Policy Sciences

, Volume 42, Issue 3, pp 227–242 | Cite as

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

  • Greg HamptonEmail author


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.


Public involvement Narrative policy analysis 


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216–224.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Creighton, J. L. (2005). The public participation handbook: Making better decisions through citizen involvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Doyle, T., & Kellow, A. (1995). Environmental politics and policy making in Australia. Melbourne: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Dryzek, J. (2002). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestation. Oxford: Oxford University press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dryzek, J. S. (1990). Discursive democracy: Politics, policy, and political science. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Farr, J., Hacker, J. S., & Kazee, N. (2008). Revisiting Lasswell. Policy Sciences, 41(1), 21–32. doi: 10.1007/s11077-007-9052-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodin, R. E. (1993). Democracy, preferences and paternalism. Policy Sciences, 26(3), 229–247. doi: 10.1007/BF00999718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gray, B. (2004). Strong opposition: Frame based resistance to collaboration. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14, 166–176. doi: 10.1002/casp.773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Guttman, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaiser, E. J., Godschalk, D. R., & Chapin, F. S. (1995). Urban land use planning (4th ed.). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kaplan, T. J. (1986). Narrative structure of policy analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 5(4), 761–788. doi: 10.2307/3324882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Mayer, I. (1997). Debating technologies: A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis. Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Patton, C. V., & Sawicki, D. S. (1993). Basic methods of policy analysis and planning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Pielke, R. A. (2004). What future for the policy sciences? Policy Sciences, 37(3), 209–225. doi: 10.1007/s11077-005-6181-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. PPK-Consultants. (1992). Environmental impact statement for the proposed Illawarra water quality project. Sydney: Author.Google Scholar
  32. Roberts, R. (1998). Public involvement in environmental impact assessment: Moving to a “Newthink”. The Journal of Public Participation, 4(1), 39–62.Google Scholar
  33. Roe, E. (1994). Narrative policy analysis: Theory and practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Smith, A. (2006). Lies, damn lies and recycled water. Retrieved April 4, 2008, from
  37. Stone, D. (2002). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (2nd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  38. Taylor, N. (1988). Urban planning theory since 1945. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Throgmorton, J. A. (1991). The rhetorics of policy analysis. Policy Sciences, 24(2), 153–179. doi: 10.1007/BF00138058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Toowoomba-City-Council. (2009). Water futures, Toowoomba. Retrieved March 3, 2009, from
  41. Turnbull, M. (2006). Toowoomba’s great divide on water use. Retrieved June 8, 2008, from
  42. 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
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed., Vol. 5). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Academic Services DivisionUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  2. 2.Australian Center for Science, Innovation and SocietyUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations