Narrative analysis for the policy analyst: A case study of the 1980–1982 medfly controversy in California

Narrative policy analysis provides a way of analyzing those highly uncertain and complex policy issues whose truth-value cannot be ascertained and about which the only thing practicing policy analysts know are the stories policymakers use in articulating these issues. One extremely well-documented controversy, the 1980-82 California Medfly Crisis, illustrates how a comparison and analysis of the structure of the dominant stories in that controversy reduces some of its underlying uncertainty. By focusing on the differential risk perceptions reflected in the stories, narrative policy analysis identifies an important area in which conventional policy analysis could have contributed to the controversy's resolution.     

Proponents Bear the Burden of Proof

Richard Gardner claimed to be able to diagnose parental alienation among contentious parents disputing custody, and asserted that his "syndrome" is supported by scientific and legal authority. Despite influencing many custody proceedings, Gardner's ideas fail to meet even minimal scientific standards. The burden of proving any new hypothesis falls on its proponents, and given the complete absence of objective replication, parental alienation syndrome (PAS) must be viewed as nothing more than a hypothesis. The lack of clear guidance in the law allows concepts like PAS to gain temporary credibility, as judges look to mental health professionals for help in making decisions under the vague best interests standard.     

A salt on the land: A narrative analysis of the controversy over irrigation-related salinity and toxicity in California's San Joaquin Valley

A narrative network analysis of the seeming paralysis of efforts to deal with the problem of toxic elements in agricultural drainage in California's San Joaquin Valley shows irrigation agencies to be caught in a dilemma. Despite pressures to reduce uncertainty about treatment methods, reducing this uncertainty risks increased political polarization over agricultural subsidies. As a result, policy-makers are reluctant to move in any action-forcing direction, and continue to order further studies. We sketch out those areas of contention that must be addressed if real progress is to be made, demonstrating that the issues are primarily organizational and political rather than technical. We also discuss our experience in presenting these findings, along with our recommendations for structural separation of drainage functions from present irrigation agencies, to the relevant policy audience.