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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Tsang, Eric W. K., 2014. "Old and New," Management and Organization Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(03), pages 390-390, November.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. John M Bryson, 2004. "What to do when Stakeholders matter," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 21-53, March.
    10. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Sarah Ann Wheeler & Céline Nauges & Alec Zuo, 2021. "How stable are Australian farmers’ climate change risk perceptions? New evidence of the feedback loop between risk perceptions and behaviour," Post-Print hal-04670841, HAL.
    6. 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.
    7. Martinho, Vítor João Pereira Domingues, 2019. "Historical records of wine: Highlighting the old wine world," EconStor Preprints 193461, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    8. 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.
    9. Alexandru-Ionuţ Petrişor & Walid Hamma & Huu Duy Nguyen & Giovanni Randazzo & Anselme Muzirafuti & Mari-Isabella Stan & Van Truong Tran & Roxana Aştefănoaiei & Quang-Thanh Bui & Dragoş-Florian Vintilă, 2020. "Degradation of Coastlines under the Pressure of Urbanization and Tourism: Evidence on the Change of Land Systems from Europe, Asia and Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-43, August.
    10. repec:ers:journl:v:special_issue:y:2018:i:1:p:466-478 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Sellami Sana & Verhaest Dieter & Nonneman Walter & Van Trier Walter, 2017. "The Impact of Educational Mismatches on Wages: The Influence of Measurement Error and Unobserved Heterogeneity," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 17(1), pages 1-20, February.
    12. Barrera, Oscar & Guriev, Sergei & Henry, Emeric & Zhuravskaya, Ekaterina, 2020. "Facts, alternative facts, and fact checking in times of post-truth politics," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    13. Mochon, Daniel & Schwartz, Janet, 2024. "The confrontation effect: When users engage more with ideology-inconsistent content online," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    14. Kenneth M. Johnson & Daniel T. Lichter, 2016. "Diverging Demography: Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Contributions to U.S. Population Redistribution and Diversity," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 35(5), pages 705-725, October.
    15. Su, Guifu & Tu, Jianhua & Das, Kinkar Ch., 2015. "Graphs with fixed number of pendent vertices and minimal Zeroth-order general Randić index," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 270(C), pages 705-710.
    16. Zbigniew Drewniak & Rafal Drewniak & Robert Karaszewski, 2020. "The Assessment of the Features of Inter-organisational Relationships: Benefits, Duration, Repeatability and Maturity of the Relationship with the Company's Stakeholders," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 1), pages 443-461.
    17. Tanja Lepistö & Tiina Mäkitalo-Keinonen & Tiina Valjakka, 0. "Opportunity recognition in a hub-governed network – insights from garage services," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-24.
    18. Sierra, Jazmin & Hochstetler, Kathryn, 2017. "Transnational activist networks and rising powers: transparency and environmental concerns in the Brazilian National Development Bank," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 79089, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Carlo Borzaga & Silvia Sacchetti, 2015. "Why Social Enterprises Are Asking to Be Multi-stakeholder and Deliberative: An Explanation around the Costs of Exclusion," Euricse Working Papers 1575, Euricse (European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises).
    20. Colvin, John & Blackmore, Chris & Chimbuya, Sam & Collins, Kevin & Dent, Mark & Goss, John & Ison, Ray & Roggero, Pier Paolo & Seddaiu, Giovanna, 2014. "In search of systemic innovation for sustainable development: A design praxis emerging from a decade of social learning inquiry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 760-771.
    21. Mukhamedova, Nozilakhon & Wegerich, Kai, 2018. "The feminization of agriculture in post-Soviet Tajikistan," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 57, pages 128-139.

    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.