Framing is a not a new subject in science, but scientific interest in this matter is increasing lately. Being a quite abstract and somehow indefinite research object, framing theory is not yet fully developed and used in every research field in the same way. This article explores framing theory from a neurolinguistic perspective and shows why framing is important as well as inevitable in any form of communication or text. A case - framing crisis - is used to show the body and impact of different frames. The main argument is that it is impossible to communicate without frames and that the chosen frame has a great impact on the way the public will interpret certain events or situations.

Public organizations delivering public services are the subjects of approximately a third of the daily news in the quality press. This article investigates the media frames in which public organizations are portrayed and also investigates the direct and indirect strategies that public organizations use to influence those frames. The analysis is relevant because public organizations are subjected to decision making processes by politicians that are informed by the frames in media stories. The article is based on a combination of quantitative and qualitative content analysis of media reporting, and focus-groups and interviews with senior officials from multiple Dutch and Australian public service providers. The analysis reveals that public organizations deploy both direct strategies via communication as well as indirect strategies (such as networking with journalists and applied research) in order to influence media framing. The interaction between news media and public organizations is depicted as a struggle for control over media messages, where journalists and politicians often get the upper hand but where public organizations have specific traits that may serve to generate specific frames.

Problems with the rivers were the incentive to change Dutch flood safety policy in 2000. ‘A different approach to water’ became the new policy slogan. Government presumes that public engagement in decision-making on flood safety will lead to more water awareness and risk aware behaviour. ‘No or hardly any negative side-effects’ are expected from this strategy. However, our research shows that public engagement in flood safety decision-making leads to fierce policy contestation, since proposed solutions do not meet the safety perception of local citizens. ‘A different approach to water’ strategy does not resonate in Dutch society because most people are convinced that government guarantees water safety. In this article we explain that this so-called ‘myth of water safety’ is based on a deep frame of risk control. We argue that flood safety needs to be reframed and that a new frame should be based on acceptance of vulnerability instead of risk control.

This article explores the role of frames about the future in policy reform, by analysing Dutch debates about population ageing and their impact on welfare policies in the period from 2000 until 2008 as a case study. Mapping the debates around ageing in the Netherlands, the article demonstrates that frames are a powerful force in the policy process. Diverging frames about the future enable fundamental changes of deeply embedded policy institutions. The case study shows the process of argumentation about the future that took place between 2000 and 2008, and reflects upon the frames about the future that were of crucial importance in bringing temporary closure to the controversy over the proper response to the demographic shift, which then lead to several important and rather strong changes in institutions of welfare state policies and fiscal policies.

Why is there an on-going debate about climate change? We analyse this question from a framing point of view. We analyse four well-known frames in the climate change debate, and see what kind of reactions and reframing they invoke. The analysis shows that simple frames with an inherent logic, which activates underlying values and which are easy to communicate strongly resonate. It is difficult to counter such a frame. Opponents of the frame are often seduced to counter the frame by using the same wording. In this way, they step into the frame of their opponents and thus confirm the frame. To conclude, the article discusses two possible strategies for reframing: to couple the frame with other frames, and to suggest an alternative frame without stepping into the opposed frame.

Over the last decade educational regulation has changed dramatically. Attempts to develop more cost-efficient regulation and to reduce the regulatory burden paralleled an increased focus on student achievement and sanctioning of failing schools. Additionally, the Inspectorate of Education holds school boards (instead of school principals) accountable for the quality development of their schools. Also, a change in legislation now requires schools to establish an internal supervisory board and improve their accountability to stakeholders.

These changes greatly impact the role of the Dutch Education Inspectorate as they are placed in a polycentric, instead of a monocentric, steering context. This article discusses the new position and role of the Dutch Education Inspectorate and evaluates the extent to which the educational sector and the Inspectorate of Education meet the requirements of such a polycentric context.

Over the last decades an increasing number of mergers and acquisitions between Dutch healthcare organizations has taken place (up scaling). More recently there is a rise in the numbers of new small-scale healthcare organizations and small-scale care facilities (down scaling in the numbers). The wide variety of scales, each with its pros, cons and (historical) contexts, makes the existence of one optimal scale an illusion. Our research question is: when, and on the basis of which values, is scale of healthcare organizations legitimate? We answer this question by analyzing 650 newspaper articles from fourteen national newspapers. By using theory about legitimacy and values, we argue that five values underlie the public discussion on scale: governance, the human size, quality of care, market power and efficiency. We conclude that achieving legitimate scale involves dealing with those five values, which are not always commensurable and sometimes conflicting. With this article we contribute to the scientific debate about scale and values. We also give recommendations to policy makers and executives that can be used to improve the legitimacy of scale decisions.

Innovation is a popular theme in society as well as in public administration. This essay focuses on innovations that take place within the realm of the public sector. How can these innovations be developed and what do we know about their adoption and diffusion? Is it possible to steer these innovations and if so, how can it be done? Based on analyses of recent scientific insights, Bekkers, Edelenbos and Steijn (2011) plea for an incremental adaptive evolutionary public innovation strategy. Within the framework of such a strategy, innovation has to be directed towards increasing the connective capacity within government. Also, the specific, political character of the public sector as the context of innovation has to be acknowledged. Furthermore, it is also important to find a balance between the logic of consequentiality and the logic of appropriateness. Based on dissertations by Huijboom (2010), Korteland (2011) and Oosterbaan (2012) the meaning of this evolutionary strategy for public sector organizations is explored.