Content matters: Stakeholder assessment of river stories or river science
| Author | Sarah N Davis,Katrina Running,Mark K McBeth,Donna L Lybecker,James W Stoutenborough |
| Published date | 01 July 2017 |
| Date | 01 July 2017 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0952076716671034 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Public Policy and Administration
2017, Vol. 32(3) 175–196
!The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0952076716671034
journals.sagepub.com/home/ppa
Article
Content matters:
Stakeholder assessment
of river stories or river
science
Mark K McBeth, Donna L Lybecker,
James W Stoutenborough and
Sarah N Davis
Department of Political Science, Idaho State University, USA
Katrina Running
Department of Sociology, Social Work, and Criminology, Idaho
State University, USA
Abstract
Stakeholders include scientists, interest groups, leaders, professionals, government and
NGO employees, and activists; they are individuals or groups that play an increasingly
important role in public policy. As such, stakeholders are frequently used as a source to
better inform public decision making. Given the growing importance of stakeholders’
understanding and thus communication concerning the issues on which they inform the
public, it is timely to ask: How do stakeholders comprehend, or mentally construct an
understanding of the policy issues upon which they are asked to weigh in? In an attempt
to address this issue, this paper uses a case study of a policy issue, river restoration.
Results from a survey of 85 stakeholders and a follow up interview of 20 stakeholders
shed light on whether stakeholders predominantly prefer to think of river restoration in
terms of science or through policy narratives. The findings indicate that stakeholders
prefer explanations that use science and the engaged citizen narrative when they think
about the river’s restoration. Additionally, stakeholders who work for government
particularly emphasize that the river should be described in scientific terms. We use
this data to further analyze what elements of science and narratives are divisive to
stakeholders and which are not and conclude with advice on how stakeholders can
speak in a non-divisive way to the public and other stakeholders.
Corresponding author:
Mark K McBeth, Department of Political Science, Idaho State University, Stop 8073, Pocatello,ID 83209, USA.
Email: mcbemark@isu.edu
Keywords
Citizenship, narrative policy framework (NPF), policy narratives, public policy theories,
river management, stakeholder analysis
Introduction
Stakeholders are people or groups who act upon their concern for a given issue.
Stakeholders include scientists, interest groups, leaders, professionals, government
and NGO employees, and activists; they are individuals or groups that play an
increasingly important role in public policy. As such, stakeholders are frequently
used as a source to better inform public decision making (e.g., Bryson, 2004). Given
the growing importance of stakeholders’ understanding and thus communication
concerning the issues on which they inform the public, it is timely to ask: How do
stakeholders comprehend, or mentally construct, an understanding of the policy
issues upon which they are asked to weigh in? In an attempt to address this issue,
this paper looks at human cognition not merely as an academic issue, but as one of
great practical importance. Stakeholders are often divided by seemingly contradict-
ory trends in how they mentally construct an understanding of public policy; dif-
ferences that can create difficulties for moving policies forward. Today in the US
political system, many stakeholders value science, and thus utilize it to detail policy
problems and offer solutions (e.g., Heikkila and Gerlak, 2005). However other
stakeholders use policy narratives, or stories, to ‘‘explain’’ policy issues, ascribing
blame for a policy problem, detailing who can fix it, and offering solutions (e.g.,
Crow and Berggren, 2014). Battles between individuals preferring science and those
preferring a narrative can lead to divisiveness and intractability. Thus, discerning if
stakeholders use scientific knowledge as their basis for understanding a particular
issue, or if they comprehend the issue through narrative, can help explain how
stakeholders will present information to the public and provide a better under-
standing of what might contribute to divisiveness.
This study addresses a gap in literature by evaluating whether stakeholders in a
real-time (meaning occurring now and not one that is hypothetical or in the past)
environmental controversy chose a science-based statement or a thematic narrative
as best reflecting how they comprehend a given policy issue. Understanding which
message style best reflects a stakeholder’s own views is important since a stake-
holder’s dominant message choice is often a reflection of that stakeholder’s values.
After a review of the literature and an explanation of the theoretical framework,
this paper examines the differences and determinants among river management
stakeholders as reflected by their choice of either a science or a thematic policy
narrative. We also examine how message choice impacts evaluation of narrative
characters and descriptive elements, and whether similar stakeholders identify with
particular narratives or the science statement.
176 Public Policy and Administration 32(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial