Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this research was twofold. First, this research determined if relationships in coalitions identified using the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), during the height of the political conflict of the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), continue to exist 8 years into the policy development process, as hypothesized in the ACF. Second, this research attempted to identify specific reasons behind the changes in the coalitions. Methodology: The research compared current data to data collected in 2002 by Christopher Weible while he was completing his doctoral studies at the University of California, Davis, under the guidance of Paul Sabatier. Weible studied the second attempt to implement the MLPA's recommendation to create marine protected areas (MPAs) along the coast of California. This research built upon the results of Weible's research by examining similar policy subsystems 7 years later in Southern California. To complete this task, this research used a single-case study approach with a small sample consisting of the Southern California Regional Stakeholders Group (SCRSG; N = 64). The participants were asked to complete a survey and participate in interviews. Forty-two members of the SCRSG participated in the survey portion of this study, and eight of these participants were interviewed. Theoretical Framework: The literature for this research drew heavily from the ACF, policy subsystems, environmental and oceans' management, and collaboration. The theoretical underpinnings of this study are grounded in Fox and Miller's (1995) discourse theory and interest group theory. Conclusions: Overall, the results of the data clearly identified changes in coalitional dynamics. Although this research study was only able to identify a limited number of specific factors associated with the change in coalitional dynamics, the information provides a great deal of insight into the participants' perceptions of change in coalitional dynamics and the participants' overall impression of the MLPA process itself. The results also reinforce the use of the ACF in policy analysis. Recommendations: Future research should compare coalitional relationships over time between the same groups, or in the least, groups from the same geographical region or in a region where much of the same economic, demographic, and geographic conditions exist.