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.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 169 citations exist upstream.