Following on from argumentation theory, once the arguments have been deconstructed into the various elements, it is possible to concentrate on the evidence and claims being made. The thesis classifies claims within the case study using Toulmin’s distinctions among
evidence, warrants and conclusions as a framework. It conceptualises policy actors as claims- makers who play a role in shaping how a policy problem is constructed and perceived. Specifically, the thesis examines the role evidence plays in making claims about a particular policy and how these claims were constructed. It seeks to understand more generally the social construction of knowledge by policy actors, particularly those campaigning for or against the project. The claims-making framework recognises the power of language within policy making and politics. Analysing the claims of individuals and groups allows the researcher to understand how claims are used to promote and shape public policy (Meindl et al. 2002). Claims may have greater influence over another depending on whether or not it supports the interests of political and economic actors, or if it runs parallel with prevailing ideological visions within society such as a modernisation agenda. This section of the chapter explains what the claims-making framework suggests happens in the policy process paying particular attention to the role of evidence and how it is negotiated. Claims have received some critical examination (Aronson, 1984; Gusfield, 1981; Best, 1987). In particular,
Gusfield argues that evidence used to support claims must not be viewed simply as objective evidence but should be seen in terms of rhetoric.
A claim is always an expression of an opinion and it does not necessarily have to be verbal. A claim also has a challenging nature calling on another for something due. The thesis defines a claim as:
63 Claims are normative statements with varying degrees of assertion. They are not measured on their own merit, but rather by how effectively they appeal to the policy formation audience. A claims-maker inevitably hopes to persuade. Their goal is to convince other actors that
something is a problem and that their solution to that problem is the right one. As Best pointed out:
‘while the success of claims-making may well depend, in part, on the constellation of interests and resources held by various constituencies in the process, the way claims are articulated also affects whether they persuade an move the audiences to which they are addressed’
(Best, 1987:102)
This means that claims-making becomes a rhetorical activity. As he goes on to argue in another text:
‘Claims-making inevitably involves selecting from available evidence and arguments, placing these chosen arguments in some sequence, and giving some arguments particular emphasis. These are rhetorical decisions’
(Best, 1993:41)
The claims that are made are then usually revised and reconstructed depending on how their audience respond to the claims or if the audience differs. They do this in order to attempt to make the claims more effective and persuasive. In these instances, ‘even the most ingenuous claims-maker must become conscious of doing rhetorical work’ (Best, 1993:41). A rhetorical perspective recognises that problems of action involve conflict between people; they are essentially contestable (Garver, 1978). One of the ways that the rhetoric approach enriches analysis of the policy process is the focus it places on the audience to the claims. These
64 rhetorical decisions will depend upon the nature of the claim, who the claimant is and who they are addressing. Rhetoric has received a poor press in modern times as it is often seen as something dishonest and undesirable (Garsten, 2006). However, there is an alternative
conceptualisation of rhetoric provided by Booth (1974) that highlights its value in bringing to the fore the role of human agency and judgement in policy making. He defined rhetoric as the ‘art of discovering warrantable beliefs and improving those beliefs in shared discourse’ (1974:xiii).
And so the task in solving a policy problem is not necessarily to acquire more information like the EBPM model suggests, but to exercise practical reason. It was Aristotle who
introduced this practical reason and it involves deliberation about moral and political issues, persuasion, reflection on values and disclosure of ideas. He acknowledged that in politics people must come to their decisions on the basis of claims and that there are multiple and varied perspectives in each decision. Aristotle ‘saw rhetoric as needed to make people see and understand the truth but also because some matters do not yield to a single, indisputable truth and the task before us is that of convincing others to see things in the same light as we, to define the situation in a particular way and to win others over to seeing it that way too’ (Finlayson, 2007:550).
Policy actors often disagree about the meaning and values of things. This contestability is more than just a difference of opinion. These differences are due to the parties involved having different criteria of assessment and approaching the dispute from a different context to one another. For the wicked issues or policy controversies there is often no agreed external evaluative standard; disputes are often not reducible to epistemological problems because people disagree not only about a particular policy problem but about what that policy
65 kinds of reasons that can be presented for so believing it; to present and explain a belief to others is to present the arguments that are part of the belief. In a policy argument, statements about evidence provide the foundations for the discussion which follows. The evidence is socially constructed knowledge and claims-makers and their audiences may agree to accept evidence without question, or one or multiple parties may disagree with the validity of the evidence. Although definition might seem the logical first step in claims-making, it
frequently follows an introductory example. For example, in the case of HS2 the discussion of a capacity problem on the WCML began before the debate for high speed rail did. Once a problem has been established through framing, claims-makers often try to assess its
magnitude. The bigger the problem, the more attention it can be said to merit, so most claims- makers will emphasise a problem’s size. They will argue that there is an urgent need for a solution to a particular problem.
Best (1987) suggested that there are three different types of estimates concerning the size of a problem. The first is incidence estimates which estimates the number of incidents or people affected. The more widespread a problem is, the more it demands attention. Growth estimates are concerned with claims that state a policy problem is getting worse or growing and unless action is taken there will be further deterioration. The third type of claims is range claims. By claiming that a policy problem’s range extends throughout society serves as an important rhetorical function. This may make the audience feel that they have a vested interest in the problem’s solution. Just as campaigners for the reclassification of cannabis from a C to a B argued that if we do nothing then the country will see a decline in mental health and the only solution is to reclassify the drug (Hope, 2008). The way in which claims-makers try to shape perceptions of social problems is by presenting examples or case histories. They also try to get the audience to imagine how they would feel in the same circumstances. This can invite sympathy and understanding, so the problem becomes less abstract and the claims easier to
66 comprehend. They will often insist that existing policies and resources cannot handle a problem therefore justifying the need for a new policy or an amendment to an existing one.
Claims-makers often emphasise consistency with past policy as this can be especially useful when they address institutions or bureaucracies. Other claims-makers may take a different approach and argue that ‘a problem calls for a revolutionary break from the past’ (Best, 1987:111). Such a claim can persuade those with little invested in past policies.
Understanding claims-making as it plays out in public policy can provide a vital tool. If an actor understands a claims-maker’s values and interests and is aware of their connections to other claims-makers and other issues, they are better able to predict their reaction to their own claims. They may be able to anticipate potential counter claims that may arise and be ready with further claims to expose these counters. Certain groups and actors have made this a true art in public policy and a lot can be learned from applying their claims-making strategies and practices. In order to truly influence public policy, claims-makers need to think like
policymakers and present their evidence in claims that appeal to the way decision makers think and feel about an issue. Claims-makers learn ways to mobilise and maintain public support; they learn how to get media coverage by constructing claims that are newsworthy; and they learn to identify key policy makers and recognise the levers which can move policy. The legitimacy of certain claims hinges on questions of generalizability, operational
definitions and measurement, and data analysis. The relative legitimacy of competing claims ‘is an issue that is fought out between different interest groups in the public arena and within the scientific establishment itself. In the final analysis, the legitimacy of such definitional claims rests on the adequacy of empirical documentation-documentation that is in turn subject to paradigmatic disagreements and political struggles’ (Gillespie and Leffler, 1987:491)
67 Claims-making literature does not focus on the role of evidence within policy making. A small literature base exists concerning representative claims-making and a slightly larger one on political claims-making but neither address all the elements that are important to this study. The limitations of the literature are that it does not recognise how different types of evidence impact on claims or how claims-makers select evidence, on what basis, and how they negotiate with each other. The existing and somewhat outdated literature explains that claims-making is a ‘rhetorical exercise in which claims-makers use persuasive arguments to advance their position, status or goals’ (Mulcahy, 1995:450). Concepts within and concepts that have developed from the literature are the strength of claims, the specificity of each claim and the types of claims that are being made. Returning to Toulmin’s (1958) theory of argumentation, the structure of arguments was examined. He drew a distinction between the claim and the evidence we appeal to as a foundation for the claim. The link between the evidence and claim can only be established by reference to warrants. He argued that warrants act as ‘bridges, and authorised the sort of step to which our particular argument commits us’ (Toulmin, 1958:98). Rhetoric approaches have found his scheme useful in analysing more complex arguments.