TY - JOUR
T1 - Expanding the Political Psychology Toolkit
T2 - The Potential of Discursive Psychology for Understanding Contentious Political Debate at a Grassroots Level
AU - CLARK, Shannon
AU - BOTTERILL, Linda
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors are grateful to James Walter, Geoff Cockfield, and Michael Walsh for their valuable comments on drafts of this article. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback which strengthened the article. This research was supported under the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (project number DP140100311). Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shannon J. Clark, Centre for Research and Action in Public Health, Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 International Society of Political Psychology
PY - 2018/6
Y1 - 2018/6
N2 - In its location at the intersection of political science and psychology, political psychology draws on many of the research techniques of both disciplines in its exploration of power, voting behavior, leadership, attitudes, and values. One hitherto relatively underutilized approach for understanding public policy debate is discursive psychology (DP). Applying this perspective to a contentious policy issue in Australia, we seek to demonstrate that this approach can add richness and depth to our understanding of how ordinary citizens engage in public policy debates. We suggest that this type of analysis can augment insights obtained from more traditional methods—such as focus groups, experimental approaches, and opinion polling—by analyzing how debates are constructed and presented at the grassroots level. This research is innovative in two ways. First, it applies a rigorous, empirical research approach to an area in which it has not previously been used: the study of public policy issues. Second, rather than analyzing the communicative practices of political leaders, we consider the rhetorical arguments made by ordinary citizens in their engagement with political issues and how they negotiate what counts as evidence. This can provide insights into how public debate can be conducted more productively and respectfully.
AB - In its location at the intersection of political science and psychology, political psychology draws on many of the research techniques of both disciplines in its exploration of power, voting behavior, leadership, attitudes, and values. One hitherto relatively underutilized approach for understanding public policy debate is discursive psychology (DP). Applying this perspective to a contentious policy issue in Australia, we seek to demonstrate that this approach can add richness and depth to our understanding of how ordinary citizens engage in public policy debates. We suggest that this type of analysis can augment insights obtained from more traditional methods—such as focus groups, experimental approaches, and opinion polling—by analyzing how debates are constructed and presented at the grassroots level. This research is innovative in two ways. First, it applies a rigorous, empirical research approach to an area in which it has not previously been used: the study of public policy issues. Second, rather than analyzing the communicative practices of political leaders, we consider the rhetorical arguments made by ordinary citizens in their engagement with political issues and how they negotiate what counts as evidence. This can provide insights into how public debate can be conducted more productively and respectfully.
KW - Australia
KW - Discursive psychology
KW - Public policy
KW - Wind farms
KW - discursive psychology
KW - wind farms
KW - public policy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028804118&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/expanding-political-psychology-toolkit-potential-discursive-psychology-understanding-contentious-pol
U2 - 10.1111/pops.12443
DO - 10.1111/pops.12443
M3 - Article
SN - 0162-895X
VL - 39
SP - 667
EP - 683
JO - Political Psychology
JF - Political Psychology
IS - 3
ER -