The Science of Storytelling: Measuring Policy Beliefs in Greater Yellowstone

ABSTRACT

This study of Greater Yellowstone interest groups uses a mixed methodology that addresses methodological criticisms of narrative policy analysis. Three research questions guide the research: (1) Is it possible to connect narratives found in public consumption documents to interest group policy beliefs? (2) Can narratives be made falsifiable? (3) Does a quantified method add to the usefulness and explanatory power of narrative policy analysis? Seventy-five public consumption documents from the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and the Blue Ribbon Coalition were content analyzed for policy beliefs. The results indicate statistically significant differences between the two groups for all three policy beliefs: federalism, science, and the relationship between humans and nature. Despite these statistically significant results, some of the findings run counter to expectations. The implications of the study's methodological approach are explored.

Keywords:

• environmental policy
• interest groups
• mixed methodology
• narrative policy analysis
• Yellowstone

The authors wish to thank Randy Clemons, Kathy Dilorenzo, Ann Hunter, Anca Mazilu, and the three anonymous reviewers for their assistance in the preparation of this article. This research funded by Faculty Research Grant 903, Idaho State University.

Notes

Note. Federalism (−1.00 = Compact Theory; +1.00 = Nationalism Theory), Science (−1.00 = Technology; +1.00 = Conservation Biology), and Humans/Nature (−1.00 = Anthropocentrism; + 1.00 = Biocentrism). There were 38 GYC documents and 37 BRC documents. The frequencies do not add up to these numbers because not all documents included the identification of allies or victims or the use of science.

^a Significant at p < .01.

Note. Because of the small n, statistical tests were not performed on the data. Federa-lism (−1.00 = Compact Theory; +1.00 = Nationalism Theory). Science (−1.00 = Technology; +1.00 = Conservation Biology). Human & Nature (−1.00 = Anthropocentrism; +1.00 = Biocentrism).

^a There were two separate questions (questions 1 and 3 in Appendix A) identifying elected and nonelected allies. Thus, the higher number of total agreements and disagreements.

^b Again there were two separate questions for allies (questions 2 and 4 in Appendix A).

^c On the science question, missed by 1 indicated that one coder gave a preference (either technology/human based or conservation biology) while the second coder said the science indicated both human and conservation biology elements. If the two coders disagreed on whether the science was technology/human based or conservation biology then the coding missed by 2.