Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advancing scholarship on policy conflict through perspectives from oil and gas policy actors

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

  • 6 Altmetric

Abstract

While receiving more attention in the policy sciences in recent years, much remains unknown about policy conflicts. This research analyzes 48 in-depth qualitative interviews of people involved in, or familiar with, conflicts associated with shale oil and gas (aka “fracking”) policy proposals and decisions across 15 U.S. states. We ask the question: how do policy actors characterize policy conflicts? To guide interviews and data collection for this study, we rely on the Policy Conflict Framework (PCF). The PCF highlights how policy settings serve as the sources of conflict; the characteristics of policy conflict across settings, between policy actors, and over time; and the varying outcomes. Insights derived from interviews include that policy conflicts are far more complicated to portray than depicted in the literature, individuals shape and understand conflict through emotions and narratives, any descriptions of policy conflicts must account for time and their evolutionary nature, and conflicts involve diverse strategies of winning and mitigation. The conclusion links these findings to the literature to advance knowledge about policy conflict.

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

Notes

  1. The larger study was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (Grant #SES-1734310 and SES 1,734,294). The study was approved as Exempt (Category 2) for human subjects research by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (COMIRB Protocol 17–0758, amended interview protocol approved February, 11, 2019) and approved by the Ohio State Institutional Review Board as an exempt project for human subjects (2019E0120February 14, 2019).

  2. These shale formations are the Marcellus, Utica, Haynesville, Eagle Ford, Fayetteville, Barnett, Woodford, Bakken, Antrim, Spraberry, Bonespring, Wolfcamp, Delaware, Yeso/Glorieta, Niobrara-Codell, Granit Wash, Austin Chalk, and Monterey.

  3. The graduate research assistant was trained and given instructions on how to conduct interviews for this project by members of the research team. The student also met regularly with the research team and brought questions that arose during interviews to research team meetings.

References

  • Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics (2nd ed.). The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Béland, D. (2010). Reconsidering policy feedback: How policies affect politics. Administration & Society, 42(5), 568–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berardo, R., Holm, F., Heikkila, T., Weible, C. M., Yi, H., Kagan, J., Chen, C., & Yordy, J. (2020). Hydraulic fracturing and political conflict: News media coverage of topics and themes across nine states. Energy Research & Social Science, 70, 101660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. M. (1977). Lobbying for the people. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullard, R. D. (2000). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class and Environment Quality (3rd ed.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Petersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods and Research, 42(3), 294–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1972). Individual orientations in the study of political symbolism. Social Science Quarterly, 53(1), 79–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conlan, T. J., Posner, P. L., & Beam, D. R. (2014). Pathways to power. Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research (4th ed.). SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodge, J. (2015). The deliberative potential of civil society organizations: Framing hydraulic fracturing in New York. Policy Studies, 36(3), 249–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodge, J., & Lee, J. (2017). Framing dynamics and political gridlock: The curious case of hydraulic fracturing in New York. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 19(1), 14–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodge, J., & Metze, T. (2017). Hydraulic fracturing as an interpretive policy problem: Lessons on energy controversies in Europe and the USA. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 19(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durnova, A. (2018). A tale of ‘fat cats’ and ‘stupid activists’: Contested values, governance and reflexivity in the brno railway station controversy. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 20(6), 720–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durnová, A. P., & Weible, C. M. (2020). Tempest in a teapot? Toward new collaborations between mainstream policy process studies and interpretive policy studies. Policy Sciences, 53(3), 571–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M., Ingold, K., Sciarini, P., & Varone, F. (2016). Dealing with bad guys: Actor- and process-level determinants of the “devil shift” in policy making. Journal of Public Policy, 36(2), 309–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forester, J. (1984). Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 44(1), 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fyall, R. (2016). The power of nonprofits: Mechanisms for nonprofit policy influence. Public Administration Review, 76(6), 938–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gais, T. L., & Walker, J. L. (1991). Pathways to influence in American politics. In J. L. Walker (Ed.), Mobilizing interest groups in America (pp. 103–121). The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasl, F. (1982). The process of conflict escalation and the roles of third parties. In G. B. J. Bomers & R. B. Peterson (Eds.), Conflict management and industrial relations (pp. 119–140). Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gormley, W. T., Jr., & Cymrot, H. (2006). The strategic choices of child advocacy groups. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 102–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halperin, E. (2015). Emotions in conflict. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkila, T., & Gerlak, A. K. (2013). Building a conceptual approach to collective learning: Lessons for public policy scholars. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 484–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkila, T., Pierce, J. J., Gallaher, S., Kagan, J., Crow, D. A., & Weible, C. M. (2014). Understanding a period of policy change: The case of hydraulic fracturing disclosure policy in Colorado. Review of Policy Research, 31(2), 65–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkila, T., & Weible, C. M. (2017). Unpacking the intensity of policy conflict: A study of Colorado’s oil and gas subsystem. Policy Sciences, 50(2), 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heikkila, T., Weible, C. M., & Olofsson, K. (2017). Lessons from state-level and national-level policy conflicts over US shale development. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 59(3), 4–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, A. D., & Dietz, T. (2012). Understanding environmental cognition. Organization & Environment, 25(3), 238–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herweg, N., Zahariadis, N., & Zohlnhöfer, R. (2018). The multiple streams framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (4th ed., pp. 17–53). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hinterleitner, M., & Sager, F. (2022). Policy’s role in democratic conflict management. Policy Sciences, 55(2), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, K. (2011). Network Structures within policy processes: Coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 435–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, K., & Varone, F. (2012). Treating policy brokers seriously: Evidence from the climate policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 319–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. M., & Ingold, K. (2018). The advocacy coalition framework: An overview of the research program. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (4th ed., pp. 135–171). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C. L., Gupta, K., & Ripberger, J. T. (2014). Belief system continuity and change in policy advocacy coalitions: Using cultural theory to specify belief systems, coalitions, and sources of change. Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 484–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. D. (2003). Bounded rationality and political science: Lessons from public administration and public policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 395–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. D., & McBeth, M. K. (2010). A narrative policy framework: Clear enough to be wrong? Policy Studies Journal, 38(2), 329–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lake, R. W. (1993). Planners’ alchemy transforming NIMBY to YIMBY: Rethinking NIMBY. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(1), 87–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leifeld, P. (2013). Reconceptualizing major policy change in the advocacy coalition framework: A discourse network analysis of German pension politics. Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 169–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, W. A., Jordan, G., & McLaughlin, A. M. (1994). Interest groups and public policy: The insider/outsider model revisited. Journal of Public Policy, 14(1), 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnell, A. (2010). Policy success, policy failure and grey areas in-between. Journal of Public Policy, 30(3), 345–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCright, A. M., Marquart-Pyatt, S. T., Shwom, R. L., Brechin, S. R., & Allen, S. (2016). Ideology, capitalism, and climate: Explaining public views about climate change in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 21, 180–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merry, M. (2016). Constructing policy narratives in 140 characters or less: The case of gun policy organizations. Policy Studies Journal, 44(4), 373–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mettler, S., & SoRelle, M. (2018). Policy feedback theory. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (4th ed., pp. 103–134). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis (4th ed.). SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosley, J. E., Suárez, D. F., & Hwang, H. (2022). Conceptualizing organizational advocacy across the nonprofit and voluntary sector: Goals, tactics, and motivation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221103247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olofsson, K. L. (2022). Winners and losers: Conflict management through strategic policy engagement. Review of Policy Research, 39(1), 73–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pekkanen, R. J., & Smith, S. R. (2014). Nonprofit advocacy: Definitions and concepts. In R. J. Pekkanen, S. R. Smith, & Y. Tsujinaka (Eds.), Nonprofits and advocacy (pp. 1–17). Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. J., Peterson, H. L., Jones, M. D., Garrard, S. P., & Vu, T. (2017). There and back again: A tale of the ACF. Policy Studies Journal, 45(S1), S13–S46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: Policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45(4), 595–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. L., & Wondolleck, J. M. (2013). Intractability: Definitions, dimensions, and distinctions. In R. Lewicki, B. Gray, & M. Elliott (Eds.), Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases (pp. 35–59). Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2018). Writing as a method of inquiry. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 818–838). SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2), 129–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid, N., Sewerin, S., & Schmidt, T. S. (2020). Explaining advocacy coalition change with policy feedback. Policy Studies Journal, 48(4), 1109–1134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people. Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. M. (1997). Policy design for democracy. University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, E. A., Jones, M. D., McBeth, M. K., & Radaelli, C. M. (2018). The narrative policy framework. In C. M. Weible & P. A. Sabatier (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (4th ed., pp. 173–213). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Steelman, T. A., & Carmin, J. (1998). Common property, collective interests, and community opposition to locally unwanted land uses. Society & Natural Resources, 11(5), 485–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steg, L. (2016). Values, norms, and intrinsic motivation to act proenvironmentally. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1), 277–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, C., & Tarrow, S. (2007). Contentious politics. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). (2022a). Natural gas: Data. https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/data.php

  • U.S. Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). (2022b). Petroleum and other liquids: Data. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/data.php

  • Van der Linden, S. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 112–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven, I., & Metze, T. (2022). Heated policy: Policy actors’ emotional storylines and conflict escalation. Policy Sciences, 55(2), 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhoeven, I., Spruit, S., van de Grift, E., & Cuppen, E. (2022). Contentious governance of wind energy planning: strategic dilemmas in collaborative resistance by local governments and citizen action groups. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2021.2023354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M. (2005). Beliefs and perceived influence in a natural resource conflict: An advocacy coalition approach to policy networks. Political Research Quarterly, 58(3), 461–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., & Heikkila, T. (2017). Policy conflict framework. Policy Sciences, 50(1), 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., & Heikkila, T. (2020). Connecting cognitive and behavioral characteristics of policy conflict in oil and gas politics. International Review of Public Policy, 2(3), 245–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., Heikkila, T., deLeon, P., & Sabatier, P. A. (2012). Understanding and influencing the policy process. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). Comparing policy networks: Marine protected areas in California. Policy Studies Journal, 33(2), 181–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widmaier, W. W., Blyth, M., & Seabrooke, L. (2007). Exogenous shocks or endogenous constructions: The meanings of wars and crises. International Studies Quarterly, 51(4), 747–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, E. E. A. (2021). Dismissing the “vocal minority”: How policy conflict escalates when policymakers label resisting citizens. Policy Studies Journal, 49(2), 640–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, E. E. A., & Van Dooren, W. (2017). How policies become contested: A spiral of imagination and evidence in a large infrastructure project. Policy Sciences, 50(3), 449–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, E. E. A., & Van Dooren, W. (2018). ‘Time to move on’ or ‘taking more time’? How disregarding multiple perspectives on time can increase policy-making conflict. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36(2), 340–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, E. E. A., & Van Dooren, W. (2021). Fatal remedies. How dealing with policy conflict can backfire in a context of trust-erosion. Governance, 34(4), 1097–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi, H., Weible, C. M., Chen, C., Kagan, J., Yordy, J., Berardo, R., & Heikkila, T. (2022). Measuring policy conflict and concord. Society & Natural Resources, 35(6), 684–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • You, J., Yordy, J., Park, K., Heikkila, T., & Weible, C. M. (2020). Policy conflicts in the siting of natural gas pipelines. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 22(4), 501–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zarb, S., & Taylor, K. (2022). Uneven local implementation of federal policy after disaster: Policy conflict and goal ambiguity. Review of Policy Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12478

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research is part of a larger study funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (Grant #SES-1734310 and SES 1734294).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Social Sciences, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI, USA

    Jennifer A. Kagan

  2. School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA

    Tanya Heikkila & Christopher M. Weible

  3. The Nature Conservancy, Boulder, CO, USA

    Duncan Gilchrist

  4. School of Environment and Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Ramiro Berardo

  5. John Glenn College of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Hongtao Yi

Authors
  1. Jennifer A. Kagan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tanya Heikkila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher M. Weible
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Duncan Gilchrist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ramiro Berardo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hongtao Yi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer A. Kagan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

The study was approved for human subjects research by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board and the Ohio State Institutional Review.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 Summary of interviewees
Full size table
Table 2 Final codes
Full size table

Interview Questionnaire.

  1. 1.

    Please tell me a little bit about your position and your career in oil and gas.

  2. 2.

    Can you tell me about a recent policy issue (in the last 3 years) where there was a lot of conflict (i.e., during the policymaking process)?

    1. a.

      Probe on sources: What do you think were the sources of the conflict? (e.g., the nature of the issue, the types of organizations involved, the venue, etc.)

    2. b.

      Probe on characteristics: How did the people involved interact? Were they willing to negotiate or compromise? What strategies did they use to influence the outcome?

    3. c.

      Probe on effects: What were some of the outcomes of the policy decision? Do you think people learned from each other during the process? Did the policy outcome improve the regulation or governance of oil and gas? Did the process change the relations among the people involved after the policy decision?

  3. 3.

    Can you tell me about a recent policy issue (last 3 years) where there was a lot of concord/agreement over a policy issue?

    1. a.

      Probe on sources: What do you think were the sources of the concord or agreement? (e.g., the nature of the issue, the types of organizations involved, the venue, etc.)

    2. b.

      Probe on characteristics: How did the people involved interact? Were there any strategies that the actors coalesced on to influence the outcome?

    3. c.

      Probe on effects: What were some of the outcomes of the policy decision? Do you think people learned from each other during the process? Did the policy outcome improve the regulation or governance of oil and gas? Did the process change the relations of the people involved after the policy decision?

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kagan, J.A., Heikkila, T., Weible, C.M. et al. Advancing scholarship on policy conflict through perspectives from oil and gas policy actors. Policy Sci 56, 573–594 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-023-09502-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-023-09502-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation