Policy discourse as dialogue: Emergent publics and the reflexive turn
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The apolitical image of policy discourse has typically been reinforced by a peculiar feature of the discourse itself: its failure to clearly recognize itself as a form of discourse. Countering this technocratic image, reflexive interpretations of policy discourse— influenced by figures such as Habermas and Toucault—focus attention on its discursive aspects and thus help to expose its political character in the context of emergent publics. This political connection is examined here in terms of a contrast, following Bakhtin, between monologue and dialogue. A dialogical model of policy discourse is proposed. The contrast between monologue and dialogue is pursued through a three‐dimensional conception of politics that, both drawing upon and departing from Arendt, is able to clarify three corresponding dimensions of policy discourse: functional, constitutive, and performative. A dialogical, three‐dimensional conceptualization offers a way to understand how relationships between emergent publics and policy discourse create the potential for a reorientation of practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it