Arizona Education Coalitions’ Narrative Strategy in Arizona Legislative Testimony: A Narrative Policy Framework Study

Abstract

The aim of this dissertation was to identify the extent to which narratives exist in state legislative testimony, contribute to the body of literature considering whether perceptions of winning or losing or position taking are better indicators of the use of devil-angel shift in policy debates, and understand whether differences in solidary shift exists between coalitions. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the traditional devil-angel shift hypothesis around winning and losing might be reframed around position taking. To do this, I quantitatively analyzed two years of coded written and oral testimony in Arizona legislative education committees on anti-Critical Race Theory legislation. Findings support the use of legislative testimony as a source for narratives in Narrative Policy Framework research. Additionally, I find minimal evidence to support both the perceptions of winning or losing and the position taking hypotheses of devil-angel shift. I suggest this may be because of a lack of coalition cohesion, offer a potential new way of thinking about position taking as expanding or limiting individual rights, and acknowledge that the national anti-Critical Race Theory messaging strategy might help us consider how these relate to coalition narratives in the Trump era of policymaking. Lastly, I provide evidence that there was a switch in solidarity shift between coalitions, and I propose an expansion of the NPF research into the use of victims that might help future researchers explain this phenomenon.