the above example receives an advocate score of 1.0 and a guardian score of 

 3.0, the final score on this continuum would be 2.0, in the direction of 

 guardian. Both indices, then, are used to define an organization's expected 

 behavior pattern. An organization with these scores can be said to be 1.7 

 points toward the broker role type, and 2.0 points toward the guardian role 

 type--or to be a "Broker-Guardian." The larger score (between the one behav- 

 ioral dimension and the other), moreover, is that organization's dominant role 

 type; in the above example, the dominant role type is that of broker. Figure 8 

 illustrates the location of this hypothetical organization on a "behavioral 

 map." This map gives an analyst, once all the relevant organizations have 

 been located on it, a pictorial representation of the distribution of the four 

 role types for a given conflict. 



As previously mentioned, roles are not the only important predictive 

 factors within LIAM. Power must also be examined. 



5.5 PHASE III: QUERY: POWER ANALYSIS 



As was the case with roles, a series of power statements is presented, 

 and the respondent is asked to indicate the degree to which the statement is 

 applicable to that organization. These responses are also scored and stored 

 in the computer's memory, in the same manner as the scores obtained for the 

 various roles. The questions relating to power were created to tap all three 

 elements of power that an organization may bring to bear in a conflict: 

 resources, information or expertise, and support (Rourke 1976; Benveniste 

 1977; Clarke and McCool 1985). 



The first type of question asks the respondent to identify the degree to 

 which an organization has at its disposal such typical organizational resources 

 as: statutory authority to act or decide, physical or managerial control over 

 resource systems, public support, personnel, fiscal resources, political 

 support, and frequency and intensity of involvement in such issues. 



The first six factors give one an idea of the potential power an organiza- 

 tion may have to influence the outcome, while the latter two indicate the 

 likelihood that it will go all out to do so. The more often an organization 

 has been involved in similar conflicts, the more experience it will have 

 behind it; and the more intensely it feels about the outcome, the more 

 aggressive will be its behavior in that regard (Rourke 1976; Clarke and McCool 

 1985). 



The second category of power-related questions concerns the type and 

 quality of expertise with which an organization is typically identified; 

 whether or not the organization is dependent on other groups for relevant 

 scientific and technical information; as well as the respect the professionals 

 within that group--and the group as a whole — have earned for themselves in a 

 scientific field or academic discipline. Other factors measured here include 

 the clarity of methods used and the degree to which the results obtained using 

 those methods are understood by other participants and decisionmakers. Given 

 the highly technical nature of instream flow issues, an organization in the 

 business of generating information relevant to a particular issue or type of 



53 



