The Science of Storytelling: Measuring Policy Beliefs in Greater Yellowstone

TLDR

Narrative policy analysis has methodological criticisms, and this study of Greater Yellowstone interest groups uses a mixed methodology to address them. The study seeks to determine whether narratives in public documents can be linked to interest group policy beliefs, made falsifiable, and whether a quantified method enhances narrative policy analysis. The authors content‑analyzed 75 public consumption documents from the Greater Yellowstone Coalition and the Blue Ribbon Coalition to extract policy beliefs. The analysis revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups on federalism, science, and human–nature relationships, though some results contradicted expectations, prompting discussion of methodological implications.

Abstract

ABSTRACT 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.