A conceptualisation of argumentative coupling in times of crisis

According to Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) (2011), a policy entrepreneur leverages an open policy window to create connections between the otherwise independent problem, policy and politics streams. Kingdon named this process "coupling." This concept has been understudied in the policy studies literature, although the concept has recently received more attention by MSF scholars. In this paper, we contribute to the operationalization of one aspect of coupling that focuses on narratives developed by policy entrepreneurs to couple the streams: argumentative coupling (Blum, 2018). Blum identifies six argumentative coupling logics that fall under the broader categories of consequential (when the argument links the problem stream to another), the doctrinal (when the argument links the policy stream to another) and the political (when the argument links the politics stream to another). Specifically, in this paper, we examine arguments crafted by experts to clarify the role of expertise in policy decisions. To further our understanding, we ask ourselves "which expert arguments succeed in influencing policy decisions, and which do not succeed?" Moreover, we also ask "why are certain expert arguments successful and others not?" We choose to apply argumentative coupling to the crisis context. Policies adopted in crisis conditions tend to rely heavily on expert arguments due to the uncertainty and ambiguity that characterise emergencies. Policy decisions often need to be taken quickly and with a limited and changing evidence base. Our research makes a conceptual, analytical contribution to public policy research by advancing the overlooked linkage between the three streams in the MSF under crisis conditions. We operationalise argumentative coupling by identifying enablers and impediments to arguments that use different argumentative coupling logics (Blum, 2018).