Analytical Dimension 3: Functions of Myths

Authors in the tradition of IPA have attributed different roles to myths that are not mutually exclusive but, on the contrary, often overlap. These include myths as means to mask tensions, as discursive context, as a differ­ent form of rationality, as naturalisation and universalisation, and as ani­mating action.

Myths as Means to Mask Tensions

One of IPA’s most prominent contributions to the concept of myth stems from the interpretive-hermeneutic strand. Dvora Yanow (1992) researches the development of organisational or policy myths. ‘From an anthropo­logical rather than a literary approach, myths may be seen as explanations constructed in the face of puzzling parts of their organizational or policy contexts’ (Yanow 2000, 80). Yanow (1992) explores how myths arise in order to conceal ‘verboten goals’ that are publicly unspeakable because there is no explicit public consensus to support them. Therefore, policy myths and their related organisational myths are constructed at those points where the implementing agency is most vulnerable.⁶ ‘A myth is a narrative created and believed by a group of people which diverts attention away from a puzzling part of their reality’ (Yanow 1996: 191). In diverting attention from incommensurables, myths create areas of silence in public discourse. Drawing on traditional theories of myth making, Yanow’s definition (1996) includes the following elements: myths are stated in a particular narrative form; they are often statements of facts, yet they are not propositions of logic and therefore immune to factual attack. It is not necessary for them to have a discernible plot line. Second, as social constructions they are rooted in a particular time, place, and culture and therefore need not be universal.

Yanow (1992) illustrates her point in a case analysis of the Israel Corporation of Community Centers, an agency created to implement national social policies. The myths she finds are the ‘myth of rational goal­setting’, the ‘myth of flexibility’, and the ‘myth of uniqueness’. The first myth reconciles the conflict between two incommensurables: the values of the stated goals that cannot be reached with the agency’s limited budget, and the value of maintaining organisational existence. By directing atten­tion to goal setting, the myth diverts attention from the impossibility of reaching these goals. The ‘myth of flexibility’ diverts attention from the need to show goal attainment under conditions of constantly changing criteria. The ‘myth of uniqueness’ is used to establish the agency organ­isationally when in fact it is not unique. It was needed to stop questioning the nature of this agency and asking whether it could tackle the ‘verbo­ten goal’ of absorbing Sfaradim into Azhkenazim in a country otherwise ignoring questions of ethnicity (cf. Yanow, foreword to this book).

According to Yanow, myths ‘provide a way of knowing about the world. They compel emotional as well as intellectual belief, they social­ize and moralize, and they thereby prompt action’ (Yanow 1996, 193). Moreover, they legitimise the social and political order that is vested in existing institutions. Because myths are so deeply embedded in a polity’s architecture of meaning, they are difficult to detect for someone who is imbued with the values and beliefs surrounding a policy issue.

Myths Serving the Exclusion of Alternatives

Authors in the hermeneutic tradition of IPA have stressed how problem­setting stories in policymaking need to relate to discursive structures of opportunity provided by the dominant culture of the respective welfare state. ‘There are people and interests behind narratives who bring nar­ratives into the world. But these individuals give birth to narratives only within the confinements of the available discursive possibilities’ (Fischer 2003, viii). Hence, relating to a founding myth relieves of the necessity for political explanation and justification. It can be part of a kind of master frame that represents the core values of the respective society (Lepperhoff 2006, 262-3). The dominance of certain frames can then be explained by the degree to which they resonate with the political culture (Lepperhoff 2006, 259).

Christopher Bosso (1994) provides an example of how interpretive pol­icy analysis treats the context not as objective or as an independent vari­able but as something that is discursively constructed itself, yet influences problem definition. ‘If problem definition is contextual, then policy elites, interest groups, and even the mass media are not free to act in any way they want’ (Bosso 1994, 198). They have to relate to culturally embedded meta-narratives or myths for problem definitions to catch on at a particu­lar place and time and to help a policy to come about. When it comes to agricultural subsidies, for instance, Bosso (1994, 186) highlights how in the USA ‘an agrarian mythology rooted in democratic ideals clouds any clear headed popular assessment’ of the realities of advantaged agribusi­ness. Farmers enjoy the same positive social constructions as the elderly or veterans and are thus seen as deserving of direct government support because they evoke mythological images of the typical family farm.

Myths as a Different Form of Rationality

A different contemporary notion of myth is one of the rationalisation of a confusing situation. ‘It is the degree to which a myth or a rationalization’s central premise fits with people’s existing expectations that the myth has power’ (McCoy 2000, 47). The argument here is that, in spite of IPA’s criticism towards mainstream policy studies for idealising policymaking as rational, these post-empiricist approaches with their emphasis on rational argumentation have themselves underestimated different forms of per­suasion (Gottweis 2007, 237). Employing a myth in policy talk can also relate to a different rationality that breaks away from scientific rationality or logos. Both can be united, however, and often are. In many constitu­tions, for instance, a mythological image of history is raised to the ranks of constitutional imperative (Langewiesche 2014, 13).

Cornwall emphasises the qualities of myths that sprout forth from human emotions. She regards myth as an expression of emotion, and emotion turned into an image. Myths are compelling because they reso­nate with the affective dimensions of norms and values. This is what gives them the power to spur people into action (Cornwall et al. 2007, 6; cf. Bliesemann de Guevara, Chap. 2). Blumenberg maintains, however, that the distinction between mythos and logos is an imaginary one and that myth in itself is a piece of work of the logos (Wrana et al.

Myths as Naturalisation and Universalisation

All myths lay claim to timeless validity. Therefore, they exhibit a tendency towards universalism and essentialism. In the field of development poli­cies, for instance, different authors have highlighted how some discourses rely on the pervasive myth that women are inherently more peaceful than men, or that they are passive victims, rather than being actively involved in violent conflicts (Cornwall et al. 2007, 10). This drive towards univer- salisation in policymaking arises when different actors ignore the context­specific nature of social relations (Cornwall et al. 2007, 11).

Poststructuralists among interpretive policy analysts, in particular, have made a point for anti-essentialism. Ideology is not regarded as a distorted representation of an objectively given reality because reality, according to their understanding, is always constructed. Ideology is still defined as dis­tortion, however, in the sense that it constructs a totalising horizon that denies the contingent and precarious character of social identity. ‘The con­struction of naturalizing and universalizing myths and imaginaries is a cen­tral part of the hegemonic drive towards ideological totalization’ (Torfing 2005, 15).

Ideological myths are a key feature of political community, as commu­nities are held together by narratives with a totalising, imaginary, or even fantasmatic dimension. They ‘promise fully achieved identity in a land of idle happiness’ (Torfing 2005, 24). Poststructuralists maintain that discur­sive formations are more or less durable depending on how they mobilise Lacanian categories of fantasy and enjoyment. In analysing fantasmatic narratives, Jason Glynos and his colleagues (2012) scrutinise the affec­tive dimension of discursive practices, how key logics in media and policy responses have operated to narrow down public debate on causes and solutions for public problems such as the financial crisis.

Ernesto Laclau, as one of the founding fathers of Political Discourse Theory, introduces the conceptual distinction between myths and social imaginaries. In both cases, the background against which these formations emerge is that of structural dislocation, the process by which the contin­gency of discursive structures is made visible (Howarth and stavrakakis 2000, 13). ‘Every identity (and social object) is dislocated per se because it depends on an outside that denies it and, at the same time, is its condition of possibility’ (Biglieri and Perello 2011).

Myths attempt to repair the dislocated space in question by rearticu­lating the dislocated elements and forming a new objectivity. If they are effective, they can act as a surface of inscription for a variety of social demands and dislocations. However, when a myth has proved success­ful by incorporating a plethora of social demands, if it is hegemonised and legitimated, it becomes an imaginary. This is defined as a horizon or an absolute limit, which structures a field of intelligibility. The ‘Christian Millennium’, the ‘Enlightenment’, or positivism’s conception of ‘prog­ress’ are examples of imaginaries (Howarth and Stavrakakis 2000, 15).

Myths Animating Actions

Different authors stress how myths can animate action. In the field of development policies, as early as 1967 Albert Hirschman drew attention to the role that myths play in motivating and animating the actions of development actors. Taking Sorel as starting point (cf. Bliesemann de Guevara, Chap. 2), he maintains that myths are not mere descriptions of things but expressions of a determination to act. For him, the relation­ship of myths to truth or falsehood therefore misses the point. What mat­ters, he insists, is how myth provides a sense of conviction and purpose (Cornwall et al. 2007, 4).⁸

In a similar vein, Maarten Hajer (2003), as one of the most promi­nent advocates of argumentative policy analysis, asserts that any discourse analysis aims to show how discourse shapes reality. He tries to explain policy changes by distinguishing three different angles: shifts in the terms of policy discourse, the formation of discourse coalitions, and the terms of the particular institutional practices in which the discursive conflicts are played out. The first dimension, the terms of policy discourse, con­sist of storylines, metaphors, and myths. Myth then ‘brings coherence by explaining why things cohere: a “constitutive myth” explains cohesion by narrating a foundational event, a “dystopian myth” makes people cohere to avoid a catastrophe’ (Hajer 2003, 105). With regard to international politics, ‘dystopian myths’ can be found, for instance, in attempts to con­vince potential allies of the need to intervene in armed conflicts or in the politics surrounding the 2008 financial crisis.

The role of myth in providing coherence and animating action is also picked up by Ernesto Laclau and authors in the poststructuralist line of IPA. In denying the essentialisms in classical Marxism that treats the social as structural positive totality and assumes an ultimate revolutionary subject with a fixed identity, they ask where radical social change can come from. According to Shantz (2000, 98-9), this requires attentiveness to the particular forms of constitution of collective wills in social movements through social myths. It is the creation of myths which enables members to make sense out of their present, legitimise their efforts at change, and point to a new future. Myths provide a sense of unity and identity and can point beyond material interests.

In his conception of myth, Laclau draws on Sorel, but denies ‘the primacy of any monomyth, such as the General Strike, by which a cen­trist fixing of identity, that is, an explicitly class-centric identity, might be established’ (Shantz 2000, 103). Instead, he treats social myths as essen­tially incomplete, without a privileged totalising space that is closed, a concept that permits a realm of openness and extension of the democratic imagination (Shantz 2000, 103). Just like labour movements in classical Marxism, these social movements (for instance, ecology, queer politics, or feminism) are not constrained by national borders.

A Remark on Myth-as-Lie

In common parlance, to tell a myth is often equated with telling a lie (Langewiesche 2014, 13). The use of the term myth is to invoke it as a device to emphasise the falsity of taken-for-granted assumptions and as a basis for designating what ought to replace them (Cornwall et al. 2007, 4). It is striking how the notion of myth-as-lie is common in IPA, too. In spite of post-positivism’s interest in argumentation and narratives and Yanow’s (1992) explicit contribution on myths, it is quite common for authors to use the concept of myth not as analytic device but rather as a label to criticise policy analysis’s mainstream assumptions. Technocratic policy analysis’s conception of policymaking as rational is then rebutted as ‘myth’, and so is its belief in the neutrality of policy as science (cf. Fischer 2003, 125).

Conclusion

The interpretive turn in policy analysis regards policymaking as an ‘ongo­ing discursive struggle over the definition and conceptual framing of problems, the public understanding of the issues, the shared meanings that motivate policy responses, and criteria for evaluation’ (Fischer and Gottweis 2012b, 7). In showing how language and discourse shape reality, and thereby challenging the traditional assumption that problems are part of a pre-given ‘neutral’ reality to which policymaking responds, authors have started to pay attention to those elements such as narratives and myths that structure discourse.

With the umbrella term interpretive policy analysis being home to both interpretive-hermeneutic and poststructuralist approaches, advocates of this post-positivist kind of research have been very prolific in developing conceptions of myths. While most of them treat myths as particular form of narrative, they differ in whether they restrict the notion of myth to origin stories, in what these myths do, and whether they are consciously employed by political actors. Others treat myths as discursive context or horizon to which single discourses have to relate to in order to appear plausible. They all stress how myths serve the legitimation of certain insti­tutions or courses of action.

These differing concepts, the chapter argues, need not be restricted to domestic policymaking, but could easily be applied to the field of International Relations. A myth analysis drawing from IPA could then be structured by three guiding questions: a first reflexive one that encourages the author to clarify her epistemological premises and thereby her notion of agency in discourse and myth-telling; a second one that differentiates between different forms of myths; and a last one that focuses on what a particular myth does in a particular context.

Notes

1. The term constructionism is used widely in the sociology of social problems. Synonymously, one could talk of social constructivism.

2. The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning is the title of a col­lected volume by Fischer and Forester (1993) that introduced post­positivism in policy analysis. Argumentative policy analysis serves as an umbrella term for some authors, while others use the term interpretive pol­icy analysis synonymously. This is also reflected in the name of their interna­tional conferences—IPA.

3. Personalised myths are not always ‘heroic’ in the positive sense, however, as the example of the warlord myth shows; cf. Goetze (Chap. 7) on warlords and states. Dany and Freistein (Chap. 12) argue that heroic deeds can also be attributed to collectives such as civil society organisations in global governance.

4. Cf. Bliesemann de Guevara (Chap. 2) on the myths of ‘1648’ (the Peace of Westphalia) and ‘1919’ (the birth of the IR discipline).

5. Cf. Kühn (Chap. 8) on Afghanistan as ‘graveyard of empires’.

6. Yanow (1992) develops the notion of ‘verboten goal’ leaning on Harold Garfinkel’s ‘publicly unmentionable goal’.

7. On the methodical challenges of studying myths, cf. Müller (Chap. 6).

8. Kossler (2014) demonstrates how development as a concept is itself a myth.

Bibliography

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Rev. and extended ed.). London: Verso.

Bacchi, C. L. (1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. London: Sage.

Bacchi, C. L. (2015). The turn to problematization: Political implications of con­trasting interpretive and poststructural adaptations. Open Journal of Political Science, 2015(5), 1-12.

Barbehon, M., Münch, S., & Lamping, W. (2015). Problem definition and agenda-setting in critical perspective. In F. Fischer, D. Torgerson, M. Orsini, & A. Durnova (Eds.), Handbook of critical policy studies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Beer, M. (2014). Migration und Mythen. Annäherungen. In M. Beer (Ed.), Migration und Mythen. Geschichte und Gegenwart—Lokal und Global (pp. 7-12). Ulm: Süddeutsche Verlagsgesellschaft Ulm im Jan Thorbecke Verlag.

Biglieri, P., & Perello, G. (2011). The names of the real in Laclau’s theory: Antagonism, dislocation, and heterogeneity. Filozofski Vestnik, 32(2), 47-64.

Blumer, H. (1971). Social problems as collective behavior. Social Problems, 18(3), 298-306.

Bosso, C. J. (1994). The contextual base ofproblem definition. In D. A. Rochefort & R. W. Cobb (Eds.), The politics of problem definition. Shaping the policy agenda (pp. 182-203). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1971). The politics of agenda-building: An alterna­tive perspective for modern democratic theory. The Journal of Politics, 33(4), 892-915.

Colebatch, H. K. (2005). Policy analysis, policy practice and political science. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(3), 14-23.

Cornwall, A., Harrison, E., & Whitehead, A. (2007). Gender myths and feminist fables: The struggle for interpretive power in gender and development. Development and Change, 38(1), 1-20.

Della Sala, V. (2010). Political myth, mythology and the European Union. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(1), 1-19.

Dryzek, J. S. (1993). Policy analysis and planning: From science to argument. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning (pp. 213-232). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Dye, T. (1976). Policy analysis. What governments do, why they do it, and what dif­ference it makes. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

Elter, A., & Kohler, A. (2015). Kollektiverzählungen und mythische Narrative in Politikerreden: Angela Merkel und Peer Steinbrück im Wahlkampf 2013. In K.-R. Korte (Ed.), Die Bundestagswahl 2013. Analysen der Wahl-, Parteien-, Kommunikations- und Regierungsforschung (pp. 387-406). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Fischer, F. (1998). Beyond empiricism: Policy inquiry in post positivist perspec­tive. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 129-146.

Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. Discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (Eds.). (2012a). The aecyumentative turn revisited. Public policy as communicative practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Fischer, F., & Gottweis, H. (2012b). Introduction. The argumentative turn revis­ited. In F. Fischer & H. Gottweis (Eds.), The a'rcyumentative turn revisited. Public policy as communicative practice (pp. 1-27). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Gadinger, F., Jarzebski, S., & Yildiz, T. (2014). Politische Narrative. Konturen einer politikwissenschaftlichen Erzähltheorie. In F. Gadinger, S. Jarzebski, & T. Yildiz (Eds.), Politische Narrative. Konzepte—Analysen—Forschungspraxis (pp. 3-38). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Glynos, J., Howarth, D, Norval, A., & Speed, E. (2009). Discourse analysis: Varieties and methods: ESRC National Centre for Research Methods Review paper. NCRM/014.

Glynos, J., Klimecki, R., & Willmott, H. (2012). Cooling out the marks. Journal of Cultural Economy, 5(3), 297-320.

Gottweis, H. (2006). Argumentative policy analysis. In B. Guy Peters & J. Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of public policy (pp. 461-479). Los Angeles: Sage.

Gottweis, H. (2007). Rhetoric in policy making: Between logos, ethos, and pathos. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis. Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 237-250). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Groenemeyer, A. (2003). Einleitung—Soziologie sozialer Probleme als Mehrebenenanalyse: Ein pragmatischer Vorschlag zur Weiterentwicklung des Konstruktivismus. In A. Groenemyer (Ed.), Soziale Probleme, Gesundheit und Sozialpolitik. Materialien und Forschungsberichte (pp. 3-15). Bielefeld: University of Bielefeld.

Gronau, J., & Nonhoff, M. (2011, October 6-7). Von Schurken und Schlampern: Metaphorische Verdichtungen von Erzählungen internationaler Finanzkrisen. Unpublished paper prepared for the 3rd Open Session, International Relations Section of the German Political Science Association, Munich.

Hajer, M. (2003). A frame in the fields: Policymaking and the reinvention of poli­tics. In M. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.), Deliberative policy analysis. Understanding governance in the network society (pp. 88-110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Healy, P. (1986). Interpretive policy inquiry: A response to the limitations of the received view. Policy Sciences, 19(4), 381-396.

Herrmann, S. L. (2009). Policy debates on reprogenetics: The problematisation of new research in Great Britain and Germany. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

Hofmann, J. (1995). Implicit theories in policy discourse: An inquiry into the interpretations of reality in German technology policy. Policy Sciences, 28(2), 127-148.

Howarth, D., & Griggs, S. (2012). Poststructuralist policy analysis. Discourse, hegemony, and critical explanation. In F. Fischer & H. Gottweis (Eds.), The argumentative turn revisited. Public policy as communicative practice (pp. 305­342). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Howarth, D., & Stavrakakis, Y. (2000). Introducing discourse theory and political analysis. In D. R. Howarth, A. J. Norval, & Y. Stavrakakis (Eds.), Discourse theory and political analysis: Identities, hegemonies and social change (pp. 1-37). Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying public policy. Policy cycles & policy subsystems (3rd ed.). Ontario: Oxford University Press.

Hülsse, R. (2006). Imagine the EU: The metaphorical construction of a supra­nationalist identity. Journal of International Relations and Development, 2006(9), 396-421.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1989). Spielarten des Konstruktivismus: Einige Notizen und Anmerkungen. Soziale Welt, 40(1-2), 86-96.

Kossler, R. (2014). Entwicklung—zur Genealogie einer toten Metapher und den Folgen. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 48(special issue), 435-463.

Langewiesche, D. (2014). Geschichtsmythen. Entstehung, Funktion, Wirkung. In M. Beer (Ed.), Migration und Mythen. Geschichte und Gegenwart—Lokal und global (pp. 13-26). Ulm: Süddeutsche Verlagsgesellschaft Ulm im Jan Thorbecke Verlag.

Lenschow, A., & Sprungk, C. (2010). The myth of a green Europe. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 48(1), 133-154.

Lepperhoff, J. (2006). Soziale Sicherheit in Deutschland und Frankreich—eine vergleichende Analyse der aktuellen Sozialstaatsdebatte. In B. Kerchner & S. Schneider (Eds.), Foucault: Diskursanalyse der Politik (pp. 251-268). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Loseke, D. R. (2003). Thinking about social problems: An introduction to construc­tionist perspectives (2nd ed.). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Lynch, C. (2014). Interpreting international politics. New York: Routledge.

Marston, G. (2000). Metaphor, morality and myth: A critical discourse analysis of public housing policy in Queensland. Critical Social Policy, 20(3), 349-373.

May, J. V., & Wildavsky, A. B. (Eds.). (1979). The policy cycle. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

McCoy, M. D. (2000). Domestic policy narratives and international relations the­ory: Chinese ecological agriculture as a case study. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Neustadt, R. E., & May, E. R. (1986). Thinking in time. The use of history for deci­sion makers. New York: Free Press.

Schram, S. F. (1993). Postmodern policy analysis: Discourse and identity in wel­fare policy. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 249-268.

Segesten, A. D. (2011). Myth, identity, and conflict: A comparative analysis of Romanian and Serbian textbooks. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

Shantz, J. (2000). A post-sorelian theory of social movement unity: Social myth reconfigured in the work of Laclau and Mouffe. Dialectical Anthropology, 25(1), 89-108.

Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. I. (2006 [1977]). Constructing social problems (2nd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Stone, D. A. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104(2), 281-300.

Stone, D. A. (2002). Policy paradox: The art ofpolitical decision making (Rev. ed.). New York: Norton.

Torfing, J. (2005). Discourse theory: Achievements, arguments, and challenges. In D. Howarth & J. Torfing (Eds.), Discourse theory in European politics. Identity, policy and governance (pp. 1-31). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Viehover, W (2004). Die Wissenschaft und die Wiederverzauberung des subluna­ren Raumes. Der Klimadiskurs im Licht der narrativen Diskursanalyse. In R. Keller, A. Hierseland, W Schneider, & W Viehover (Eds.), Handbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse (pp. 233-269). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.

Wagenaar, H. (2011). Meaning in action: Interpretation and dialogue in policy analysis. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, the­ory, and methodology. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods for critical discourse analysis (pp. 1-33). London: Sage.

Wrana, D., Ziem, A., Reisigl, M., Nonhoff, M., & Angermüller, J. (2014). DiskursNetz. Worterbuch der interdisziplinären Diskursforschung. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

Yanow, D. (1992). Silences in public policy discourse: Organizational and policy myths. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2(4), 399-423.

Yanow, D. (1995). Practices of policy interpretation. Policy Sciences, 28(2), 111-126.

Yanow, D. (1996). How does a policy mean? Interpreting policy and organizational actions. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.