IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v49y2016i4d10.1007_s11077-016-9252-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices

Author

Listed:
  • Mark K. McBeth

    (Idaho State University)

  • Donna L. Lybecker

    (Idaho State University)

  • James W. Stoutenborough

    (Idaho State University)

Abstract

In the spirit of the policy sciences, knowledge should be used to improve the practice of democracy. In today’s policy world, communication is a key element of policy making. Too often groups become trapped in promoting their own narrative rather than building bridges to other groups by adopting alternative narratives. In this study, we ask, when involved in a public policy issue, do stakeholders analyze their audience? In other words, do stakeholders consider larger values and beliefs in an attempt to help orient a problem or issues when they move from discussing the issue with like-minded groups to discussing the issue with the general public? Our study uses a survey to examine how stakeholders involved in a river restoration issue switched or did not switch from their own personal message choice to what they believed was the best communication choice for talking about river restoration with the public. Overall, 47% of stakeholders switched their preference when asked how river restoration should be discussed with the public. We examine how attitudinal indicators, background information, and demographics related to which stakeholders switch and which did not switch their choices. The implications of these findings for democracy and policy analysis along with the ethical considerations of the research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:49:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-016-9252-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-016-9252-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11077-016-9252-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-016-9252-2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dominic Golding & Sheldon Krimsky & Alonzo Plough, 1992. "Evaluating Risk Communication: Narrative vs. Technical Presentations of Information About Radon," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 27-35, March.
    2. Paula Orr & John Colvin & David King, 2007. "Involving stakeholders in integrated river basin planning in England and Wales," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 21(1), pages 331-349, January.
    3. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    4. J. Arbuckle & Linda Prokopy & Tonya Haigh & Jon Hobbs & Tricia Knoot & Cody Knutson & Adam Loy & Amber Mase & Jean McGuire & Lois Morton & John Tyndall & Melissa Widhalm, 2013. "Climate change beliefs, concerns, and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation among farmers in the Midwestern United States," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 117(4), pages 943-950, April.
    5. Tsang, Eric W. K., 2014. "Old and New," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(03), pages 390-390, November.
    6. Torpen, David R. & Hearne, Robert R., 2008. "Stakeholder Preferences for Water Management Alternatives in the Red River Basin," Agribusiness & Applied Economics Report 36774, North Dakota State University, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.
    7. Greg Hampton, 2009. "Narrative policy analysis and the integration of public involvement in decision making," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(3), pages 227-242, August.
    8. John M Bryson, 2004. "What to do when Stakeholders matter," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 21-53, March.
    9. Wester, Philippus & Merrey, Douglas J. & de Lange, Marna, 2003. "Boundaries of Consent: Stakeholder Representation in River Basin Management in Mexico and South Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 797-812, May.
    10. Deserai Anderson Crow & Olga Baysha, 2013. "“Conservation” as a Catalyst for Conflict: Considering Stakeholder Understanding in Policy Making," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(3), pages 302-320, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Caroline Schlaufer & Marina Pilkina & Tatiana Chalaya & Tatiana Khaynatskaya & Tatiana Voronova & Aleksandra Pozhivotko, 2022. "How do civil society organizations communicate in an authoritarian setting? A narrative analysis of the Russian waste management debate," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(6), pages 730-751, November.
    2. Giliberto Capano & Maria Tullia Galanti & Giovanni Barbato, 2023. "When the political leader is the narrator: the political and policy dimensions of narratives," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 56(2), pages 233-265, June.
    3. Jungrav-Gieorgica, Natalia, 2020. "Narrative Policy Framework - polityka publiczna jako walka opowieści," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 7(2), pages 1-27, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ali Shalizar Jalali, 2018. "Male Fertility as a Bull’s Eye for Mastocytosis," Global Journal of Reproductive Medicine, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 3(3), pages 58-60, February.
    2. Bert George, 2017. "Does strategic planning ‘work’ in public organizations? Insights from Flemish municipalities," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(7), pages 527-530, November.
    3. Hui Yan & Guixiang Liu, 2021. "Fire’s Effects on Grassland Restoration and Biodiversity Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Tetsuro Kobayashi & Fumiaki Taka & Takahisa Suzuki, 2021. "Can “Googling” correct misbelief? Cognitive and affective consequences of online search," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    5. Michal Plaček & Martin Schmidt & František Ochrana & Michal Půček, 2017. "Do the Selected Characteristics of Public Tenders Affect the Likelihood of Filing Petitions with the Regulators of Public Tenders?," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2017(3), pages 317-329.
    6. Joseph A Hamm & Corwin Smidt & Roger C Mayer, 2019. "Understanding the psychological nature and mechanisms of political trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    7. Nikolov, Plamen & Adelman, Alan, 2019. "Do private household transfers to the elderly respond to public pension benefits? Evidence from rural China," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 14(C).
    8. Martin Luštický & Martin Musil, 2016. "Stakeholder-Based Evaluation of Tourism Policy Priorities: The Case of the South Bohemian Region," Acta Oeconomica Pragensia, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2016(3), pages 3-23.
    9. Dana Benešová & Viera Kubičková & Miroslava Prváková, 2020. "Open innovation model in the knowledge intensive business services in the Slovak Republic," Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, VsI Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Center, vol. 8(2), pages 1340-1358, December.
    10. Jolanta MAJ, 2015. "Diversity Management’S Stakeholders And Stakeholders Management," Proceedings of the INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE, Faculty of Management, Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(1), pages 780-793, November.
    11. Holzmann, Robert & Alonso-García, Jennifer & Labit-Hardy, Heloise & Villegas, Andres M., 2017. "NDC Schemes and Heterogeneity in Longevity: Proposals for Redesign," IZA Discussion Papers 11193, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Selman, P., 2014. "Intercountry Adoption Agencies and the HCIA," ISS Working Papers - General Series 77404, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
    13. Martinho, Vítor João Pereira Domingues, 2019. "Historical records of wine: Highlighting the old wine world," EconStor Preprints 193461, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    14. Gabriella Garbarino & Giovanni Pampararo & Thanh Khoa Phung & Paola Riani & Guido Busca, 2020. "Heterogeneous Catalysis in (Bio)Ethanol Conversion to Chemicals and Fuels: Thermodynamics, Catalysis, Reaction Paths, Mechanisms and Product Selectivities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-19, July.
    15. Zhongcheng Yan & Feng Wei & Xin Deng & Chuan Li & Qiang He & Yanbin Qi, 2022. "Feminization of Agriculture: Do Female Farmers Have Higher Expectations for the Value of Their Farmland?—Empirical Evidence from China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, January.
    16. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Hélène Laurell & Leona Achtenhagen & Svante Andersson, 2017. "The changing role of network ties and critical capabilities in an international new venture’s early development," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 113-140, March.
    18. Franco-Trigo, L. & Fernandez-Llimos, F. & Martínez-Martínez, F. & Benrimoj, S.I. & Sabater-Hernández, D., 2020. "Stakeholder analysis in health innovation planning processes: A systematic scoping review," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(10), pages 1083-1099.
    19. Michael Carolan, 2020. "Filtering perceptions of climate change and biotechnology: values and views among Colorado farmers and ranchers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 121-139, March.
    20. Trine Filges & Anu Siren & Torben Fridberg & Bjørn C. V. Nielsen, 2020. "Voluntary work for the physical and mental health of older volunteers: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(4), December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:49:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s11077-016-9252-2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.