Do We Understand What the Public Hears? Stakeholders’ Preferred Communication Choices for Discussing River Issues with the Public

Review of Policy Research

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 376-392

  Lybecker, Donna L ^a   McBeth, Mark K ^a   Stoutenborough, James W ^a  

^a IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

civil society; environment; governance; regional governance

Indexed keywords

CIVIL SOCIETY; COMMUNICATION; PREFERENCE BEHAVIOR; REGIONAL PLANNING; RIVER MANAGEMENT; STAKEHOLDER;

EID: 84978114932     PISSN: 1541132X     EISSN: 15411338     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12182     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bies, A, Lee, D.G., Lindsey, C., Stoutenborough, J. W., & Vedlitz, A. (2013). Citizens, nonprofits and climate change policy. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 4(1), 5–28.
2. Bromley-Trujillo, R., Stoutenborough, J. W., Kirkpatrick, K. J., & Vedlitz, A. (2014). Climate scientists and environmental interest groups: The intersection of expertise and advocacy. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 2(1), 120–134.
3. Clemons, R. S., McBeth, M. K., & Kusko, E. (2012). Understanding the role of policy narratives and the public policy arena: Obesity as a lesson in public policy development. World Medical & Health Policy, 4(2), 1–26.
4. Crow, D. A., & Baysha, O. (2013). “Conservation” as a catalyst for conflict: Considering stakeholder understanding in policy making. Review of Policy Research, 30, 302–320. doi:10.1111/ropr.12020.
5. Crow, D. A. & Berggren, J. (2014). Using the narrative policy framework to understand stakeholders strategies and effectiveness: A multi-case analysis. In E. A. Shanahan, M. D. Jones, & M. D. McBeth (Eds.), The science of stories: Applications of the narrative policy framework in public policy analysis (pp. 131–156). New York: Palgrave-McMillian.
6. Dalton, R. J. (2008). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping American politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press
7. Garvin, T. (2001). Analytical paradigms: The epistemological distances between scientists, policy makers, and the public. Risk Analysis, 21(3), 443–456.
8. Golding, D., Krimsky, S., & Plough, A. (1992). Evaluating risk communication: Narrative vs. technical presentations of information about radon. Risk Analysis, 12(1), 27–35.
9. Haight, D., & Ginger, C. (2000). Trust and understanding in participatory policy analysis: The case of the Vermont forest resources advisory council. Policy Studies Journal, 28(4), 739–759.
10. Hancock, J. (2014, February 6). Meeting set Feb. 13 on Pocatello levee system: Event scheduled to start at 6 p.m. in City Council Chambers. Idaho State Journal. Retrieved from http://www.idahostatejournal.com/news/local/meeting-set-feb-on-pocatello-levee-system-event-scheduled-to/article_e568c10c-8f15-11e3-8bc6-001a4bcf887a.html?TNNoMobile.
11. Jones, M. D. (2014). Cultural characters and climate change: How heroes shape our perceptions of climate science. Social Science Quarterly, 95(1), 1–39.
12. Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2010). A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong? Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 329–353.
13. Jones, M. D., & Song, G. (2014). Making sense of climate change: How story frames shape cognition. Political Psychology, 35(4), 447–595.
14. Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. 2011. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 1–28.
15. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
16. Kellstedt, P. M., Zahran, S., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Analysis, 28(1), 113–126.
17. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2005). The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 26(3), 455–482.
18. Lybecker, D. L., McBeth, M. K., & Kusko, E. (2013). Trash or treasure: Recycling narratives and reducing political polarization. Environmental Politics, 22(2), 312–332.
19. McBeth, M. K., Jones, M. D., & Shanahan, E. A. (2014). The narrative policy framework. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 225–266). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
20. McBeth, M. K., Lybecker, D. L., & Garner, K. A. (2010). The story of good citizenship: Framing public policy in the context of duty-based versus engaged citizenship. Politics & Policy, 38(1), 1–23.
21. McBeth, M. D., Lybecker, D. L., & Husmann, M. A. (2014). The narrative policy framework and the practitioner: The case of recycling policy. In E. A. Shanahan, M. D. Jones, & M. K. McBeth (Eds.), The science of stories: Applications of the narrative policy framework in public policy analysis (pp. 45–68). New York: Palgrave-McMillian.
22. McBeth, M. K., Lybecker, D. L., Stoutenborough, J. W., & Running, K. (2015). River stories or science? How do stakeholders understand policy issues. Manuscript submitted for publication.
23. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
24. Miller, H. T. (2002). Postmodern public policy. New York: State University of New York Press.
25. Miller, H. T., & Fox, C. J. (2006). Postmodern public administration. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
26. Nie, M. (2003). Drivers of natural resource-based political conflict. Policy Sciences, 36(3-4), 307–341.
27. Orr, P., Colvin, J., & King, D. (2007) Involving stakeholders in integrated river basin planning in England and Wales. Water Resource Management, 21, 331–349.
28. Ricketts, M. S. (2007). The use of narratives in safety and health communication (PhD dissertation). The University of Kansas, Department of Psychology, Lawrence, KS.
29. Rogers, K. H. (2006). The real river management challenge: Integrating scientists, stakeholders and service agencies. River Research and Applications, 22(2), 269–280.
30. Rook, K. S. (1987). Effects of case history versus abstract information on health and behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 533–553.
31. Shanahan, E. A., Jones, M. D., McBeth, M. K., & Lane, R. R. (2013). An angel on the wind: How heroic policy narratives shape policy realities. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 453–483.
32. Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143–153.
33. Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making. New York: WW. Norton.
34. Stoutenborough, J. W., Bromley-Trujillo, R., & Vedlitz, A. (2014). Public support for climate change policy: Consistency in the influence of values and attitudes over time and across distinct policy alternatives. Review of Policy Research, 31(6), 555–583.
35. Stoutenborough, J. W., Bromley-Trujillo, R., & Vedlitz, A. (2015). How to win friends and influence people: Climate scientists’ perspectives on their relationship with and influence on government officials. Journal of Public Policy, 35(2), 269–296.
36. Stoutenborough, J. W., & Vedlitz, A. (2014). The effect of perceived and assessed knowledge of climate change on public policy concerns: An empirical comparison. Environmental Science & Policy, 37, 23–33.
37. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.
38. Torpen, D. R., & Hearne, R. R. (2008). Stakeholder preferences for water management alternatives in the Red River Basin. Department of Agriculture and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University. Retrieved from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/36774/2/AAE629.pdf.
39. Weible, C. M. (2006). An advocacy coalition framework approach to stakeholder analysis: Understanding the political context of California marine protected area. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17, 95–117.
40. Wynne, B. (1996). Misunderstood misunderstandings: Social identities and public uptake of science. In A. Irwin & B. Wynne (Eds.), Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology (pp. 19–46). New York: Cambridge University Press.