THE INFLUENCE OF THE VISUAL IN PUBLIC POLICY MAKING
VISUAL CULTURE “being concerned with visual events in which information, meaning or pleasure is sought by the consumer in an interface with visual technologies” (Mirzoeff, 1999) Increasingly important Fragmentized and disrupted Not in a vacuum
VISUAL TECHNOLOGIES Functions Registration Transparency (analytical, informational, integrative) Communication
CLASSIFICATION Non-motionmotion RealPhotoFilm Not realDrawingAnimation
FRAMING Types of stories Forensic evidence Persuasive Imaginary Actors in arena use these stories to push their idea, problem, solution or alternative forward
Technology to create and distribute visual events Framing by story telling Shaping interaction Course, content and outcome
TechnologyPolicy phaseField MinaretsDrawingAgenda-settingIntegration FitnaFilmAgenda-settingIntegration SickoFilmAgenda-settingHealthcare RiskmapAnimation+drawingPolicy making/ decision making Dangerous substances/ urban planning HISAnimation+drawingPolicy making/ decision making Water management TSNAnimation+drawingPolicy making/ decision making Contagious diseases Queensday dramaAnimationPolicy evaluationPublic safety Sunset groovesAnimation+drawing+filmPolicy evaluationPublic safety/police brutality SchipholfireFilm+animationPolicy evaluationHousing/safety
CONCLUSIONS Direct influence (new information) Integrative transparency Technology for integrative transparency Big data Indirect influence (frame change) Technology matters – frame attribution (creation and distribution) Type of story Integrative transparency
CONCLUSIONS II No influence Enforcement existing situation Renewed attention Anticipatory action No new information New Arena