narrative decision making

8/8/2019 Narrative Decision Making

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/narrative-decision-making 1/16

Narrative policy analysis and the integration of public

involvement in decision making

Greg Hampton

Published online: 28 April 2009Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

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.

Keywords Public involvement Á Narrative policy analysis

Narrative policy analysis and decision making

The goal of this article is to examine the utility of narrative policy analysis in integrating

public involvement in decision making. This issue is at the heart of deliberative democracy

and how public preferences are given due consideration. This can be achieved through the

juxtaposition of lay and expert opinion and consideration of how power differentials

influence the expression of such opinion through examination of their discourse expressed

in narrative form. This exercise aims to show how narrative policy analysis can contribute

to the enterprise of deliberative and discursive democracy, as expressed by Dryzek (1990,

2002). The article aims to show how discursive policy analysis can facilitate the funda-

mental enterprise of facilitating the expression of agreement and disagreement within

deliberative democracy. Guttman and Thompson (1996, p. 3) argue that ‘‘citizens should

try to accommodate the moral convictions of their opponents to the greatest extent

G. Hampton (&)

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

e-mail: [email protected]

G. Hampton

Australian Center for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Melbourne,

Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

123

Policy Sci (2009) 42:227–242

DOI 10.1007/s11077-009-9087-1



possible, without compromising their own moral convictions’’. It will be argued that

narrative policy analysis achieves this goal.

The integration of public preferences with policy analysis has been addressed by some

writers. For example, Walters et al. (2000) describe a process of discovery, education,

measurement, persuasion and legitimisation. Discovery is important when people do nothave well formed opinions on new issues and helps develop a common language for

discussing the criteria of evaluation. Education of stakeholders might be required to deal

with technical issues. Public participation is most warranted when issues are poorly

structured. Narrative policy analysis is of particular use in analysing the structure of issues

when there is controversy and delineating the language in use by protagonists.

Narrative policy analysis consists of the identification of narratives which describe

policy dilemmas. Roe (1994) argues that narrative policy analysis is useful when policy

issues are uncertain, complex and polarised. The process begins with the identification of

dominant narratives, which express uncertainty and complexity and non-stories and

counter-stories, which are contrary to the dominant narrative. The policy analyst then

generates a meta-narrative derived from the comparison of stories, non-stories and counter-

stories. Meta-narratives are ‘‘policy narratives in a controversy that embrace, however

temporarily, the major oppositions to a controversy without in the process slighting any of

that opposition’’ (Roe 1994, p. 52). The meta-narrative may make the issues more ame-

nable to decision making. In a policy controversy the formulation of a meta-narrative is an

alternative to seeking consensus and provides an altogether different story, which is

amenable to policy intervention. ‘‘The meta-narrative is, in short, the candidate for a new

policy narrative that underwrites and stabilizes the assumptions for decision making on an

issue whose current policy narratives are so conflicting as to paralyze decision making’’(Roe 1994, p. 4). Roe maintains that policy narratives are not insignificant in situations

which are not divisive, uncertain or complex. They will always be found stabilising the

assumptions made in decision making. This schema of narrative analysis is applied to

drinking water quality policy and planning scenarios. The first scenario was chosen

because it suggests how the development of a meta-narrative could have been facilitated

through public debate about a controversy. This situation was of political importance to the

water industry and to interest groups. The second scenario provides an example of the

development of a meta-narrative through the juxtaposition of opposing views about

planning options. It demonstrates how a meta-narrative can evolve when there is open

debate.

A drinking water treatment policy scenario

In order to meet the needs of an expanding population, in the context of a drought, a local

council in Toowoomba, south east Queensland, Australia, had proposed the addition of a

small percentage of recycled water to the potable supply. Their interest in this situation was

ostensibly the assurance of a long-term supply of potable water. This scenario was chosen

to suggest how not facilitating open debate between protagonists may have contributed to a

lack of resolution. Engineers and social scientists alike were awaiting the outcome of thisreferendum as it represented a test of public opinion on water reuse for potable purposes.

There were several towns in Australia that were considering water reuse for potable

purposes dependent upon the outcome. The federal government had agreed to assist with

funding if the public supported this use of recycled water. For the dominant narrative this

case study is derived from telephone communication with the Council marketing manager

(Marketing-manager 2006, personal communication), telephone communication with a

228 Policy Sci (2009) 42:227–242

123



Council administrative officer (Council-Officer 2006, personal communication), Council

websites (Toowoomba-City-Council 2009), Federal government websites (Turnbull 2006)

and for the counter-narrative from newspaper articles and public websites (e.g. Smith

2006), which had assumed an important role in public discourse as it became one of the

main means by which the public could express its opinions. These different informationsources provided triangulation of the data sources for each narrative (Yin 2009).

The council embarked on a vigorous public relations campaign in support of recycled

water and shied away from public engagement (Marketing-manager 2006, personal

communication). ‘The campaign’, as it was known internally, was designed to convince the

public of the benefit of recycled water, rather than air concerns of the public. The dominant

narrative was that recycled water could be safely used for drinking. The rhetoric of the

council was that this was a war against irrational forces within the public who opposed the

use of recycled water for drinking.

Experts with engineering and academic backgrounds were utilised from technical areas

to strengthen the case for recycled water. They were not readily made available to the

public to answer concerns about contamination from recycled water. The public was

effectively quarantined from open dialogue with Council’s experts. The Council shied

away from the use of experts in public participation method (Marketing-manager 2006,

personal communication). In response to this approach, a public interest group developed

to support the ‘no’ vote. Council response was to spend more on marketing the ‘yes’ vote.

The final outcome of the referendum was a defeat of the ‘yes’ vote.

There was meagre open dialogue on the issue of how to augment or constrain the

potable water supply. Proponents of the ‘yes’ and ‘no’ votes did not engage in constructive

dialogue on the issue of a long-term potable supply. The ‘no vote’ public was construed asirrational and unreasonable and not amenable to the arguments of experts. Their interest in

this situation was the avoidance of contamination in the water supply. There was however

consideration of recycled water (Smith 2006). Although there was meagre support for

drinking recycled water there was consideration of its use for non-potable purposes. The

Federal minister stated that public participation had been upheld (Turnbull 2006) because

the public’s wishes were heeded, however the debate on which the decision was based on

was limited and divisive. Council officers lamented the lack of time for engaging in public

education leading up to the referendum (Council-Officer 2006, personal communication).

This scenario provides an example of how a meta-narrative did not evolve because of a

lack of dialogue between lay publics and experts. The power in this situation was closelyguarded by the local council and they were not prepared to share it with the public. This is

reflected in the divisive narratives which were prevalent in the community. Roe’s treatment

of unequal power relations, which are reflected in the narratives prevalent in the town, are

dealt with later in this article. In contrast with this scenario is that of a local manager of a

utility who was prepared to promote open dialogue within public participation on water

treatment and where it will be argued, a meta-narrative evolved. This planning issue will

be dealt with in more detail.

A drinking water treatment planning scenario

The quality of potable water in the Illawarra region of New South Wales, Australia, had

been problematic for the public and hence for the water utility for considerable time. The

policy of the state government and its water utility focussed on a decision to improve

potable water quality for all of the reservoirs and reticulation systems under the control of

the government utility rather than specific concerns about the Illawarra area. The utility

Policy Sci (2009) 42:227–242 229

123



had resolved to improve the quality of potable water and had initially decided to develop a

centralised water treatment and filtration system. The main form of consultation adopted

was the production of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which involved pre-

sentation of information on a proposed local scheme with subsequent evaluation and

analysis of feedback from specific community stakeholder groups. When the EIS waspresented to the community there was considerable opposition to the proposed location for

a water treatment plant. This scenario was chosen to illustrate how a meta-narrative can

evolve spontaneously through interaction between protagonists. This case-study data is

triangulated with the following documents. The dominant narrative is supported by the

original EIS document (PPK-Consultants 1992), meetings with the engineers, and the

counter-narrative is derived from meetings and correspondence with the community action

group (Farmborough-Heights-Resident-Action-Group 1993, personal communication) and

audio recordings of the workshops.

Following from the EIS evaluation, the utility’s dominant narrative was that the pre-

ferred site for a water treatment and filtration plant was based on a ‘good’ engineering

solution for receiving the water from the reservoir, treating and filtering the water and

distributing it through gravity feed to local reservoirs throughout the region. The site was

owned by the utility, was readily available and was directly positioned under the reservoir.

The community adjacent to the preferred site was opposed to the plant being developed in

their area. Their opposition centred on whether it was safe for it to be located in close

proximity to a residential community. The dominant narrative for the community (as

assessed from discussion with and correspondence received from the community action

group) was that the transport of chemicals through the neighbourhood and storage and use

of chlorine in the water treatment process would be dangerous to the community and theconstruction of the plant would create land instability. Their narrative expressed general

opposition to the entire project and a denial of the need for improved water quality. This

denial of the need for treatment became a major focus on the community group’s campaign

against the treatment plant.

Due to the considerable community opposition to the proposed site for the plant, the

utility decided to embark on a public participation program in order to determine whether

the public wanted improved drinking water quality and if so what was the preferred method

for water quality improvement. The local manager of the utility determined that the out-

come of the public consultation would determine whether the treatment plant would go

ahead. The power in this situation was ostensibly given to the community. The partici-pation process was designed to bring together the plethora of voices grappling with potable

water quality problems in the region. The main issues for deliberation were whether water

treatment was necessary and if it was deemed necessary, where a possible treatment plant

should be located. Experts on water treatment and opponents to treatment and site locations

were brought together with sectors of the community who suffered poor water quality.

The participation process consisted of two series of workshops. The first series of six

workshops examined water quality problems experienced by customers. Participants were

obtained from a list of people who had suffered potable water quality problems. All of the

people on the list were contracted and approximately 60% responded. Sixty-one peopleparticipated in these workshops, which varied in size from 7 to 25. The dominant narrative

derived from analysis of audio recordings of the dialogue of these groups was that poor

water quality had created a myriad of domestic problems for many years. The second series

of six workshops used the same list of participants from which 83% responded with 84

attending. The workshops explored these customers’ preferences for water quality

improvement options. Workshop sizes varied from 25 to 9.

230 Policy Sci (2009) 42:227–242

123



In the first stage of the second workshop each option for water quality improvement was

discussed by participants. The account given by the utility in the workshop followed the

technical analysis provided in the EIS. It was comprised of statements from the repre-

sentative engineers that centralised water treatment would provide an effective strategy for

improved water quality throughout the region and that the site, in proximity to a residentialarea, provided an ideal engineering and economical solution for transporting water from

the reservoir to a central treatment plant and then to the entire region as the location would

allow gravity feed. They discounted the other options as not providing a comprehensive

and viable solution to region wide water quality problems.

A public participation consultancy group from the local University, of which the author

was a member, was employed to organise the workshops and had suggested that the

community interest group be represented in discussions. These consultants were politically

committed to principles of deliberative democracy. Therefore, representatives from the

opposing community were asked to address each workshop about their concerns. Their

counter story, as told by the participants, was that centralised water treatment was

unnecessary, as the utility had overstated the regional water quality problems. Their

counter story for the treatment plant also portrayed the plant as creating risks for any

residential area. Their solution to water quality problems, which they considered to be

minimal, was that the reticulation system should be cleaned or replaced where necessary.

The utility then made statements, which reinforced the dominant narrative, that water

quality problems across the region were substantial and that considerable funds had been

spent over a prolonged period on pipe cleaning and replacement and that this strategy had

not been successful.

A turning point in the workshops occurred, when in the fourth workshop residents of theopposing community acknowledged that residents of the adjacent community were suf-

fering severe water quality problems. This came about through hearing the full stories of

the difficulties experienced by the community. The community participants initiated

acceptance of the story provided by the ‘‘dirty water sufferers’’. They realised that the

community members were not simply pawns of the utility but had interests which needed

to be considered. Participants stated that they had not realised how extreme the problem

had become for some residents and hearing their concerns had convinced them of the need

for centralised water treatment. This was a fundamental shift in their attitude from one of

opposition to support for the project. The immediacy of hearing the opposing community’s

stories and concerns about having the treatment plant located near their neighbourhoodalso influenced the people suffering water quality problems and they stated clearly that

their preference was for the plant not to be located near any residential area. The com-

munity participants initiated this rapprochement without prompting by the facilitators. The

private vote on a preferred option reflected this with 19 participants preferring centralised

treatment and four participants preferring increased flushing and cleaning of pipes. When

asked to vote for preferred sites for a treatment plant, none of the participants voted for the

residential area, seven participants preferred an industrial area and 16 participants preferred

a site adjacent to the reservoir. This voting pattern was similar to the preferences expressed

in the other five workshops except that in two workshops a larger majority of participantspreferred centralised treatment and preferred the industrial area as a site for a plant.

The meta-narrative, which developed within the workshop was that the treatment plant

was necessary for the region but that it should not be located within close proximity to any

residential community. This was a resolution of the controversy for the communities

affected by poor water quality and the proposed treatment plant site. The need for regional

water improvement generally had been accepted by the opposing community group rather

Policy Sci (2009) 42:227–242 231

123



problems is often hidden. Policy stories use many literary devices that lead to a course of

action. There are common metaphors in policy such as likening an institution to an

organism or using machines and mechanical devices as the basis of policy metaphors.

Ambiguity is an important aspect of metaphors for Stone. It enables unification on the

same policy for different reasons and facilitates negotiation and compromise. The ambi-guity of symbols enable collective decisions to be derived from individual strivings. In this

respect ambiguity functions like a meta-narrative in that individual narratives are main-

tained in its construction. Roe’s work on meta-narratives is emphasised in this article as it

focuses on the process of dealing with a controversy in a methodical manner.

Roe (1989) initially concentrates on the reduction of uncertainty through the use of the

narrative form in policy analysis. Roe (1994) utilises the concept of meta-narrative and its

usefulness has since been demonstrated in a number of studies. Garvin and Eyles (1997)

analyse health policy in relation to skin cancer and the hole in the ozone layer and argue

that despite scientific uncertainty a sun safety meta-narrative has evolved. The meta-

narrative enables uncertainty to be managed and action to be taken. It became the dominant

story in the controversy. Rather than a reliance on absolute proof there was a dependence

on argumentation and persuasion. The precautionary principle was bought into play to

manage the uncertain situation.

Bridgman and Barry (2002) note that a meta-narrative is like a superordinate frame that

joins otherwise incompatible positions. The meta-narrative serves to distance protagonists

from their original position. Thematic analysis, which focuses on metaphor can be used to

resolve power dynamics within a policy dispute because, they argue, metaphors control

action and ultimately change action. They discuss how a prefigured meta-narrative may

constrain the examination of alternatives in a dispute. They note that when public delib-eration is consistent with existing narratives about deliberation, the process will be more

productive.

Harbour (2006) used hermeneutic interpretation along with narrative policy analysis to

examine legislative and administrative texts about higher education in Colorado. Herme-

neutic interpretation of textual data was accompanied by narrative analysis in order to

synthesise textual data. Narrative policy analysis was used to portray some of the data in a

new framework using literary devices and producing a narrative which created a new

understanding of higher education policy. Harbour created a meta-narrative by producing a

rough script based on major themes, annotations and reflections. He then identified acts and

scenes and edited and moved them to appropriate places to form the meta-narrative.van Eeten (2007) discusses how aggregated policy narratives are constructed by the

analyst rather than protagonists through methods such as content analysis, network analysis

or stakeholder analysis. When the narratives have been reconstructed, the analysis can be

undertaken. van Eeten regards the meta-narrative as a story about the comparison of the

narratives. The analyst does not search for the correct meta-narrative but the one which

allows a way forward. van Eeten notes that different comparisons other than between a

story and a non-story might generate a meta-narrative. He has used the Q-sort as a method

of eliciting and quantifying policy narratives. van Eeten provides a useful current review of

the literature on narrative policy analysis and how the methodology has evolved sinceRoe’s initial work.

Roe continues to practice narrative policy analysis and outlines the differences between

conventional policy analysis and narrative policy analysis in Roe (2007). He focuses more

on the counter-narrative but still refers to the concept of meta-narrative which he regards as

a way of upholding opposing narratives without detracting from either narrative. He places

emphasis on how narratives are used when issues are uncertain and complex and

Policy Sci (2009) 42:227–242 233

123



conflicted. Not slighting any of the oppositions is important in the process of developing a

meta-narrative. The conditions under which the narrative and counter-narrative hold at the

same time constitute the meta-narrative

The resolution of the water filtration planning scenario was not a consensus in that there

were a range of options voted for. There was however a way forward pursued in thescenario in that the public and the utility largely agreed to centralised filtration. This is one

of the purposes of a developing meta-narrative; to unlock a previously intractable situation.

Similar concepts to meta-narrative have been employed in policy analysis and planning.

Gray (2004) examines the concept of frame of reference and how such frames foster or

create resistance to collaboration. In some respects these frames of reference are similar to

the metaphors utilised by coalitions in that they constrain or encourage the dialogue

occurring between groups. They are social constructions that help each group in a conflict

to make sense of the situation. Interests might be reframed to reflect a frame of reference

where collaboration is encouraged. Further discussion of meta-narrative focuses on how

policy and expertise can be collaboratively considered.

Public involvement in policy development and planning

In recent years the field of policy analysis and planning has been replete with enquiry into

the process of public involvement. This analysis has focussed on topics such as balancing

expert and public knowledge (Eden 1996) and the political interchange of diverse coali-

tions advocating for their preferences. In the past, public consultation has often been

appended to the policy and planning process, in an incremental fashion, as political criseshave demanded public involvement.

Policy is assumed to be oriented to governmental levels of dealing with an issue, which

may be limited in scope and with a focus on political expediency (Eden 1996; Patton and

Sawicki 1993). In contrast, planning can be regarded as operating in a more comprehensive

manner, with a longer term focus; giving consideration to a wider array of alternatives and

being less concerned with political pressures. The rational-comprehensive model and the

incremental model are often referred in the fields of policy analysis (Doyle and Kellow

1995) and planning (Kaiser et al. 1995). Within the rational-comprehensive model (Doyle

and Kellow 1995) an option chosen from a range of alternatives has various benefits and

costs some of which will be public support or opposition. Public values and preferencesmay be calculated as a benefit or cost depending upon whether they are congruent or

incongruent with an option. The cost of public rejection will be social upheaval and

political damage for the elected officials. There may also be public values which are more

complex than can be conveyed in simple unitary monetary terms. If public values are not

incorporated in the assessment of options within the rational comprehensive model the

most efficient and effective alternative may flounder politically. There are variants on the

traditional rational-comprehensive model, such as Kaiser’s et al. (1995) model of com-

munity planning discourse, which advocates the need for extensive public participation in

the planning process.Lindblom’s alternative model of incremental planning was put forth as a more realistic

portrayal of planning in practice (Taylor 1988). In the incremental model (Doyle and

Kellow 1995) social values can be ignored and the search for policy options is limited and

reliant on past experience. Small policy steps, away from existing policies, are taken in

order to gauge consequences as they occur. If policy implementation does not go well, the

previous policy can be reverted to. This strategy is risky if public opposition is politically

234 Policy Sci (2009) 42:227–242

123



damaging or the results of the policy action are irreversible, as may often be the case with

environmental issues.

The narrative policy analysis method of identifying narratives and counter-narratives

and developing meta-narratives is a potentially useful analytical process for planning as it

provides a structure for understanding and working with the narratives encountered byplanners when engaged in consultation and participation. The importance of narratives

occurring in planning has been highlighted by Forester (1999). Forester recounts planners’

experiences of public participation in terms of the stories they tell of the planning process.

He argues that such stories should be listened to and understood for their insights and

implications for professional practice. Forester (1999, p. 29) writes that ‘‘in planning

practice, these stories do particular kinds of work—descriptive work of reportage…

political work of identifying friends and foes, and the play of power in support and

opposition and… deliberative work of considering means and ends, values and options’’.

Throgmorton (1991) argues that planning is a form of persuasive and competitive story-

telling of diverse and often opposing views, which are antagonistic to one another. These

notions of planning stories are similar to Roe’s concept of asymmetrical and opposing

policy narratives. The usefulness to planning of Roe’s approach to policy analysis of

juxtaposing narratives and seeking a meta-narrative is demonstrated in the planning sce-

nario concerning a drinking water treatment controversy. The community, mentioned in

the case study, had called into question the government policy of water treatment to meet

new national guidelines and was opposed to a plan to construct a treatment plant adjacent

to a particular neighbourhood. The local utility manager was prepared to listen to the

community’s various stories concerning water treatment. This contrasts with the lack of

meaningful public participation and the evolution of a meta-narrative in a policy choice ina region considering the use of recycled water for its potable water supply.

Participatory policy analysis and planning

Traditional models of policy analysis and planning do not advocate constructive and

systematic public involvement. Public preferences may be incorporated for the purposes of

political expediency at a stage of policy development which precludes comprehensive

public participation. More recently commentators have discussed the benefits of partici-

patory policy analysis. Referring to Dryzek, Durning (1993) argues that participatory

policy analysis requires analysts to contribute to policy deliberation in a way whichchallenges entrenched thinking. Participatory policy analysis purports that all affected

parties to a policy decision should, through the means of discursive democracy, have a

political voice and ‘‘should be heard without prejudice or advantage’’ (deLeon 1994, p. 88).

The task of the policy analyst is to identify effected groups, educate them about the issues

and extract the essence of discussion in an impartial or balanced manner. deLeon ( 1994)

argues that involving citizens on a nominal basis through such means as administrative

hearings or public surveys is insufficient; citizens need to be directly involved in the design

of programs that affect them. Open policy forums (deLeon 1994), scenario workshops

(Mayer 1997), and citizen panels and juries (Kathlene and Martin 1991) are some of thedeliberative methods which can be utilised.

Forester’s (1999) accounts of participatory planning processes provide insight into the

flexibility and creativity required to implement a deliberative approach. These methods

enable participants to express diverse views and develop either a consensual view of an

issue or a collective view, which maintains the diversity of opinions. Whether participants

are able to achieve integration or collective expression of their diverse views depends on

Policy Sci (2009) 42:227–242 235

123



the effectiveness of the facilitation process used to guide these deliberations. It is also

incumbent on the analyst and planner to maintain the integrity of the diversity of view-

points in the representation of these views to decision makers.

Helling and Thomas (2001) contrast traditional and more recent methods of promoting

community dialogue and note that more recent approaches emphasise bottom up approa-ches where the public set the agenda. Traditional approaches minimise community dia-

logue and public involvement may be limited to publicity and public education. They ask

the question as to whether more recent collaborative methods do any better. One of the

aims of this article is to demonstrate that narrative policy analysis and planning can

achieve public participation in decision making as the process of participation and planning

and policy analysis is unified through the juxtaposition of diverse views and the creation of

a policy and planning alternative.

Consultation or participation?

In the public engagement literature the terms consultation and participation have often

been used interchangeably. Public participation has been traditionally distinguished by

whether public preferences are taken into account in a decision making or are merely

acknowledged (Arnstein 1969). Roberts (1998) argues that involvement programs should

be distinguished according to the degree to which the public will influence the final

decision rather than just be consulted for their views on what the outcomes should be.

Consultation without influence on the final decision is distinguished from a participation

program where there is a clear commitment to participatory democracy. Participation

requires a different policy process to the situation where public preferences will merely be

taken into consideration. It is argued that narrative policy analysis is of particular use when

there is a commitment to upholding public preferences in a decision. The question of

whether public preferences are taken into account in a decision is dependent upon the

commitment of decision makers. A clearer conceptual analysis of this commitment is

undertaken with reference to Goodin’s (1993) work on democracy and paternalism.

Goodin (1993) states that democracy is a matter of respecting peoples’ preferences and

sets up a typology of how preferences are treated directly or indirectly and reflectively or

unreflectively. The fullest extent of participation in decision making involves public

preferences being directly incorporated into the policy-making process in an unreflectivemanner without qualification and is termed populist democracy. Referenda are an example

of direct populist democracy but can be expensive, time consuming and time lags may

make the process unwieldy. There are alternatives such as sample surveys, which have a

referendum structure (McDaniels 1996).

Direct and reflective respect for preferences represents deliberative democracy and

characterises the common practice of public participation where public preferences are

incorporated into a decision but are rarely accepted without some form of modification or

compromise.

Democratic elitism involves indirect and reflective respect for public preferences and

epitomises consultation programs where information about public interests is often

required to strategically manage public reaction to a development. Goodin (1993) regards

this type of public involvement as paternalistic. Attempts might be made to justify such

paternalism through an argument that decision making requires the comprehension of

complex technical information. Rather than fostering paternalism, participation practitio-

ners and agencies responsible for development projects can educate the public on pertinent

236 Policy Sci (2009) 42:227–242

123



issues and foster participatory relationships between technical experts and the public in

order to assist understanding of complex issues.

Indirect democracy may be characterised as traditional democracy whereby voters

indicate their preferences for a set of policies through their election of representatives

(Goodin 1993). This means that direct expression of preferences is limited and citizens aredependent upon their representatives’ linkage with the public to understand their actual

preferences and the determination of that representative to be accountable to the public.

Goodin’s distinctions of direct and indirect and reflective and unreflective provide a

basis for clarifying the type of public involvement being sought in a policy and planning

process. Public involvement practitioners can utilise these distinctions when formulating

an involvement program so that the objectives of the program are clearly articulated and

the methodologies utilised articulate with the level of involvement in decision making.

Narrative policy analysis is of particular use when there is a commitment to direct and

reflective upholding of public preferences as it provides a process for managing diverse

views. The case study on water recycling can be characterised as indirect and unreflective

as there was no immediate incorporation of public preferences into the policy process. The

situation with water filtration was one of direct and reflective respect for public prefer-

ences. Narrative policy analysis and planning is suitable for deliberative democracy where

the goal is not necessarily agreement and consensus but discussion and agreeing to differ.

Participatory expertise

Sharing of expertise is critical to participatory policy analysis and planning. Government

reluctance to incorporate public preferences directly into policy has been attributed to a

tendency for governments to rely on expert opinion in the development of public policy.

Eden (1996) notes that in the UK that responsibility for implementation of Agenda 21 was

assigned to the public, whereas responsibility for decision making in policy development

was taken by the government with insufficient public participation, in favour of a reliance

on scientific accounts. Extending science is required and involves the use of local

knowledge grounded in experience and observation, contextual knowledge which links

data collection and interpretation and knowledge which relates practical actions to situa-

tions. Publics also make reference to morals, ethics, culture and behavioural issues, which

are not considered in scientific analyses. Such issues are critical to policy analysis andplanning and are vital to the public and ultimately to governments, which must contend

with public sentiments which have not been considered by scientists.

Anderson (1993) argues that scientists have in the past been used to bolster power elites

and now need to form collaborative relationships with citizen groups in order to facilitate

public understanding of technical issues. The scientist needs to help the public explore the

assumptions, biases and generalities hidden behind expert opinion. This participatory

approach to research enables an interaction between public values and scientific knowledge

which is used in the decision-making process. It assists the process of decision making if

scientists are able to work with public values and address public concerns in their provision

of information.

Local knowledge incorporated into policy may temper expert knowledge by empha-

sising the uncertainty and indeterminacies of expert knowledge (Lopez Cerezo and Gon-

zalez Garcıa 1996). This can create a more cautious approach to decision making. The

inclusion of local knowledge also prevents political manipulation of public opinion. Local

knowledge provides useful information about the social system and cultural perspectives

Policy Sci (2009) 42:227–242 237

123



and physical environment in which policy is going to be developed and new perspectives

on unexpected social and environmental impacts of a policy.

Fischer (1993) also suggests the need for the democratisation of policy expertise. In

order for public views to be melded with scientific management information there must be

the opportunity for interaction with experts on a participatory basis. This will provideeducation for the public concerning scientific knowledge and will educate the scientist on

public concerns, which may not be addressed in the limited methodological arena of

science. This process involves the collaborative exploration of the assumptions and biases

of expert opinion. Fischer suggests that discussions between expert and citizen need to be

structured so that dialogue is constructive.

Narrative policy analysis and planning has the potential to incorporate expert and local

knowledge in a participatory planning process. The analytical process treats expert and

local knowledge in the same way it would any narrative. Expert knowledge is likely to be

part of the dominant narrative in a controversy. The development of a meta-narrative may

see a rapprochement between expert and local knowledge.

The use of expert information is contrasted in the two case studies that began this

article. In the policy scenario concerning recycled water, expert information was reified for

the public through the pronouncement by the council of providing ‘the scientific facts’ in

presentations by these experts in public forums. There was little opportunity for the expert

information to be considered as another narrative in the controversy. In contrast, local

engineers who attended the second set of workshops, in the drinking water treatment

scenario, participated in the same manner as the citizens in the way that they provided

explanation of technical information. Their account of the drinking water treatment options

was treated as another narrative in the interplay of narratives. The public was able toquestion and accept or reject the expert information provided. The engineers eventually

appreciated the concerns of the community and their local knowledge concerning the

development.

Narrative policy analysis and planning as an integrative approach

Narrative policy analysis and planning has the potential to integrate these concerns about

level of participation and sharing of expertise and the integration of participation with

policy and planning.The process of narrative policy analysis requires that a plurality of voices be listened to

including those that are marginalised. If this is done it is more likely that a meta-narrative

will become apparent. All parties need to have equal access to resources such as detailed

information, particularly in a controversy of high uncertainty. Differential access to

information creates asymmetrical stories and hegemony (Roe 1989). In a controversy

where one narrative is coherent and the counter-narrative takes the form of a critique,

ambiguity and uncertainty are increased. This may lead to the development of a meta-

narrative, which highlights uncertainty and risk. Roe (1989) demonstrates how in a con-

troversy, a proponent view with a complete argument and sub-plots can seem morecredible than an opposing view when it is little more than critiques of the other without a

viable and complete alternative solution. If this opposing view had provided more com-

plete arguments it may have been more persuasive. In the Toowoomba water recycling

controversy experts and lay public had little opportunity for constructive interaction but the

no vote was bolstered by a privately funded information campaign. Power in this situation

was equalised through the ‘no vote campaign’ on the hazards of drinking recycled water.

238 Policy Sci (2009) 42:227–242

123



Roe maintains that narrative policy analysis enables power and politics to be analysed in

uncertain and complex controversies. The presence of asymmetrical narratives indicate that

unequal power relations are being worked through. It is important for the analyst to

recognise when unequal power relations are occurring so that the views of parties who may

be subordinate in such relations are not obscured by the completeness or complexity of themajor view. ‘‘Unequal power relations work themselves out through the competition and

opposition of stories, storytelling, and other policy narratives that get people to change

their own stories when conditions are complicated, full of unknowns, and divisive in the

extreme’’ (1994, pp. 13–14). In the Toowoomba situation the no campaign mounted a

vigorous assault on the safety of drinking recycled water and that equalised the competition

between narratives. Meta-narratives, on the other hand, do not stifle the difference between

opposing views in a controversy. They do not promote consensus or agreement but rather a

different agenda, which allows opposing parties to move on. This is what occurred in the

water treatment controversy where an alternative solution to the situation evolved.

Narrative policy analysis and public participation

Fischer (2003) argues that Roe’s meta-narrative policy analysis is compatible with par-

ticipatory democracy but that the implications for the latter are not drawn out by Roe.

Fischer points out that narrative policy analysis is useful for integrating public views on

issues by juxtaposing pubic narratives on issues with policy narratives that are created to

make sense of an issue. It can move disputants beyond policy impasses. Fischer (2003) is

critical of Roe’s narrative policy analysis approach because a meta-narrative is usually

constructed by a policy analyst and does not rely on the participation of actors involved ina controversy. On the contrary if opposing parties in a controversy jointly deliberate on an

issue, they may intentionally or unintentionally develop a meta-narrative in their inter-

action, which can then be used by policy analysts or planners to promote equitable or

constructive decisions. The process of competition and opposition of stories, as described

by Roe, is critical to the deliberate or spontaneous development of such meta-narratives.

This is what is argued, happened in the scenario concerning regional water treatment.

These criticisms and differences between Roe and Fischer have been summarised by van

Eeten (2007).

The competitive telling of stories by opposing parties is more likely to lead to a meta-

narrative if the deliberative process between participants is facilitated so that differentviewpoints are heard, particularly those of parties who may be in a subordinate position in

a controversy. Public participation practice is a useful source of methods for facilitating

this process. A wide variety of facilitation techniques have been developed in this field for

eliciting public preferences and integrating divergent views (Creighton 2005). Narrative

policy analysis has commonalities with public participation method in that both approaches

encourage the expression of a diversity of views in a controversy. The resolution of

controversy is dependent upon the opportunity for opposing parties to participate in debate

in order for consensus to occur or for the development of understanding and mutual respect

for different viewpoints. The provision of local and expert knowledge on an issue is criticalto this process. The views of experts are likely to be represented in the dominant narrative

as the proponent is likely to have the resources for completing this narrative with technical

complexity. Local knowledge may be represented in the counter story presented by a

community. Narrative policy analysis adds to the methods of public participation by

suggesting that the development of a meta-narrative is dependent upon the views of all

parties being expressed without distortion and with respect for diversity. This is an

Policy Sci (2009) 42:227–242 239

123



alternative to the somewhat idealistic goal of producing consensus in a public participation

process. The development of the meta-narrative also enables uncertainty and risk to be

exposed and recognised. The provision of resources enabling access to information is

critical to avoiding inequity and the prevention of an adequate meta-narrative being

developed. This process is eminently suitable for that characterised by deliberativedemocracy.

An important benefit of the narrative policy analysis approach for public participation is

that the discourse of decision makers in a controversy can be readily included in the

analysis. This can occur because their narrative of the issues at stake often forms the basis

for the development of counter-stories, which may be expressed by public groups. As the

decision makers’ narrative may be represented by expert opinion, employed to propound

their view, their narrative is more likely to be the well formed and argued version of the

controversy from which counter stories are juxtaposed. The development of a meta-nar-

rative is then formed from the reciprocal expression of the decision makers’ and the

publics’ stories on a controversy. As Roe suggests, oppositional stories might change as

they are competitively expressed, and this might facilitate the development of a new policy

and planning direction. The inclusion and juxtaposition of the decision makers’ perspec-

tives with the publics’ perspectives is therefore more likely to lead to the development of a

meta-narrative which provides a way forward in a policy and planning dilemma as the

direction taken might be mutually beneficial and therefore more likely to succeed

politically.

The type of interaction and involvement engendered by the narrative policy analysis and

planning approach is more likely to promote direct and reflective respect for public

preferences. This is likely to occur even when the nature of public involvement is indirectand unreflective as bureaucratic decision makers can be brought into the process of

expressing policy positions and counter positions. This is due to the potential for the

competitive telling of stories to lead to changes in perspectives and appreciation of others’

perspectives.

Narrative policy analysis and planning as direct and reflective

Narrative policy analysis and planning is an approach which facilitates the expression of

views from divergent parties in a controversy and provides a method of analysis which can

suggest a way forward in a dilemma. The process allows for the juxtaposition of expert andlocal knowledge as the views of experts and local participants are included in the stories

and counter stories. If reporting on the process retains the discursive context of the stories

and counter stories expressed by participants the possibility of preferences being taken out

of context may be minimised. Reporting may be subject to distortion and bias but this can

be minimised if the narratives and meta-narratives developed in the process are checked for

validity and accuracy by participants. In the planning case study reported, this process was

undertaken with the initially opposing community who provided written feedback that their

voice had been heard and their concerns heeded.

One advantage of this process was that participants determined the nature of the dis-course and brought issues determined by their own concerns to the participative forum.

Bringing people together to debate an issue facilitates the process of facilitating dis-

agreement within democratic procedures, without slighting the viewpoints of protagonists

(Guttman and Thompson 1996). In this process participants’ preferences may develop and

form part of the rhetorical discourse they contribute to. Rationalist and structured methods

are more dependent on an analyst or facilitator for processing and this may limit the extent

240 Policy Sci (2009) 42:227–242

123



to which participants’ concerns are addressed and evolve through interaction. Such

methods may be efficient but may also stifle discourse and public debate of a policy and

planning issue. Their systematic nature may appeal to public officials and decision makers

as they are likely to provide succinct and ranked alternatives. The method of narrative

policy analysis and planning may prove in some situations to be advantageous by pro-viding participants with the freedom to have their say.

Does this process make a contribution to the policy sciences? In Pielke’s ( 2004) con-

sideration of this field, narrative policy analysis and planning could be regarded as a

systematic approach to analyzing narrative which occurs spontaneously in a policy and

planning process. It casts order on the process of analysing narratives in practical decision

making. It can be embellished with social science methodology to improve validity and

reliability, as has been done by McBeth et al. (2007). It provides a policy scientist with an

orderly methodology with which to analyze the plethora of dialogue occurring in a con-

troversy. It is ideally suited to the quest for democracy which epitomises the policy

sciences (Farr et al. 2008).

References

Anderson, C. W. (1993). Recommending a scheme of reason: Political theory, policy science and democ-

racy. Policy Sciences, 26 (3), 215–227. doi:10.1007/BF00999717.

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

216–224.

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.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.

Creighton, J. L. (2005). The public participation handbook: Making better decisions through citizen

involvement . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.

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.

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

Macmillan.

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

University press.

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

University press.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.

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.

Farr, J., Hacker, J. S., & Kazee, N. (2008). Revisiting Lasswell. Policy Sciences, 41(1), 21–32. doi:

10.1007/s11077-007-9052-9.

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.

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

Oxford University Press.

Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Garvin, T., & Eyles, J. (1997). The sun safety metanarrative: Translating science into public health dis-

course. Policy Sciences, 30(2), 47–70. doi:10.1023/A:1004256124700.

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

10.1007/BF00999718.

Gray, B. (2004). Strong opposition: Frame based resistance to collaboration. Journal of Community &

Applied Social Psychology, 14, 166–176. doi:10.1002/casp.773.

Policy Sci (2009) 42:227–242 241

123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00999717

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1016139804995

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J134v10n04_03

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3325237

http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/5/3/001

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11077-007-9052-9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00999715

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004256124700

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00999718

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.773

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.773

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00999718

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004256124700

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00999715

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11077-007-9052-9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/5/3/001

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3325237

http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J134v10n04_03

http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1016139804995

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00999717

narrative decision making

Documents