Conflict and communicatively rational public discourse: Exploring an approach to social assessment to facilitate collaboration

The history of natural resources management in the United States can be viewed as being comprised of 6 Eras: Acquisition, Disposal, Reservation, Scientific Management, Conflict, and Collaboration and Ecosystem-based Management. The eras represent distinct periods in terms of how natural resources were viewed and managed. This investigation was an exploration of why natural resources management remains in the Era of Conflict in spite of the fact that resource management agencies have committed significant resources to the development and implementation of Collaborative and Ecosystem-based Management strategies.; The proposed problem was that in spite of their bureaucratic commitment to collaboration and ecosystem-based management, resource professionals are still adhering to the management principles of the Era of Scientific Management. Consequently, they lack a complete understanding of the fundamental nature of resource-related conflict. Further, they lack the tools necessary to manage and resolve conflict, in particular a social assessment that is consistent with the principles of a collaborative management paradigm.; The goals of the investigation were to characterize the fundamental nature of resource-related conflict in the communities of place associated with the Flathead and Helena National Forests, and to contribute to the development of a “collaborative” social assessment.; The investigation followed an interpretive mode of inquiry, utilizing in-depth, informant directed interviews of community opinion leaders who were identified as being both supportive of collaborative management and representative of the principle Ideal Types in their communities.; Three principle themes emerged. First, informants perceived that much of the “conflict” in their communities is better described as an “unnecessary and fabricated acrimony” than “real” conflict. Secondly, they perceived that there are three primary groups of people in their communities, each of which share a core set of values, views, and beliefs about the use and management of National Forests. Third, they identified three primary sources of resource-related conflict.; Collectively, the themes suggest that resource-related conflict in these communities is primarily “social” in nature, and that current methods of social assessment have failed, in part, because they do not acknowledge the validity of “local wisdom.” Finally, they suggest that rather than following a formal “model,” collaborative social assessments should be viewed as an opportunity to build relationships with the public as co-stewards.