Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy

This study examines two models of analysis used in attempts to resolve technically intensive policy disputes. In the adversarial form of analysis, groups opposing each other in a debate generate competing technical analyses to support their clashing policy arguments. In the collaborative form of analysis, all the groups involved in a debate work together to build a single, mutually acceptable technical analysis of the issues in question. The practical implications of these contrasting forms of analysis are explored in the context of two recent policy debates over the environmental management of the marine oil trade in Alaska. In the first case, adversarial analysis is found to cause a stalemate in the policy process. In the second case, collaborative analysis is found to facilitate the resolution of a policy dispute. In both cases, it is also found that analysis and politics interact in shaping the content of the final policy decisions.