Policy Sciences

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 251–268 | Cite as

Engaging in ‘Loose Talk’: Analyzing Salience in Discourse from the Formulation of Welfare Policy



Attempts to explain the emergence of policy innovation are regularly constrained by the complexities of political processes and the vagaries of social circumstance. Content analysis of media reports has been used routinely to provide an outline of policy change. However, the results of content analysis can be simplistic and lacking in depth of meaning. This study added the use of principal components analysis (PCA) of media text content to more substantively examine the evolution of a policy “sea-change.” Both the manifest and latent content of newspaper accounts were analyzed to measure the salience of a public policy innovation that expanded religious group utilization with the 1996 welfare reform act. In addition to tracing variations in the flow of policy deliberation, the analysis more fully captured the character of public discourse that surrounded the adoption of this controversial policy. Unexpected findings from analysis of the accounts included limited concern for Constitutional infringement and no evidence of a regional bias toward increased religious group utilization. Furthermore, principal components analysis of textual structure exhibited patterns of discourse indicative of privatistic (rather than communal) religious response, limited concern with diverse social groups and pronounced reliance on “praise and blame” persuasive strategies.


Religious Group Policy Innovation Welfare Reform Welfare Policy News Coverage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baumgartner, F. R. and B. D. Jones (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. deLeon, P. (1997). Democracy and the Policy Sciences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dery, D. (1984). Problem Definition in Policy Analysis. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  4. deLeon, P. (1988). The contextual burdens of policy design. Policy Studies Journal, 17(2), 297-309.Google Scholar
  5. Donati, P. R. (1992). ‘Political discourse analysis’, in M. Diani and R. Eyerman, eds., Studying Collective Action. London: Sage Publications, pp. 136 – 167.Google Scholar
  6. Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Elazar, D. J. (1994). The American Mosaic: The Impact of Space, time, and Culture on American Politics. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
  8. Forester, J. (1994). ‘Political judgement and learning about value in transportation planning: Bridging Habermas and Aristotle,’ In H. Thomas ed., Values and Planning. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Pub. Co., pp. 231.Google Scholar
  9. Frame, R. (1995). ‘Religious nonprofits fight for government funds,’ Christianity Today 38: 65.Google Scholar
  10. Garson, G. D. (1998). ‘Statnotes: An online textbook,’ Retrieved 4/12/99, 1999, from http://www2.chass. ncsu.edu/garson/ pa765/statnote.htm
  11. Gillmor, D. M., J. A. Barron, T. F. Simon, and H. A. Terry (1990). Mass Communication Law: Cases and Comment (5th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  12. Guralnik, D. B. (ed.). (1970). Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (Second College ed.). New York: The World Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  13. Hajer, M. A. (1993). ‘Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice: The case of acid rain in Britain’, in F. Fischer and J. Forester, eds., The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, pp. 42 – 76.Google Scholar
  14. Hart, R. P. (2000). Diction: User's manual (Version 5.0). Austin, TX: Digitext, Inc.Google Scholar
  15. Houghton, D. P. (1998). ‘Analogical reasoning and policymaking: Where and when is it used’? Policy Sciences 31: 151 – 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kingdon, J. W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (2nd ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins College Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. Leach, J. (2000). ‘Rhetorical analysis’, in M. W. Bauer and G. Gaskell, eds., Qualitative Researching with Text, Image, and Sound. London: Sage Publications, pp. 207 – 226.Google Scholar
  18. Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, Argument, and Persuasion in the Policy Process. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Milbank, D. (1995). ‘Republicans split on the role of government in aiding poor after social programs are cut,’ Wall Street Journal A12.Google Scholar
  20. Mucciaroni, G. (1994). ‘Problem period definition and special interest politics in tax policy and agriculture’, in D. A. Rochefort and R. W. Cobb, eds., The Politics of Problem Definition Lawrence. KS: University Press of Kansas, pp. 117 – 137.Google Scholar
  21. Polsby, N. W. (1984). Political Innovation in America: The Politics of Policy Initiation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Rees, S. (1999). ‘Strategic choices for nonprofit advocates,’ Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(1): 65 – 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Riggins, S. H. (1997). ‘The rhetoric of Othering’, in S. H. Riggins, ed., The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, pp. 1 – 30.Google Scholar
  24. Rochefort, D. A. and R. W. Cobb (eds.). (1994). The Politics of Problem Definition: Shaping the Policy Agenda. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  25. Sabatier, P. A. and H. C. Jenkins-Smith (eds.). (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  26. Schneider, A. L. and H. Ingram (1997). Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  27. Schon, D. and M. Rein (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. Schram, S. F. (1995). Words of Welfare: The Poverty of Social Science and the Social Science of Poverty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  29. Sharma, S. (1996). Applied Multivariate Techniques. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Stone, D. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (Revised ed.). New York: W. W. Norton and Co.Google Scholar
  31. Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). ‘The study of discourse,’ in T. A. Van Dijk, ed., Discourse as Structure and Practice period London: Sage Publications, pp. 1 – 34.Google Scholar
  32. Whiteley, P. F. and S. J. Winyard (1987). Pressure for the Poor: The Poverty Lobby and Policy Making. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  33. Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking Truth to Power. Boston, MA: Little-Brown.Google Scholar
  34. Wimmer, R. D. and J. R. Dominick (1991). Mass Media Research: An Introduction (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  35. Wolpert, J. (1993). Patterns of Generosity in America: Who's Holding the Safety Net? New York: The Twentieth Century Fund Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science, Graduate Program in Public Policy AdministrationUniversity of MissouriSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations