The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning
Abstract
Part 1 The argumentative turn: policy institutions and practices: Policy discourse and the politics of Washington think tanks, Frank Fischer Discourse coalitions and the institutionalization of practice - the case of acid rain in Great Britain, Maarten Hajer Political judgement and the policy cycle - the case of ethnicity arguments in the Netherlands, Robert Hoppe Counsel and consensus - norms of argumentation in health policy, Bruce Jennings. Part 2 Analytical concepts - frames, tropes, and narratives: Survey research as rhetorical trope - electric power planning arguments in Chicago, J.A. Throgmorton Frame reflective policy discourse, Martin Rein and Donald Schon Reading policy narratives - beginning, middle, and end, Thomas J. Kaplan Learning from practice stories - the priority of practical judgement, John Forester. Part 3 Theoretical perspectives: Policy anlysis and planning - from science to argumentation, John Dryzek Planning through debate - the communicative turn in planning theory, Patsy Healey Policy reforms as arguments, William Dunn Two worlds of policy discourse - consensual versus adversarial proposal selection, Duncan MacRae.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Toulmin, S. E. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511840005 · Cited by 7,101
The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change
Kuhn, T. S. (1977) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226217239.001.0001 · Cited by 3,861
Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument
Fisher, W. R. (1984) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637758409390180 · Cited by 1,807
Assessing the impact of planned social change
Campbell, D. T. (1979) · Evaluation and Program Planning · doi:10.1016/0149-7189(79)90048-x · Cited by 957
Cited by
Does discourse matter? Discourse analysis in environmental policy making
Feindt, P. H., & Oels, A. (2005) · Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning · doi:10.1080/15239080500339638 · Cited by 394
Beyond Empiricism: Policy Inquiry in Post positivist Perspective
Fischer, F. (1998) · Policy Studies Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.1998.tb01929.x · Cited by 353
Uyarra, E., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., Flanagan, K., & Magro, E. (2020) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.103844 · Cited by 280
“Arguments or narratives are treated as ordering devices for sense making in policy analysis (Fischer and Forester, 1993; Arrona and Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, 2019).”
BackgroundRelational concepts of space and place: Issues for planning theory and practice
Graham, S., & Healey, P. (1999) · European Planning Studies · doi:10.1080/09654319908720542 · Cited by 280
Technical knowledge, discursive spaces and politics at the science–policy interface
Wesselink, A., Buchanan, K. S., Georgiadou, Y., & Turnhout, E. (2013) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.12.008 · Cited by 224
Metadata
- Venue
- Duke University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Duke University Press
- Published
- 1993
- OpenAlex
- W2050765165
- Cited by
- 1,992
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 49.21
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1215/9780822381815
- The paper
- The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. (1993). Duke University Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822381815
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
