|
Working Forest Forum Content Analysis Peter Nelson UW College of Forest Resources/Evans School of Public Affairs January 2005 This preliminary report is meant to provide a synthesis of the presentations and discussions that made up the Saving Washington’s Working Forest Land Base Forum. The report findings will be utilized to guide further activities of the forum. This report applies a content analysis technique to code raw meeting notes and presentations in order to organize and convey forum themes and concepts. Content analysis is often used in social science research and policy analysis to study information patterns in human communication. This type of analysis should be helpful in determining the next steps for the Working Forest Forum in terms of identifying and communicating key issues, themes and strategies for future meetings and long-term policy problem solving. It should be noted that this document represents only one means of slicing this data, and only one analyst’s perspective. This document should thus be considered as one of many ways to view the proceedings, and as a starting point for discussion rather than a definitive statement on reality. The report utilizes a policy analysis framework to arrange the information provided under the content analysis. The policy analysis framework allows us to view the Working Forest Forum as a venue to address environmental management problems and solutions. Indeed, a stated objective of the forum is to develop innovative strategies and financing mechanisms to maintain Washington State’s “working forest” land base. Problem identification and subsequent strategy development are initial steps in the policy analysis process. In this sense, the Alderbrook meetings are seen as the initial steps in a policy analysis process. The policy analysis process has been defined as an eight step process (Bardach, 2000) (Steps in bold were undertaken, at least partially, by forum participants):
The Working Forest Forum partially addressed the first four steps of the policy analysis process. The forum focused on creating a common understanding of a policy problem by identifying key issues and further defining the complexities of the “working forest” problem (Step 1). Evidence of the problem was provided both by presenters and throughout discussions (Step 2). This report partially sidesteps Step 2. On one hand, we recognize that forum participants are aware of the evidence of the problem, and thus the sessions did not “make a case” for development of policy alternatives to “save working forests”. However, it should be noted that IF the forum participants determine to move forward with lobbying or public education efforts, providing evidence of the problem to various audiences will be of paramount importance. On the other hand, this report considers “research needs” as evidence gathering activities. Indeed, these research endeavors will contribute to the formulation and assessment of various policy alternatives. Thus, Step 2 in the coding framework is entitled “research needs.” In addition, the Working Forest Forum also began to discuss potential policy solutions and alternative strategies, with some ideas outlined in greater detail than others (Step 3). (By no means was the generation of alternative policy solutions exhaustive.) Lastly, the forum began to outline a set of criteria for comparing policy alternatives (Step 4). The forum accomplished many of these functions without intentionally doing so. Although the session was framed as a problem-solution type dialogue, the content analysis and policy analysis framework assisted in giving further structure to the proceedings. Step 1 – Defining the Problem The Working Forest Forum began with a premise that our collective policy problem is concerned with the viability of Washington’s “working forests.” The problem is characterized by conversion of working forests to other uses; threats to ecosystem/public values, threats to viability of Washington’s forest industry, etc. Most participants agreed on these first order problem statements. The problem was further characterized/framed in a variety of ways by different participants. Articulating these various problem frames should be of utility as the forum moves towards more comprehensive alternative solutions through the policy analysis process. This report coded these latter problem statements into categories as follows, with particular attention given to those areas that may need greater clarity in order to move forward:
Step 2 – Providing Evidence of the Problem – Research Needs As mentioned above, this step is partially sidestepped in this report. Evidence on the policy analysis process allows for 1) the assessment of the nature and extent of the problem; 2) the assessment of the features of the policy problem; and 3) the assessment other policies that have worked effectively in similar scenarios (Bardach, 2000). This report focuses primarily on the third objective, with the idea that research and data gathering will contribute to the effectiveness of the policy analysis process. This list is by no means complete, a more focused dialogue on research needs is probably necessary in the future. Research Needs and Questions
Step 3 – Construct Alternatives and Tools The bulk of the forum discussion centered on presentations and generally open-ended discussions on potential policy solutions to the primary “working forest” problem. Policy options are not mutually exclusive; in fact, most participants seem to concur that a variety of approaches will be required to fully address a problem of this complexity. There is a range of alternatives; some are political outreach strategies (1, 2); while others are technical policy mechanisms (3-7). Some of the technical alternatives will need to undergo much further analysis, particularly on implementation details. This report does not delve into those implementation details. Many participants noted that this is not a “one size fits all” problem; policy solutions/tools need to be created/organized for the “right” problem, given that there is a gradient of “problem” areas. This concept is also noted in Step 4. The objective in this section is not to go into detail on any particular strategy; more detail is included in the raw notes and presentations offered by the participants. Any of the following strategies will most likely require further research and their own individual analysis, covered in Step 4 of the policy analysis process. Policy alternatives have been coded into the following general categories, in order of relative discussion frequency:
Step 4 – Develop Criteria for Assessing Alternatives Step 3 outlined a variety of strategies for addressing the “working forests” problem. Step 4 provides a coding of potential criteria that could be employed to assess the strategic and “outcome” value of the various alternatives. One could imagine “ranking” each policy alternative based on these criteria. This information was not obtained from direct questioning of participants; rather, it was gleaned from general discussions. In a traditional policy analysis, a matrix would be utilized to compare the utility of the strategies, a step that may be conducted at a later date by forum participants. Recall that many strategies could be undertaken in packages, thus these criteria may allow participants to “mix and match” for the optimum policy strategy. The criteria for strategies and outcomes are as follows: Strategies
Outcomes
Conclusion This preliminary report is designed to provide a rational framework for understanding and conveying information from the proceedings of the Working Forests Forum. The report is not meant to provide an exhaustive summary of the policy mechanisms discussed by participants. Indeed, that information and analysis is best left to the respective expert participants. Rather, the report is designed to help frame the policy issue in a cogent manner that can assist the process of dialogue and conversation as forum participants move forward towards a strategic resolution of the issue. Further steps in the policy analysis process, if the group chooses to undertake them, could lead to a comprehensive strategic plan. Hopefully, this preliminary report will lead to more productive discussions, more rational strategies, and more favorable policy outcomes. |
 |
For more information, please contact Brian Boyle |