Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Narrative policy analysis and the integration of public involvement in decision making

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Public involvement in environmental policy analysis and planning may be in some cases for the purpose of incorporating public values and preferences in decision making. Narrative policy analysis is put forward as a method, which is particularly useful to the practice of public involvement for maintaining a juxtaposition of views throughout the policy development and planning process. It is argued that this process may facilitate the consideration of public preferences in a decision-making process. This can be achieved through the joint development of a meta-narrative.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, C. W. (1993). Recommending a scheme of reason: Political theory, policy science and democracy. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 215–227. doi:10.1007/BF00999717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridgman, T., & Barry, D. (2002). Regulation is evil: An application of narrative policy analysis. Policy Sciences, 35(2), 141–161. doi:10.1023/A:1016139804995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, S. A. (2006). Of witches, welfare queens, and the disaster named poverty: The search for a counter-narrative. Journal of Poverty, 10(4), 51–66. doi:10.1300/J134v10n04_03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creighton, J. L. (2005). The public participation handbook: Making better decisions through citizen involvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • deLeon, P. (1994). Democracy and the policy sciences: Aspirations and operations. Policy Studies Journal: The Journal of the Policy Studies Organization, 22(2), 200–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, T., & Kellow, A. (1995). Environmental politics and policy making in Australia. Melbourne: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. (2002). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestation. Oxford: Oxford University press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durning, D. (1993). Participatory policy analysis in a social service agency: A case study. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 12(2), 297–322. doi:10.2307/3325237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, S. (1996). Public participation in environmental policy: Considering scientific, counter-scientific and non-scientific contributions. Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England), 5, 183–204. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/5/3/001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farr, J., Hacker, J. S., & Kazee, N. (2008). Revisiting Lasswell. Policy Sciences, 41(1), 21–32. doi:10.1007/s11077-007-9052-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (1993). Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 165–187. doi:10.1007/BF00999715.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garvin, T., & Eyles, J. (1997). The sun safety metanarrative: Translating science into public health discourse. Policy Sciences, 30(2), 47–70. doi:10.1023/A:1004256124700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. E. (1993). Democracy, preferences and paternalism. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 229–247. doi:10.1007/BF00999718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B. (2004). Strong opposition: Frame based resistance to collaboration. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14, 166–176. doi:10.1002/casp.773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guttman, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harbour, C. P. (2006). The incremental marketization and centralization of state control of public higher education: A hermeneutic interpretation of legislative and administrative texts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helling, A., & Thomas, J. C. (2001). Encouraging community dialog: Approach, promise, and tensions. International Journal of Public Administration, 24(7), 749–770. doi:10.1081/PAD-100104772.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, E. J., Godschalk, D. R., & Chapin, F. S. (1995). Urban land use planning (4th ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, T. J. (1986). Narrative structure of policy analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5(4), 761–788. doi:10.2307/3324882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kathlene, L., & Martin, J. A. (1991). Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives and planning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 10(1), 46–63. doi:10.2307/3325512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López Cerezo, J. A., & González García, M. (1996). Lay knowledge and public participation in technological and environmental policy. Philosophy and Technology, 2(1), 53–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, I. (1997). Debating technologies: A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McBeth, M. K., Shanahan, E. A., Arnell, R. J., & Hathaway, P. L. (2007). The intersection of narrative policy analysis and policy change theory. Policy Studies Journal, 35(1), 87–108. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2007.00208.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels, T. L. (1996). The structured value referendum: Eliciting preferences for environmental policy alternatives. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(2), 227–251. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199621)15:2<227::AID-PAM4>3.0.CO;2-L.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, C. V., & Sawicki, D. S. (1993). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pielke, R. A. (2004). What future for the policy sciences? Policy Sciences, 37(3), 209–225. doi:10.1007/s11077-005-6181-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • PPK-Consultants. (1992). Environmental impact statement for the proposed Illawarra water quality project. Sydney: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, R. (1998). Public involvement in environmental impact assessment: Moving to a “Newthink”. The Journal of Public Participation, 4(1), 39–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe, E. M. (1989). Narrative analysis for the policy analyst: A case study of the 1980–1982 medfly controversy in California. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 8(2), 251–273. doi:10.2307/3323382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe, E. M. (2007). Narrative policy analysis for decision-making. In G. Morcol (Ed.), Handbook of decision making (pp. 607–626). London: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (2006). Lies, damn lies and recycled water. Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://www.blogtoowoomba.com/entry.php?w=toowoombawatervote&e_id=236.

  • Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (2nd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, N. (1988). Urban planning theory since 1945. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Throgmorton, J. A. (1991). The rhetorics of policy analysis. Policy Sciences, 24(2), 153–179. doi:10.1007/BF00138058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toowoomba-City-Council. (2009). Water futures, Toowoomba. Retrieved March 3, 2009, from http://www.toowoombawater.com.au/.

  • Turnbull, M. (2006). Toowoomba’s great divide on water use. Retrieved June 8, 2008, from http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/Pages/article.aspx?ID=513.

  • van Eeten, M. J. (2007). Narrative policy analysis. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 251–288). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, L. C., Aydelotte, J., & Miller, J. (2000). Putting more public in policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 60(4), 349–359. doi:10.1111/0033-3352.00097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed., Vol. 5). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Academic Services Division, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia

    Greg Hampton

  2. Australian Center for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    Greg Hampton

Authors
  1. Greg Hampton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Greg Hampton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hampton, G. Narrative policy analysis and the integration of public involvement in decision making. Policy Sci 42, 227–242 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9087-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9087-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation