., & McCluskey, G. (2022). Utilising Bacchi's what's the problem represented to be?(WPR) approach to analyse national school exclusion policy in England and Scotland: a worked example. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 45(2), 137-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727x.2021.1976750      
  32. Van Hulst, M., Metze, T., Dewulf, A., De Vries, J., Van Bommel, S., & Van Ostaijen, M. (2025). Discourse, framing and narrative: three ways of doing critical, interpretive policy analysis. Critical policy studies, 19(1), 74-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2024.2326936       
  33. Wagenaar, H. (2022). Deliberative policy analysis. Research methods in deliberative democracy, 423-437. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192848925.003.0029 
  34. White, L. G. (1994). Policy analysis as discourse. Journal of policy analysis and management, 13(3), 506-525. https://doi.org/10.2307/3325389
  35. Williams, T. T., & Kuzma, J. (2022). Narrative policy framework at the macro level—Cultural theory-based beliefs, science-based narrative strategies, and their uptake in the Canadian policy process for genetically modified salmon. Public Policy and Administration, 37(4), 480-515.  https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767211065609
  36. Yanow, D. (2007). Interpretation in policy analysis: On methods and practice. Critical policy analysis, 1(1), 110-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2007.9518511
  37. Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, (2015). Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315703275               
  38. Salimi, N. and Kazemi, S., H. (2021). Discourses and Narratives of Gender Justice Policy-making in Iran: Investigating the Causes and Directions of the Multiplicity of Programs and Policies. Woman in Development & Politics, 19(2), 269-304. doi: 10.22059/jwdp.2021.318461.1007957[In Persian]
  39. Hoseini, S. K. , Danaeefard, H. and Kazemi, S. H. (2023). Understanding the Discourse of Emergence and Alternation of Housing Policy in Iran’s 4th and 5th Development Plans. Journal of Public Administration, 15(2), 293-318. doi: 10.22059/jipa.2023.352545.3262[In Persian]
  40. Ghorbani, H. , Abbasi, T. , Asgari, N. (2025). Discourse analysis of urban development policy actors with a discourse analysis approach (Case study: Mazandaran province as a tourist destination in Iran). Journal of Tourism Planning and Development, doi: 10.22080/jtpd.2025.29751.4020[In Persian]
Statistics
Article View: 136
PDF Download: 79


Scholarly Journals Management System © 1991.05.01 by Allameh Tabatabaei University is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International.
Journal management system. designed by sinaweb
login