Society and Natural Resources, 18:413–429
Copyright # 2005 Taylor & Francis Inc.
ISSN: 0894-1920 print/1521-0723 online
DOI: 10.1080/08941920590924765
The Science of Storytelling: Measuring Policy Beliefs
in Greater Yellowstone
MARK K. McBETH AND ELIZABETH A. SHANAHAN
Department of Political Science, Idaho State University, Pocatello,
Idaho, USA
MICHAEL D. JONES
Department of Political Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman,
Oklahoma, USA
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 Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) encompasses over 20 million acres in three
states (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming). Given its status as the world’s first national
park, Yellowstone National Park (YNP) is a lightning rod for national, regional,
and local environmental politics. Environmental interest groups use the symbolic
importance of YNP and its national constituency to push for a variety of environmental initiatives within the GYA. Conversely, recreational and extractive industry
interest groups tend to view the park and ecosystem policies as generally out of touch
with local and regional interests (Tierney and Frasure 1998; Wilson 1997). The result
of these competing policy beliefs is political conflict.
The management of public lands in GYA, like that of other Western public
lands, produces some of the most heated battles in American politics (Tierney and
Received 22 October 2003; accepted 29 September 2004.
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.
Address correspondence to Mark K. McBeth, Campus Box 8319, Idaho State University,
Pocatello, ID 83209, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
413
414
M.K. McBeth et al.
Frasure 1998, 304). Much of the conflict is rooted in deep cultural divisions (Nie
2003; Tierney and Frasure 1998). These divisions spring from economic and social
change in the region (Power and Barrett 2001) and are normally cast in a dichotomous fashion: the Old West (rural, working class, natural resource-based economy,
resource use) versus the New West (urban, professionals, service-based economy,
environmentalism). Additionally, Yellowstone policymaking has been characterized
by high levels of distrust and political posturing leading to minimal political compromise (Morris and McBeth 2002). The conflict has been increasingly intense in the last
10 years as environmental groups had considerable policy success in wolf reintroduction, roadless initiatives, and snowmobile phase-outs during the Clinton administration. However, the election of President Bush in 2000 signified a change of policy
course, as many policies were subsequently postponed, modified, or revoked.
The script for Greater Yellowstone’s political battlefield is written by warring
interest groups that frame policy issues to produce problem definitions favorable
to the groups’ policy solutions. Sasson (1995, 9–10) explains this framing activity
as the process by which individuals construct accounts of public issues by assembling
‘‘raw material into coherent and meaningful accounts.’’ In their study of American
Western environmental policy, Tierney and Frasure (1998, 312) argue that interest
groups exert less energy in their traditional activities of attempting to influence
decision makers; instead, ‘‘most of their activities constitute an effort to ‘frame the
issues’—to affect what aspect or ‘frame the issues’ people see when they look at
it.’’ In the Greater Yellowstone Area, interest groups commonly characterized as
Old West or New West spend a great deal of time attempting to influence decision
makers, group members, and a wider public audience through the framing of public
problems in newsletters, Internet sites, and newspaper opinion pieces.
Narrative Policy Analysis
Narrative analysis is an analytical tool concerned with ‘‘how the protagonist interprets things’’ (Riessman 1993, 4–6). This literary device, in turn, has been used methodologically in the realm of policy studies through the development of Narrative
Policy Analysis (NPA), which focuses mainly on the social construction of problem
definitions through the use of language. Under the umbrella of NPA, there are two
distinct approaches. Roe (1994) relies on story structure to predict policy success;
Stone (2002) relies on story content to identify political values. Stone’s work better
facilitates an uncovering of competing policy beliefs in political conflict. Stone’s
theory of NPA is that all language—whether it emanates from scientific reports, congressional testimonies, or Internet sites—is a strategically crafted story that frames
the issues in ways that produce desired outcomes. Stone (2002, 156) argues that problem definitions are strategic and are constructed in the minds of citizens by influential
individuals or organizations as an ‘‘essential part of political maneuvering.’’ Both
inside and outside the policy subsystem, interest groups seek to persuade interested
parties of the veracity, scope, and mutual exclusivity of their problem definition.
In order to reveal the political values driving the problem definition, Stone
(2002) uses literary devices such as characters, plots, colorful language, and metaphors to analyze political stories. In particular, the storyteller’s political values are
revealed in who is scripted to fulfill the roles of the protagonists and antagonists.
The heroes (and allies) are the potential fixers of a problem, while the villains (or
opponents) are the groups or persons responsible for a policy problem. The story’s
The Science of Storytelling
415
victim is the one harmed by the villain and worthy of policy attention. Ultimately,
Stone (2002, 229) asserts that the goal of this strategic problem definition is to portray a political problem so that one’s favored course of action appears to be in the
broad public interest. In Greater Yellowstone politics, motorized recreation groups
that desire the continuation of snowmobiling inside YNP portray environmental
groups as villains by defining them as a narrow band of elites. The victim in this narrative is the snowmobile user, who is portrayed as an average citizen. Thus, an analysis of characters (heroes, villains, victims) in a political narrative reveals the political
values rooted in the problem definition.
Criticisms of Narrative Policy Analysis
Narrative policy analysis (NPA) is a framework for researchers to understand problem definitions as they are constructed through language. However, NPA has its
critics. Foremost, proponents of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), which
uses a traditional social science approach to hypothesis testing, generally dismiss
NPA as limited to a descriptive methodology. ACF criticisms of NPA focus on falsification and clarity, the use of public consumption documents, and the different
ontological assumptions of social science research.
Falsification and Clarity
One of the originators of the Advocacy Coalition Framework, Sabatier (1999, 11),
criticizes NPA by stating that these researchers leave ideas unconnected to ‘‘institutions’’ and ‘‘specific individuals.’’ That is to say that nothing can be counted as evidence against NPA assertions. In the language of Sir Karl Popper, the method is
then construed as ‘‘pseudoscientific.’’ Thus, Sabatier (1999, 11) contends that the
constructivist approach is ‘‘largely nonfalsifiable.’’ While Sabatier (2000) finds legitimacy in some constructivist work (e.g., Schneider and Ingram 1993), most criticisms
are levied due to a lack of scientific standards. For example, Sabatier argues that the
constructivists ‘‘have demonstrated very little concern with being sufficiently clear to
be proven wrong’’ and that their lack of clarity leads him to have ‘‘no interest in
popularizing their position’’ (Sabatier 2000, 138). This research rises to these criticisms by providing falsifiable hypotheses with clear propositions, plainly defined—
and hence replicable—principal terms, and an unambiguous analytical structure.
Public Consumption Documents
A second area where Advocacy Coalition Framework researchers disagree with narrative policy analysis is in the use of public consumption documents. Public consumption documents (newspaper editorials, newsletters, Internet sites) are generally not
used by ACF researchers, because the language is considered ‘‘political spin’’ tailored
to specific audiences and not a valid measurement source of policy beliefs. For
example, Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier (1993, 243) argue that testimony before congressional committees or public hearings is more likely to produce valid measurement, because speakers are likely to be consistent when the audience is comprised
exclusively of other subsystem actors. Conversely, public consumption documents
are regularly used by NPA researchers (e.g., McBeth and Clemons 1999; Roe 1994).
416
M.K. McBeth et al.
The ACF theory thus purports that policy actors express ‘‘valid’’ beliefs in some
circumstances, whereas in other situations, they politically frame their arguments for
audiences. The position taken in this research is that public consumption documents
do, in fact, express valid beliefs and are important sources in measuring policy
beliefs. The policy values are valid and reliable even though the language may
attempt to cast a wide net to build coalitions.
Ontological Assumptions
NPA and traditional social science approaches are typically believed to be ontologically dichotomous. The former approaches understanding social phenomena
through a subjective or interpretivist lens (with an emphasis on understanding),
while the latter studies social phenomena through an objective or scientific lens (with
an emphasis on explanation and prediction). However, a mixed methodological
approach challenges this ontological dichotomy. Mixed methodologies combine
both interpretivist and traditional social scientific approaches. The strength to these
approaches is increased reliability and validity when using subjective factors. Berg
(1995, 4) states of mixed methods that by ‘‘combining several lines of sight’’ researchers ‘‘obtain a better, more substantiated picture of reality.’’
Research Goals
This study addresses criticisms of NPA by testing whether a mixed methodology
approach can use content analysis to quantify interest group policy beliefs found in public consumption documents. The goals of this research are: (1) to test whether it is possible to connect narratives found in public consumption documents to interest group
policy beliefs; (2) to test whether it is possible to falsify narratives through the development of equations and subsequent hypothesis testing; and (3) to explore whether such an
exercise enhances the usefulness and explanatory power of narrative policy analysis.
Major Elements of Political Dispute in Greater Yellowstone
Three themes dominate the literature when distinctions are drawn between Old West
and New West groups in the Greater Yellowstone Area: federalism, science, and the
human & nature relationship. In a case study of the introduction of wolves to YNP
in the 1990 s, Wilson (1997, 2) argues that ‘‘differential access to social power,’’ ‘‘conflicting ideas about private property,’’ and ‘‘fundamentally divergent beliefs about
humankind’s proper relationship with the natural environment’’ explained much
of the conflict. According to Wilson (1997), New West environmental groups rely
on national coalitions, believe in increased social control over private property,
and possess a biocentric view of humans and nature. In contrast, Old West ‘‘wise
use’’ groups rely on local constituencies, believe in protection of property rights,
and contend that natural resources are to be used for human economic needs.
Tierney and Frasure (1998) also determined that federalism (local vs. national
control), science, and the human & nature relationship are key elements of political
and policy conflict in Greater Yellowstone. These three themes, in turn, are representative of the value differences between the New West and the Old West.
The Science of Storytelling
417
Federalism and Yellowstone Politics
Conflicting theories of American federalism play an important role in Yellowstone
politics. Old West groups contend that the issues of Greater Yellowstone are ones
that affect local citizens; therefore, local elected officials (including U.S. Congress
persons from the Greater Yellowstone states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming)
and local groups should have the power to decide policies (compact theory). Conversely, the New West groups are more likely to state that Yellowstone is an area
of national concern and that national groups, citizens, and elected officials (those
outside the tristate Yellowstone area) should be central to policy making (nationalism theory) (Tierney and Frasure 1998; Wilson 1997).
Science and Yellowstone Politics
Between these competing cultures, science has become a key issue in Greater Yellowstone debates (Cawley and Freemuth 1993; Freemuth 1989). The science preferred by
New West groups is characterized by natural management, habitat and ecosystem
protection, and biodiversity. In addition, ‘‘conservation biology’’ that favors ‘‘biodiversity’’ and ‘‘rare and endangered species issues’’ is a popular scientific field of New
West advocates (Pritchard 1999, 259). Rodger Schlickson (cited in Wilkenson 1998,
11) argues that ‘‘science is a moral compass for making the right choices’’ and
‘‘science is the light that tells us where we should go.’’
Old West groups, on the other hand, argue that technology can correct environmental problems. They value science that is human centered: viewing nature as a
commodity that is to be directed and managed through technological innovation.
Old West groups believe that technology can be used to stop environmental degradation and can be used to increase the productive capacity of natural resources. In
addition, these rurally based groups are also distrusting of the science used by
New West groups. Old West groups like to characterize the New West science as
‘‘mystical’’ and ‘‘New Age.’’ Alston Chase (1987, 344–368) exemplifies the Old
West’s utilitarian and provincial view of science when he terms natural management
and an emphasis on ecosystem protection as ‘‘California Cosmology.’’
Relationship Between Humans and Nature
The differing value attached to science is partially explained by conflicting views over
the relationship between humans and nature. A major part of the New West philosophy is a ‘‘biocentric model of ecosystem management’’ where human interference
in natural processes is kept to a minimum and natural resource extraction takes a
back seat to biodiversity (Wilson 1997, 10). This biocentric philosophy has been
the source of both environmental success and political conflict in issues such as bison
and grizzly bear management, wildfire management, and the reintroduction of
wolves. However, the biocentric nature of the New West supporters has been called
into question. Using survey data from Montana, Morris and McBeth (2003) and
Morris (2002) found that changes in economic composition have led to increases in
environmental concern in Montana among both citizens and elected officials in
New West communities. However, these environmental concerns are still driven by
anthropocentric concerns such as tourism and recreation access. Thus, the Old West
versus New West dichotomy may well be overdrawn in its differentiation of groups.
418
M.K. McBeth et al.
Conversely, the Old West philosophy is based on active human resource use and
management. Wilson (1997, 10) argues that the rural West’s ‘‘posture toward the
natural environment is grounded in the fundamental belief that man is the master
of his own destiny.’’ Much of this Old West philosophy might likewise be mythic.
The Old West’s emphasis on independence and individualism ignores decades of
the rural West’s dependence on Eastern corporations and federal government policies (Foster 1991).
Competing Yellowstone Interest Groups
In our period of study (1996–2002), two competing interest groups have dominated
public discussions of Yellowstone politics: the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC)
and the Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC). The GYC is a New West interest group based
in Bozeman, MT. As an interest group, GYC produces newsletters and news
releases, raises money, and encourages its members to write their elected officials
and make comments on environmental impact statements. GYC has promoted the
idea that policymakers should conceptualize Yellowstone as an extended ecosystem
worthy of protection, and the group was instrumental in pushing for the use of
science in decision making (Pritchard 1999, 258–262). GYC lays the blame for Yellowstone political problems not on local ranchers or business people but frequently
on state (Montana, Wyoming, Idaho) elected officials, bureaucrats, and corporations (McBeth and Clemons 1999, 167–168). In addition, GYC, unlike other Greater
Yellowstone groups such as the Buffalo Field Campaign, is not a spiritual environmental group. For instance, though GYC weaves pastoral themes into its narratives,
it often argues for environmental preservation for the benefit of nonmotorized
recreational users and small business interests.
The Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC), based in Pocatello, ID, is an Old West interest group that advocates for motorized recreation. BRC engages in the same activities as GYC (publishing newsletters, encouraging members to comment on
environmental impact statements). BRC uses Old West themes of rural independence
and is often conspiratorial in its political rhetoric, trying to appeal to rural and
working-class populism and these groups, distrust of government (Clemons and
McBeth 2001, 209–210). The Blue Ribbon Coalition often terms environmental
groups as ‘‘GAG’s’’ (Green Advocacy Groups) and ‘‘Anti-Recreation’’ groups.
However, BRC rarely engages in symbolic protest, instead preferring to fight its
political battles through administrative and elected official channels.
Methodology
This study uses the theory of narrative policy analysis to quantify the policy beliefs
of the Greater Yellowstone Coalition (GYC) and Blue Ribbon Coalition (BRC)
from 1 January 1996 through 31 December 2002. Thirty-eight documents were coded
for the GYC, and 37 documents were coded for the BRC (a list of these documents is
available from the authors). These public consumption documents (press releases,
newsletters, and editorials) represent all known public documents released by the
respective interest groups in the three policy controversies of interest: bison management, Clinton’s roadless initiative, and snowmobile use in YNP.
Policy Controversy 1: Bison Management. Involves a longstanding controversy over
the concern for the transmission of brucellosis from bison to cattle, which
The Science of Storytelling
419
resulted in bison being captured, shot, or hazed by Montana Department of
Livestock officials (7 GYC and 4 BRC documents).
Policy Controversy 2: The Clinton Administration Roadless Initiative. Involves a ban
on future road building in national forests that are currently roadless; much of
the land surrounding YNP is national forest (7 GYC and 10 BRC documents).
Policy Controversy 3: Snowmobile Use in Yellowstone National Park. Involves efforts
to end snowmobiling inside Yellowstone National Park (24 GYC and 23 BRC
documents).
Schon and Rein (1994, 4) argue that a policy controversy is ‘‘immune to resolution by appeal to the facts.’’ Proponents of differing solutions to a policy controversy pay selective attention to the evidence, and competitive groups examining
the same evidence tend to interpret it differently. Examining policy controversies
provides insights into competitive interest group framing. All three policy controversies are addressed by both interest groups between 1 January 1996 and 31 December
2002.
This research follows a mixed methodological approach where qualitative information is quantified for empirical analysis. While other studies (e.g., Webler et al.
2003; Sumpter and Braddock 2002) use quantitative methods to analyze qualitative
data, the essential role of NPA in this study’s mixed methodology process should not
be overlooked. It would be much more difficult (and less valid) to measure federalism without an understanding of the role of allies in a political story, or to measure
the relationship between humans and nature without an understanding of the role of
victims, or to measure science without an understanding of the values behind or the
framing of the use of science. Thus, a qualitative method and theoretical framework
(NPA) helps guide our intersubjectively reliable, quantitative data analysis.
Structured upon NPA, content analysis was used to first operationalize and later
quantify policy beliefs uncovered by NPA in public consumption documents. Content analysis is unobtrusive, allows for reliability analysis, permits longitudinal
analysis, and is efficient and inexpensive. The documents analyzed were readily
archived and complete, thereby avoiding some of the disadvantages of using content
analysis (Johnson, Josyln, and Reynolds 2001, 263–266).
The content analysis process evolved through stages. First, a codebook was
developed and pretested on 10 documents for an initial test of intercoder reliability.
Second, the documents were content analyzed by two trained researchers using the
refined codebook (see Appendix A). On the decision to code or not to code, the
two coders independently agreed 93% of the time on the two questions identifying
allies, 79% on whether an article identified a victim, and 80% on whether an article
used science or technology (see Appendix B). On the items coded which asked for
a count of specific occurrences, a reliability analysis consistent with that used by
Sabatier and Brasher (1993, 187) was followed. For example, one question asked
the coder to quantify the number of nationally and locally based nonelected and
elected allies cited in a narrative. An analysis showed that the two coders were exact
or within one value of each other 86% of the time (on two questions ) in categorizing
allies, exact or within one value 91% of the time in categorizing the narrative’s victim, and exact or within one value 86% of the time in categorizing science. There is
adequate intersubject reliability. As is common in content analysis (e.g., Curtin and
Rhodenbaugh 2001), the coders reconciled the disagreements in order to provide the
final data.
420
M.K. McBeth et al.
Equation 1: Federalism
The compact theory of federalism advocates for policy decision making to reside at
the local level; the nationalism theory of federalism proposes policy decision making
to occur at the national level. Thus, federalism is operationalized by identifying and
differentiating local vs. national allies in the interest groups’ narratives. Naturally,
interest groups are going to construct their narratives in a manner that present themselves as the potential fixer of a problem (Stone 2002, 207). These groups are also
going to list other politically friendly individuals and groups (interest groups, media,
administrators, and elected officials) in their narratives. If these allies are locally
based (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming), the interest group is suggesting a compact
theory of federalism; if these allies are nationally based (outside the tristate area
of Greater Yellowstone), the interest group is suggesting a nationalism theory of
federalism. This leads to the equation for federalism:
FEDERALISM Score =
ðtotal national nonelected þ elected alliesÞ ðtotal local nonelected þ elected allies)
total number of allies
Based on this equation, each document received a federalism score. The mean was
then calculated to determine an overall federalism score and was presented in a scale:
1:00
Compact
theory of federalism
ðOld WestÞ
0
þ1:00
Nationalism
theory of federalism
ðNew WestÞ
Equation 2: Science
Narrative policy analysis views the use of science as value-laden and political (Stone
2002, 312–314). However, all groups in the political system use science that they
assert is value-free and nonpolitical in support of their views. For example, one interest group may use science to argue that the carrying capacity for bison in Yellowstone is 3000 animals. Yet this conclusion is based on a value judgment that bison
cannot migrate outside of Yellowstone, because humans use public lands for cattle
grazing. While the science that placed the bison’s carrying capacity at 3000 is legitimate, the often unstated assumption is that human concerns (cattle grazing) override biocentric concerns. As this example illustrates, science itself can be used as a
script. Cawley and Freemuth (1993, 51) argue, ‘‘Science is a means to an end, not
an end in itself.’’ The statements of science may be factual, but the value assumptions—ecological or technological & human focus—are implied tacitly. This discussion is not intended to provoke a larger dialogue about the relativity of
science, but rather to point out how science is often full of unspoken value (political)
assumptions. Equation 2 demonstrates how this study quantifies the groups’
construction:
ðtotal number conservation &
ðtotal number technology &
biology scienceÞ
human based scienceÞ
SCIENCE Score ¼
total uses of science
The Science of Storytelling
421
Based on this equation, each document that used science received a science score.
The mean was then calculated to determine the overall science score and was
presented in a scale:
1:00
Technology=human
ðOld WestÞ
0
þ1:00
Conservation=biology
ðNew WestÞ
Equation 3: Human & Nature Relationship
In a manner similar to the quantification of the use of science, groups construct the
relationship between humans and nature in specific ways that reflect policy beliefs.
This concept is measured by examining the victims in a group’s problem definition
narrative. If the victim of a narrative is a human concern (e.g., economic or human
health), it is logical to conclude that the narrative frame of the human–nature
relationship is anthropocentric. Conversely, if the victim is portrayed as wildlife or
nature, the narrative frame of the human–nature relationship is biocentric. This is
not to suggest that raising human concerns necessarily means harming ecosystems
or that espousing a biocentric view ignores human health; these arguments are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. The relationship is quantified by using Equation 3;
HUMAN & NATURE Score ¼
ðtotal nature & wildlife vicitmsÞ ðtotal human vicitmsÞ
total victims
Based on the equation above, each document received a human-nature relationship
score. The mean was calculated to determine the overall humans–nature score and
was presented in a scale:
1:00
Anthropocentric
ðOld WestÞ
0
þ1:00
Biocentric
ðNew WestÞ
Hypotheses
The following three null hypotheses are tested using a t-test (two-tailed, alpha
level ¼ .05) to compare differences between the three GYC and BRC policy belief
mean scores.
H01: There are no differences between BRC and GYC narratives in identification of
local and national allies, both nonelected and elected.
H02: There are no differences between BRC and GYC narratives in the type of
science (technology and conservation biology) used in problem framing.
H03: There are no differences between BRC and GYC narratives in their view of the
relationship between humans and nature (anthropocentric and biocentric).
If the language in these coded public consumption documents is simply political
spin and meaningless, then there should be no statistical differences in the measured
policy beliefs between the two opposing interest groups. However, if the null hypotheses are rejected, we will have shown that intersubjectively reliable content analysis
422
M.K. McBeth et al.
can be used to demonstrate that policy narrative constructs like ‘‘allies,’’ ‘‘victims,’’
and ‘‘science’’ differ among competing groups.
Subsidiary Questions
Two additional questions guided the research: (1) Do the narratives of the
two groups vary by policy controversy? (2) Did the narratives of the two groups
vary before and after the inauguration of President George Bush in January 2001?
Results
Hypothesis 1: Federalism
Table 1 reveals that, overall, the BRC identifies local nonelected and elected allies
(.089) and GYC identifies national allies (þ.378). GYC tends to identify national
citizens, national elected officials (outside of the three states), federal government
agencies, administrators, and scientists as allies. However, both groups use narratives that counter expectations. BRC used a New West federalism narrative 29%
(10 of the 34 documents that listed at least one ally) of the time, and 13.5% (5 of
the 37 documents that listed at least one ally) of the GYC federalism narratives
were Old West. Despite these results, there is a statistically significant difference
in the identification of local and national allies between BRC and GYC
ðt ¼ 3:07; df ¼ 69; p < :01Þ; therefore we reject H01. Taken as a whole,
BRC and GYC narratives do reflect different values in their use of the concept
of federalism.
Hypothesis 2: Science
Table 1 shows the BRC has a score of 1:00 on science compared to :037 for GYC.
BRC’s use of science is exclusively based on an Old West use of science (technological or human-centered concerns), whereas the GYC uses both New West conservation biology views and Old West technology and human concerns. There is a
statistically significant difference in the science narratives between BRC and GYC
ðt ¼ 4:25; df ¼ 35; p < :01Þ; we therefore reject H02. Note that BRC uses science
in only 10 of their 37 documents (27%), whereas GYC employs the use of science
in 27 of their 38 documents (71%). Additionally, note that GYC used a technology
or human-centered (Old West) science narrative in 7 of the 27 (26%) documents that
used science.
Hypothesis 3: Humankind and the Environment
The characterization of the relationship of humans and nature is determined by the
entity framed as the victim in the interest group narratives. Table 1 reveals that BRC
is consistently Old West or human centered in its depiction of the victim (:857).
GYC is overall slightly biocentric in victim narratives (þ.198). Contrary to expectations, 27% (10 of the 37 documents that identified a victim) of the GYC narratives
use an Old West victim narrative. Yet there is a statistically significant difference in
the framing of the relationship between humans and nature between BRC and GYC
ðt ¼ 6:81; df ¼ 56; p < :01Þ; we therefore reject H03.
The Science of Storytelling
423
Table 1. BRC and GYC policy core beliefs
Federalism
BRC
1.0 to .50
.49 to .01
0
.01 to 1.0
GYC
1.0 to .01
0
.01 to .49
.50 to 1.0
Science
BRC
1.0
0
1.0
GYC
1.0
0
1.0
Human & nature relationship
BRC
1.0 to .50
.49 to .01
0
.01 to 1.0
GYC
1.0 to .01
0
.01 to .49
.50 to 1.0
Frequency
Mean
SD
n
8
9
7
10
.089
.69
34
5
7
7
18
þ .378
.59
37
10
0
0
1.00
.00
10
7
14
6
.037
.71
27
19
0
1
1
.857
.48
21
10
10
7
10
þ .198
.61
37
t-Statistic
df
p
3.07a
69 .01
4.25a
35 .01
6.81a
56 .01
Note. Federalism (1.00 ¼ Compact Theory; þ1.00 ¼ Nationalism Theory), Science
(1.00 ¼ Technology; þ1.00 ¼ Conservation Biology), and Humans=Nature (1.00 ¼
Anthropocentrism; þ1.00 ¼ 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.
Subsidiary Question 1: Policy Core Beliefs by Policy Controversy
Table 2 breaks out the policy beliefs for the two groups by the three policy controversies. With the exception of the federalism score (.119) on the bison measure, BRC
424
M.K. McBeth et al.
displays an Old West ideology across policy controversies. GYC, on the other hand,
exhibits Old West beliefs on two measures. For the snowmobile controversy, they
were on the technological and human concern side of the science scale ð:150Þ and
very slightly on the anthropocentric side of the human–nature relationship ð:002Þ.
Subsidiary Question 2: Policy Beliefs Before and After the Bush Inauguration
The data in Table 2 reveals that BRC has remained Old West in their views on all
three measures since the inauguration of President Bush. BRC uses the compact
theory of federalism slightly less, and they are slightly less anthropocentric in the
human & nature measure since Bush took office. Changes in GYC’s narratives are
more surprising. Since Bush’s inauguration, they employ a more nationalism theory
(New West) of federalism, but their construction of science has become more technological & human–centered (Old West).
Discussion
This study demonstrates that statistically significant differences exist between the
narratives of the Blue Ribbon Coalition and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition
regarding three policy issues in the Yellowstone region. BRC framed their policy
beliefs by using a compact theory of federalism, a technology human-based science,
and an anthropocentric view of nature. Taken as a whole, this aligns with Old West
policy beliefs. GYC, on the other hand, aligned with New West beliefs expressing the
Table 2. Policy beliefs by policy issue and presidential administration
Federalism
Policy issue
Blue Ribbon Coalition
Bison management
Roadless initiative
Snowmobiles
Presidential administration
1996–2000
2001–2002
Greater Yellowstone Coalition
Bison management
Roadless initiative
Snowmobiles
Presidential administration
1996–2000
2001–2002
Science
Mean SD n Mean SD
Human & nature
n
Mean
SD
n
.119 .24 4 —
— — .500 1.00 4
.222 .83 8 —
— — .857 .38 7
.077 .69 22 1.00 .00 10 1.00 .60 10
.131 .60 20 1.00
.026 .78 14 1.00
6 .933
4 .667
.26 15
.82 6
.119 .56 7
.500 .58 4
.714
.571 .79 7
.000 1.00 3
.395
.398 .53 23 .150 .67 20 .002
.49 7
.40 6
.59 24
.165 .67 14
.200
.507 .50 23 .176
.66 13
.59 24
.00
.00
.79 10
.64 17
.211
.190
Note. Because of the small n, statistical tests were not performed on the data. Federalism (1.00 ¼ Compact Theory; þ 1.00 ¼ Nationalism Theory). Science (1.00 ¼
Technology; þ1.00 ¼ Conservation Biology). Human & Nature (1.00 ¼ Anthropocentrism;
þ1.00 ¼ Biocentrism).
The Science of Storytelling
425
nationalism theory of federalism and a biocentric view of nature. The statistical
differences between the groups demonstrate how problem definitions of the two
groups do in fact reflect their differing policy beliefs.
The New West–Old West construct, however, is not a perfect differentiator of
policy beliefs. Neither the BRC nor the GYC framed their narratives in perfect ideological alignment with the New West–Old West construct. The evidence from this
study suggests that policy beliefs are tempered by political realities that compel both
groups to adapt their framing in order to build coalitions and appeal to diverse
audiences. For example, the differences in the federalism scores for each interest
group are statistically significant, but neither group predominantly employs any
single ideological frame. BRC’s score on the federalism measure was surprisingly
moderate ð:089Þ. Thus, the local, grassroots, and populist image of BRC is
partially symbolic.
The GYC narratives use more of the nationalist theory of federalism (þ.378) but
also identify a significant number of locals as allies. For example, consider the
following GYC argument: ‘‘Doug Edgerton, former West Yellowstone mayor and
current member of the town council, feels strongly that phasing snowmobiles out
of Yellowstone National Park will not only be good for the park resources, but will
also be good for business in West Yellowstone’’ (Sieck 2000). Interestingly, GYC
became more national in the identification of allies after the 2001 presidential
inauguration (see Table 2). In sum, the two competing interest groups can be said
generally to represent the New West–Old West conflict with regard to their views
of federalism as predicted by the literature (Tierney and Frasure 1998; Wilson
1997), but their policy beliefs also challenge the dichotomous nature of this cultural
division to reveal a more complex political context.
GYC’s science score ð:037Þ is contrary to expectations and the literature
(Pritchard 1999), which would suggest that GYC would dominantly use conservation biology in its science arguments. Interestingly, its framing of science became
increasingly concerned with human needs after the 2001 Presidential inauguration
(see Table 2). On the defensive, as the Bush Administration worked to reverse the
snowmobile ban, GYC turned its use of science toward demonstrating the human
health impacts of snowmobiling (versus showing how snowmobiles harmed wildlife
and ecosystems). But then again, GYC’s use of science is significantly more concerned about ecosystem protection compared to BRC. BRC scores a perfect 1:00
(technology & human-centered) on the science measure. BRC, for example, argues
that snowmobile technology can make the machines quiet and promotes the ‘‘Arctic
Cat Yellowstone Special’’ (No Author 2000). This use of science by BRC more
strictly follows expected policy beliefs discussed in previous studies (Cawley and
Freemuth 1993).
GYC’s moderately low score on the measure of the relationship between humans
and nature (þ.198) is not that unexpected, since it is consistent with some recent
research on the New West (Morris and McBeth 2003). While statistically different
from BRC’s use of nature ð:857Þ, many of GYC’s narratives contain both biocentric and anthropocentric victims. Thus, the popularly held view that New West
environmentalism is solely biocentric in its basic philosophy is refuted. For example,
GYC counters pro-snowmobiling arguments by employing a straight economic
argument: ‘‘In reality, the domination of snowmobiling has damaged a world
renowned treasure at the expense of West Yellowstone’s reputation. It may also have
kept tens of thousands of visitors (and their money) away from West Yellowstone
426
M.K. McBeth et al.
because those visitors seek outdoor experience unaffected by noise, pollution, and
congestion’’ (Sieck 2000, 22). Wilson (1997, 8) argues that environmental groups
have abandoned rural communities and economic needs. Based on the data presented here, one cannot make such a claim about GYC. As an Old West group,
BRC, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly consistent with the literature (Wilson
1997) and our expectations of an anthropocentric choice of victims (motorized
recreation users, businesses, and citizens in the democratic processes).
What then accounts for some of the unexpected findings? Undoubtedly, the
policy beliefs of the two competing interest groups are shaped and tempered for
political purposes. It is impossible to separate a group’s fundamental beliefs from
their political strategies. In fact, a group’s policy beliefs are most likely dictated
through political influences, pressures, and attempts to forge new political coalitions. For example, there is some evidence in the data that changes in governing
coalitions change policy beliefs as measured in the narratives. GYC significantly
changed their narratives on two of the three measures after the Presidential election of 2000 (although the changes are in inconsistent directions). Thus, policy
beliefs and strategies are best understood as dynamically interrelated. Separation
is not only impossible, it is also inappropriate. While some elements of narratives
may contribute to citizen distrust, the policy beliefs of the two groups represent
the cultural divisions and political interests of Greater Yellowstone. Thus, their
scripts liken to democratic contests over the meanings of federalism, the role of
science, and humankind’s relationship with nature. As Cawley and Freemuth
(1993) and Freemuth (1989) suggest, such contested argument is to be expected
and encouraged in assisting elected officials and public administrators determine
the complex meaning and role of Greater Yellowstone in the larger American
society.
Conclusion
Two of the research goals were achieved. First, it is possible to quantify competing
interest group narratives from public consumption documents and connect them to
interest group policy beliefs. Second, it is possible to falsify these quantified narratives. Furthermore, quantification and falsification allow for hypothesis testing
and the challenging of common assumptions. Researchers should be able to use this
study’s mixed methodological approach to measure the policy beliefs of a wide variety of policy players (media, scientists, administrators) in Greater Yellowstone and
other policy subsystems.
What about the third goal? Does a quantified narrative policy analysis method
enhance the usefulness and explanatory power of NPA? Reliant on the tradition of
mixed methodology, this research develops a systematic, independent, reliable, and
valid methodology for NPA. The empirical approach to narrative policy analysis
used in this study allows researchers to statistically test for differences in beliefs
among competing political groups, to track changes over time, and to build more
elegant explanatory theories of these differences and changes. As argued by Sabatier
(2000, 137), the essential principle of science is to ‘‘be clear enough to be proven
wrong.’’ Used over time, a mixed methodological approach, as illustrated in this
research, builds better explanations about policy beliefs and enhances the clarity
and usefulness of NPA.
The Science of Storytelling
427
References
Berg, B. 1995. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Cawley, R. M. and J. Freemuth. 1993. Tree farms, Mother Earth, and other dilemmas: The
politics of ecosystem management in Greater Yellowstone. Society Nat. Resources
6:41–53.
Chase, A. 1987. Playing God in Yellowstone. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
Clemons, R. S. and M. K. McBeth. 2001. Public policy praxis: Theory and pragmatism. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Curtin, P. A. and E. Rhodenbaugh. 2001. Building the news media agenda on the environment: A comparison of public relations and journalistic sources. Public Relations Rev.
27:179–195.
Foster, R. H. 1991. The federal government and the West. In Politics and public policy in the
contemporary American West, ed. C. Thomas, 77–102. Albuquerque, NM: University of
New Mexico Press.
Freemuth, J. 1989. The national parks: Political versus professional determinants of policy.
Public Admin. Rev. 49:278–286.
Jenkins-Smith, H. and P. A. Sabatier. 1993. Methodological appendix: Measuring longitudinal change in elite beliefs using content analysis of public documents. In Policy change
and learning: An advocacy coalition approach, ed. P. A. Sabatier and H. Jenkins-Smith,
237–256. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Johnson, J. B., R. A. Josyln, and H. T. Reynolds. 2001. Political science research methods.
Washington, DC: CQ Press.
McBeth, M. K. and R. S. Clemons. 1999. Postmodern policy analysis in the premodern West:
Problem definition in the Yellowstone bison controversy. Admin. Theory Praxis
21(2):161–175.
Morris, J. M. 2002. New West, Old West and the new ecological paradigm: The environmental
world views of elected officials in Montana. Paper presented at the 2002 Pacific Northwest
Political Science Conference, Bellevue, WA.
Morris, J. M. and M. K. McBeth. 2002. Democratic proceduralism in community policy making. In Public policies for distressed communities revisited, ed. S. Redburn and T. Buss,
179–192. Lanham, MD: Lexington Press.
Morris, J. M. and M. K. McBeth. 2003. Extractive commodity theory and the New West: The
case of bison brucellosis in Yellowstone National Park. Social Sci. J. 40(2):233–247.
Nie, M. A. 2003. Beyond wolves: The politics of wolf recovery and management. Minneapolis,
University of Minnesota Press.
No Author. 2000. Arctic Cat loans proto-type snowmoblies to National Park Service. Blue
Ribbon Magazine. http:==www.sharetrails.org=mag=0304index00=story3.htm. Retrieved
17 August 2002.
Pritchard, J. 1999. Preserving Yellowstone’s natural conditions: Science and the perception of
nature. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Power, T. M. and R. N. Barrett. 2001. Post-cowboy economics: Pay and prosperity in the New
American West. Washington, DC. Island Press.
Riessman, C. K. 1993. Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Roe, E. 1994. Narrative policy analysis. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Sabatier, P. A. ed. 1999. Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sabatier, P. A. 2000. Clear enough to be wrong. J. Eur. Public Policy 7(1):134–140.
Sabatier, P. A. and A. M. Brasher. 1993. From vague consensus to clearly differentiated coalitions: Environmental policy at Lake Tahoe, 1964–1985. In Policy change and learning: An
advocacy coalition approach, ed. P. A. Sabatier and H. C. Jenkins-Smith, 177–208.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sasson, T. 1995. Crime talk: How citizens construct a social problem. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine
de Gruyter.
428
M.K. McBeth et al.
Schneider, A. and H. Ingram. 1993. Social construction of target populations: Implications for
politics and policy. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 87:334–347.
Schon, D. and M. Rein. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
Sieck, H. 2000. West Yellowstone business owners go to Washington, D.C. Greater Yellowstone Rep. 17(2):22.
Stone, D. 2002. Policy paradox: The art of political decision making, (rev. ed.) New York:
W. W. Norton.
Sumpter, R. S. and M. A. Braddock. 2002. Source use in a ‘‘News disaster’’ account: a content
analysis of voter news service stories. Journalism Mass Commun. Q. 79(3):539–558.
Tierney, J. and W. Frasure. 1998. Culture wars on the frontier: Interests, values, and policy
narratives in public lands politics. In Interest group politics, ed. A. J. Cigler and
B. Loomis, 303–326. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Webler, T., S. Tuler, I. Shockey, P. Stearn, and R. Beattie. 2003. Participation by local government officials in watershed management planning. Society Nat. Resources 16(2):105–121.
Wilkenson, T. 1998. Science under siege: The politicians war on nature and truth. Boulder, CO:
Johnson Books
Wilson, M. A. 1997. The wolf in Yellowstone: Science, symbol, or politics? Deconstructing the
conflict between environmentalism and wise use. Society and Nat. Resources,
10(5):453–468. Accessed via Academic Search Premier, 18 pages.
Appendix A. Codebook (abbreviated)
1. Does the narrative identify a nonelected ally? (interest groups, businesses, media
orgs, citizen orgs, or government agencies. Do not include vague references to
‘‘the public.’’)
a. Yes (go to question #2) b. No (skip to question #3) c. Not sure (skip to
question #3)
2. What best categorizes the non-elected (allies) in the narrative?
a. national
—— total number of national figure based outside MT, ID, or WY
paragraph/line citations:
—— total number of federal government non-elected officials=agencies
paragraph/line citations:
—— total number of non-elected officials=states from outside MT, ID, WY
paragraph/line citations:
b. local
—— total number of local figures based inside MT, ID, or WY
paragraph/line citations:
3. Does the narrative identify at least one elected official as an ally?
a. Yes (go to question #4) b. No (skip to question #5)
4. What best categorizes the elected (allies) in the narrative?
a. national
—— total number of elected figures based outside MT, ID, or WY
(A US Senator, Governor, or Mayor from outside the 3 states is a
national figure.) paragraph/line citations:
b. local
—— total number of local figures based inside MT, ID, or WY.
(A US Senator, Governor, or Mayor from one of the three states is a
local figure.) paragraph/line citations:
The Science of Storytelling
429
Appendix A. (Continued)
5. Does the narrative identify a victim? a. Yes (go to question #6)
b. No (skip to question #7).
6. What best describes the primary victim or victims in the narrative?
a. nature, wildlife, ecosystems
—— total number of nature, wildlife, ecosystems
paragraph/line citations:
b. humans or human concerns (economy, recreation)
—— total number of human concerns (economy, recreation)
paragraph/line citations:
7. Does the narrative use science to define a problem, counter a problem definition,
or justify a policy approach? (Code polling data, technology, and science reports, not
polls by the group offering the article.) a. Yes (go to question #8) b. No (stop here)
8. What best describes the science used?
a. Technology or science concerned with human health or other human concerns
(the narrative states that a potential problem can overcome with advances in
technology or the science is concerned exclusively with human problems like
noise, pollution, or with nature as an extrinsic value such as forest health for
timber harvesting, recreation, etc.
b. Conservation biology concerned with biodiversity, natural systems, wildlife
preservation or science that is concerned with the intrinsic value of nature
and wildlife.
c. Both
Appendix B. Intercoder reliability
Concept
Identification Questions
Alliesa
Victims
Science
Agree
Disagree
%
Documents coded
140
59
60
10
16
15
93
79
80
75
75
75
Missed by
Concept
Exact
1
2
3þ
Codings
Counts
Alliesb
Victims
Science
49%
54%
68%
37%
37%
18%c
11%
4%
14%
3%
5%
0%
148
107
22
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.