INTERPRETIVE CONTENT ANALYSIS 345There exist two arguments on each side of the issue, each addressing the possible scenarios
with respect to the presence of commodity resources in an area. In directing field personnel to
use consistent assumptions in the development of scenarios, OEPR demanded that the docu-
ments show consistent fact claims about the areas vis-à-vis the resources they contained. These
fact claims were generated through technical assessments to create future scenarios. In turn, the
fact claims are connected to recommendations through normative positions, not articulated in
these EISs, about commodity development, wilderness protection, and the purposes of wilder-
ness designation.
This analysis shows how normative positions are required to interpret these technical docu-
ments. It also illustrates that the technical information is related to policy recommendations in
politically important ways, even if not in relationships that are statistically significant. The EISs
do not explicitly articulate the value premises that underlie the conclusions of policy recommen-
dations. The documents do draw conclusions, however, and readers are left to connect the infor-
Table 19.3
Arguments Against and In Favor of Wilderness Designation
A. Against wilderness designation B. Against wilderness designation
Premise 1. Wilderness values are present in the Premise 1. Wilderness values are present in
area. the area.
Premise 2: Commodity resources are present in Premise 2. Commodity resources are not
the area. present in the area.
Premise 3: Wilderness designation would prevent Premise 3: Development impacts are unlikely.
development of commodity resources.
(Unstated premise: Promoting commodity (Unstated premise: The purpose of wilderness
development is good.) designation is to protect wilderness values
from development impacts.)
Conclusion: Therefore, we should not designate Conclusion: Therefore, we should not
the area as wilderness. designate the area as wilderness.
C. In favor of wilderness designation D. In favor of wilderness designation
Premise 1. Wilderness values are present in the Premise 1. Wilderness values are present in
area. the area.
Premise 2: Commodity resources are present in
the area.
Premise 3. Developing commodity resources
would have a negative impact on wilderness
values.
Premise 4: Wilderness designation would prevent
development of commodity resources.
(Unstated Premise: Protecting wilderness values (Unstated Premise: The purpose of wilderness
from impacts of development is good.) designation is to recognize wilderness values.)
Conclusion: Therefore, we should designate the Conclusion: Therefore, we should designate
the area as wilderness. the area as wilderness.