Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Advancing negotiation in extension practice to better enable chosen and unchosen change: Negotiating New Extension in the Department of Natural Resources & Mines

Greg Leach

Department of Natural Resources & Mines, Queensland

Introduction

In the broadest sense, the challenge of negotiation in natural resource management (NRM) extension is enormous… to enable chosen and unchosen change in how all members of global society interact with our environment as we strive for a sustainable environment and future. For the Department of Natural Resources & Mines (NR&M) in Queensland, this challenge is being met head on as negotiations to implement the New Extension Framework across the department get underway and complexities of power and philosophy come into play.

This paper is a thought probe — exploring the concept of negotiation in participatory practice pre-empting the department’s moves to effectively enable staff to apply New Extension philosophy and practice to NR&M business. The line of inquiry identifies the need for negotiating with different philosophies and paradigms for facilitating change. It is hoped that this study is a move toward improving negotiation practice in NRM extension and in NR&M’s dealings with clients.

New Extension in NR&M

An extension strategy development process was initiated in the department of Natural Resources and Mines in 1999. The Extension Strategy Working Group (ESWG) then coordinated a highly effective participatory and inclusive process involving internal and external NRM stakeholders. The New Extension Frameworki was the result. In the development phase stakeholders were very willing to participate in a process of generating a revised (or new) picture of what constitutes NRM extension now, and what it should be moving toward in the future. The ESWG synthesised the wide range of perspectives and experiences that came from this first participatory phase into a framework for extension.

Why a framework? Because the collective principles that were emerging from this process rejected the belief in top-down non-inclusive strategies and action plans. A framework, in which strategies and actions specific to diverse business groups, functions and contexts could be developed, was agreed by participants to be most effective.

This draft framework was reviewed by earlier and new participants, who provided critical comment on format more than content. The ESWG reformatted the document and then presented the New Extension Framework to senior NR&M management. Endorsement to implement, adapt and further develop New Extension across the department ‘as the new way how we do NRM business’ was received in November 2000. It was endorsed as a long-term learning and continuous improvement exercise, to test, apply and better the philosophy and principles found therein. Since then negotiations have begun with management and regional staff to reform a team to coordinate and negotiate implementation of New Extension.

The development of the New Extension Framework — participatory entry

The ESWG took an inclusive and participatory approach to working with NRM stakeholders and developing a collective proposition of what extension in NR&M should be. The success of this participative approach may have been due to NR&M staff and other external stakeholders positive motivation to be involved. People were eager to participate because they could work with colleagues and counterparts to help draw together an ideal — a collective position for NRM extension in the department. The outcome was conceptual and the risk to the individual was small — New Extension was a collective good.

Motivations change for NR&M staff participation in New Extension

Following sign-off, the key motivation for stakeholders (mainly those in NR&M) participating in the New Extension initiative has changed. To focus on NR&M staff, the tide ebbed when implementation became a reality, and the impact of New Extension on the individual, on work teams and on larger business groups potentially poses a threat (or opportunity) of change.

Endorsement by the Executive Management Group sees that all of a sudden, staff are confronted with a document, which for some may look like a manifesto, complete with its complexity of embedded philosophies and principles. Sure, they may have contributed to a larger or smaller part of it, and may have supported it ‘in principle’ (or may have never seen it!) but now they ‘are supposed to’ critically apply this to how they deal with clients, to themselves, to their work teams and in their relationships with colleagues.

For quite a number of staff in the department, this may not pose such a large threat and may prove to be an opportunity as the framework serves to support and verify that they have approached NRM business in this way for some time. For a larger number of staff though, the philosophies and principles of New Extension may prove to be quite different to how they understand and approach NRM business.

Following are some thoughts on why the implementation process, and in fact much of the purpose on New Extension, needs to evolve to taking a greater focus on negotiation.

Working with power and influencers — an emerging need for negotiation

Throughout the development process the ESWG has been proactive about working with different levels of power in NR&M, mostly staff in Brisbane (CHQ). The initial intention for including these people in the process was for obtaining input into the strategy and ‘in principle’ support for it.

Through the development phase, the participation of stakeholders with power and influence was open and positive. In the early phases of implementation, communication with these people however, sees a change of posture. Questions arise such as; where is it going to sit, what are the reporting relationships, where does it belong in the department, and how is my group affected by this? Negotiations will be necessary to solve these dilemmas. Important in this negotiation will be a continuation of the highly effective relationship marketing approach taken when developing the framework (New Extension needs to be ‘in their faces’ to maintain its level of importance on management agendas).

Implementing New Extension philosophy and practice with NR&M operational staff — an emerging need for negotiation

Implementation of New Extension is likely run into some major impediments as operational NR&M staff are challenged to move into a phase of questioning, evaluating and redesigning their approach to working with internal and external clients, and doing NRM business. The focus on developing and discussing perspectives and ideas will necessarily move to negotiation with the self, with colleagues, with clients and stakeholders and negotiation with the New Extension implementation team.

Roles for New Extension with community clients — an emerging need for negotiation

In dealing with limited natural resources and increasing population pressures, NRM extension increasingly needs to focus on competition for resource use and access rights, as well as intervention in many situations to reduce the threat of degradation. So, in addition to supporting and advocating good practice, NRM Extension will be increasingly involved in enabling people to reach negotiated outcomes, give things up, or change their practice (often against their will).

Often in NRM encountering win-lose and lose-lose situations is unavoidable as the department strives for maintaining public good outcomes. This may often result in unchosen change, or change resulting through mediation or imposed by NR&M as a regulating body. In many of these cases the individual may feel like they are the losers and the state (NR&M) is the winner. It is also possible that in some situations a lose-lose result can occur (eg. runoff coordination issues where ineffective negotiations between neighbours can lead to land degradation).

A current example is the Water Access Management Planning approach on the Mary River in Queensland. A participatory approach in a ‘community reference panel’ is necessary to engage potential and directly affected actors in overseeing negotiations in water allocation rights. It is in these win-lose, or possibly lose-lose situations, that New Extension has a place in focussing on effective negotiation, hopefully turning these situations into win-win possibilities.

Note: Negotiation is targeted here as a distinct and proactive approach to conflict resolution. “Negotiation is a communication process in which people try to work out their conflicts in a peaceful way using conflict resolution techniques.”ii NR&M aims to work more proactively and effectively with clients through solving emerging issues in a positive manner thus minimising the need for dealing with open conflict situations. For the purposes of this paper and New Extension, negotiation is seen as not separate from, but one process of conflict resolution.iii Other conflict resolution processes additionally need to be investigated to advance New Extension.

ESWG conclusions — NR&M needs to target negotiation practice through New Extension

So, as outlined above there are major reasons for improved negotiation in participatory practice that were found in the extension strategy development process recently completed in NRM:

  • in implementing New Extension in NR&M
  • in New Extension practice with community clients.

In addition to these learned and intuitive reasonings, a search of literature also alludes to an increased need for NRM extension to focus on negotiation. In the next section, negotiation in NRM and participatory practice is reviewed in contemporary literature to investigate how it may aid implementation of New Extension. Learnings from this will also directly apply to the improvement of New Extension practice and negotiation with community clients.

Reviewing literature; working with conflict situations — negotiation in participatory practice and extension

Bob Chadwick, on conflict

A premise put forward by Bob Chadwickiv is that conflict can’t be resolved if the parties involved refuse confrontation. Conflict is a natural process, created by the infinite differences that are inherent in us as individuals, or as groups in cultures and society. Each person has had a different life experience with conflict. Most have learned, or been taught, to avoid conflict.

On closer investigation of conflictual experiences however, one sees that;

  • conflict is not good or bad
  • conflict is just a normal, healthy part of our lives

There are intrinsic benefits to conflict;

  • conflict is an opportunity for growth, change and leads to progress,
  • conflict leads to better decision - making.
  • conflict makes people able to shift their paradigm.
  • conflict is a fact of life and is usually resolvable.
  • conflict enables us to create and refine our beliefs, values, and behaviours.

We cannot escape the certainty of conflict, but confronting it requires an element of risk. Conflict arises because of our growth, our adapted beliefs and values and we inevitably confront again and again. We can be willing to risk confronting. We are uneasy, uncertain and anxious, but want to grow, to learn from each other, from each experience. This requires a willingness to be aware of when to risk. It requires being the one to “start” the conflict by confronting it.

Many responses to NRM conflicts have been to increase the effort devoted to resource planning or to revise central policies dealing with natural resource management. The emphasis tends to be on technocratic solutions that establish rules for allocation of resources between conflicting uses. Although these efforts at conflict avoidance are sometimes useful, they are often unsuccessful (and may even be counterproductive). Yet, fundamentally, the key players involved in resource conflicts usually want to resolve them, because the uncertainties surrounding unresolved conflicts increase everyone’s commercial and livelihood risks. v

Cees Leeuwisvi, on reconceptualising participation and negotiation

From Leeuwis (2000) it can be acknowledged that `participation' has become a widely advocated methodological principle in the quest for for sustainable rural development. An implicit assumption is that social learning will provide stakeholders and people intervening with a better, or a more widely-shared understanding of the situation. This assumption goes on to identify a lack of collective knowledge and skills as key obstacles to comprehensive change and development in situations where participatory methodologies are applicable.

Leeuwis admonishes that conceptually, a key problem lies in the way social conflict and struggle over resources is dealt with in participatory change processes. He brings his reasoning goes to philosophy, and traces back to Habermas's (1981) notion of communicative action, as distinguished from instrumental and strategic action (see Bawden, 1994; Fals Borda, 1998b; Maarleveld and Dangbegnon, 1998; Rling, 1996).

  • Instrumental action, according to Habermas, is behaviour that involves following technical prescriptions, based on nomological knowledge, in order to achieve certain previously defined goals (Habermas, 1981: 385).
  • Strategic action is still oriented towards the realization of specific goals, but the actor recognizes other actors as equally strategic opponents, rather than as `objects' that obey certain nomological rules.
  • Communicative action (based on communicative rationality), occurs when actors aim at reaching agreement or consensus on a shared definition of the situation as a basis for co-ordinating their activities. The notion of social learning is closely affiliated with that of communicative action and improved communication.

Leeuwis sees that achieving change through current participatory practice remains rather problematic and identifies issues such as:

  • The success of a social learning approach based on the idea of communicative action (much contemporary participatory practice) is debatable. In natural resource over-use examples, the problem with a social learning approach boils down to the following: (1) there is a problem because people do not act in the collective interest (in a communicatively rational manner), but act following self-interest (in a strategic mode); (2) as a solution, they must engage in a process of communicative action (facilitated by a third party), so that they can act in a communicatively rational manner in the future. The problem here is that the solution proposed negates the problem.
  • There is doubt about the assumption which underlies the social learning model, ‘that the motor for future societal progress is consensus and shared understanding.’ Evidence shows that this is only partly true since effective consensus among some (that leads to `progress') is frequently based on conflict and competition with others.
  • Participatory approaches are mainly geared towards changing cognition, assuming that this will lead to changes in social practice. Social practices and interests shape perceptions as much as the other way around (Aarts, 1998). By focusing on cognitive processes as an entry point for inducing change, advocates of participatory methodologies can disregard social practices and interests which may actually help to change practices.
  • Negotiation theory and tools are largely omitted from participatory practice.

Case-studiesvii clearly suggest that conflict is never far away from participatory development processes, regardless of their specific purpose (NRM, community development, technology design). The cases present little evidence that the stakeholders' lack of learning and communication is the central `cause' of disappointing outcomes, or the key to achieving better ones. Rather, the cases suggest that stakeholders are unable and/or unwilling to take other stakeholders’ viewpoints and interests seriously.

Leeuwis concludes from this that social learning and decision-making models fail to resolve conflicts and provide an insufficient basis for organizing viable participatory processes. His proposed solution is to organize participatory dealings as negotiation processes, in order to be better able to deal with conflict situations.

Suggestions for participatory negotiation approaches

Borrini-Feyerabend etal. 2000 posit that NRM processes should focus on negotiation among institutional actors that are at the heart of natural resources co-managementviii. These authors outline some key considerations in these negotiations:

  • there exist a multiplicity of good and poor NRM options
  • good and poor NRM options refer to the goals and objectives to be defined, which themselves are many and varied;
  • many institutional actors may have difficulties in getting their claims heard;
  • conflicts of interest between institutional actors are inevitable but can be managed, (not everyone has to share the same goals, a compromise among all concerned is quite sufficient);

Institutional NRM actors need to meet and discuss issues of common concern. At the outset of negotiations there need to be:

  • informed and organised institutional actors
  • a discussion forum, a set of suggested rules and procedures, and a preliminary schedule of meetings and events
  • professional support on hand to facilitate the negotiation meetings and mediate conflicts, if necessary
  • moves to facilitate agreement on rules and procedures of negotiation among participating actors
  • Substantive issues of relevance to the institutional actors need to be part of the agenda as well as the lofty goals commonly associated with holistic NRM.
  • Convenors could include some respected local authorities and personalities.
  • The presence of a facilitator would be useful, and should be announced in advance.

Note: Borrini-Feyerabend etal. 2000 also propose an important set of rules for the negotiation process:

  • all main institutional actors should be present in the meetings (via representatives)
  • participation is voluntary, but non-attendance is taken as disinterest in decision-making; however, if a quorum is not present the meeting will be adjourned
  • language should always be respectful with agreement not to interrupt the speaker
  • all agree to talk only on the basis of personal experience and/or concrete, verifiable facts
  • all agree not to put forth the opinions of non-attendants
  • consensus is to be reached on all decisions avoiding voting which often assures an unhappy minority…
  • "observers" are welcome to attend all negotiation meetings. Decisions to allow closed meetings should be taken by institutional actors themselves, not by representatives.

van Meegeren and Leeuwis (1999) build on elements of negotiation literature (Huguenin, 1994; Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987; van der Veen and Glasbergen, 1992) to identify a number of tasks for facilitating negotiations. The tasks proposed are based on the idea that a participatory process can be organized along the lines of a negotiation process:

Table 1. Tasks to include in participatory negotiation processes

Task 1: Preparation

  • exploratory analysis of conflicts, problems, relations, practices, etc. in historical perspective;
  • selecting participants;
  • securing participation by stakeholders;
  • establishing relations with the wider policy environment;

Task 2: Agreeing upon a process design and process protocol

  • creating an agreed-upon code of conduct and provisional agenda;
  • reaching agreement about procedures, methodologies, etc.;
  • process management and maintenance of process agreements;
  • securing new process agreements as the process unfolds.

Task 3: Joint exploration and situation analysis

  • group formation;
  • exchanging perspectives, interests, goals;
  • analysing problems and interrelations;
  • integration of visions into new problem definitions;
  • preliminary identification of alternative solutions and `win-win' strategies;
  • identification of gaps in knowledge and insight.

Task 4: Joint fact-finding

  • developing and implementing action-plans to fill knowledge gaps.

Task 5: Forging agreement

  • manoeuvre: clarifying positions, making claims, use of pressure to secure concessions, create and resolve impasses;
  • securing agreement on a coherent package of measures and action plans.

Task 6: Communication of representatives with constituencies

  • transferring the learning process;
  • `ratification' of agreement by constituencies.

Task 7: Monitoring implementation

  • implementing the agreements made;
  • monitoring progress;
  • creating contexts of re-negotiation.

When does a negotiation approach apply in participatory practice?

Niels Rling is convinced that the human project can only succeed if social learning about the environment (cognitive learning) is coupled to mechanisms for negotiating agreement about collective action, ie, to consensual approaches of distributive conflict resolution. ix x “Negotiation is a communication process in which people try to work out their conflicts in a peaceful way using conflict resolution techniques.”

Negotiation theory suggests that three fundamental conditions must be met before serious negotiations can take place (Aarts, 1998; Mastenbroek, 1997):

  1. must be a divergence of interests;
  2. must feel mutually interdependent in solving a problematic situation;
  3. key players must be able to communicate with each other.

Several types of negotiation processes can be distinguished in relation to these conditions;

  1. A situation where each of these criteria are not met eg. Consumers who buy high energy consumption appliances and do not feel they are using energy excessively, whilst environmental organisations believe there is a big problem with excessive energy use.
  2. A situation where there is evidence of serious conflict of interest, but the other two criteria are not met eg. Long term disagreements between developers and environmentalists
  3. A situation where the first two criteria are fulfilled, but conflict is not present eg. Landcare groups trying to work with professionals from different agencies to find land conservation practices
  4. A situation where all of these criteria are fulfilled, eg. Regional Vegetation Management Planning process

In each situation, different requirements are made on methodology for effective negotiations to occur. Specific adaptations and emphases will be needed in all different situations.

Can a negotiation approach be applied to the implementation of New Extension??

The negotiation of New Extension in NR&M fulfills these above criteria. Added complexity can be foreseen in (a) and (c) however. NR&M certainly possesses a diversity of interests as in (a), but it additionally has a wide diversity of paradigms and basic philosophies on how to go about NRM business. This may in fact impact on the ability of staff from different business groups to communicate with each other in many situations (c), particularly when the way they think about and understand NRM is quite different. The multiplicity of different NRM scenarios and potential NR&M staff combinations to address these see that all four types of negotiation processes will be called upon in the implementation of New Extension. This study will endeavour to research the use of negotiation processes across these possibilities.

This task list, and the above associated guidelines, will be extremely useful tools in the implementation of New Extension across NR&M. The logical progression of thought and action in this task list is not unlike that in the New Extension Framework.

What are the basic conflicts in these NRM negotiations? Philosophy, epistemology and paradigms…

Throughout the extension strategy development process several members of the working group collectively as well as individually identified the disparate business approaches of different NR&M sections. These differences are manifest through:

  • a wide variety of customer-client relationship styles
  • different management styles and approaches to internal group functioning
  • varied approaches to cross-communication with other business groups
  • contrasting language and communication styles; etc.

These differences have been arisen due to:

  • a mixed public sector cultural history (above);
  • diverse academic backgrounds of different NRM disciplines;
  • a wide spread of business functions (ranging from legal prosecution, through to resource administration through to field officers through to action education staff); and
  • a range of function from public (free service) to private good (fee for service).

The working group did not investigate these differences further. My proposition however, is that these underlying distinctions need to be further queried as they will undoubtedly be the critical points of leverage in New Extension dialogue and implementation.

A search of literature reveals many accessible means of identifying the underlying approaches of how people conceive of, understand, and communicate with others involved with NRM. Notions of; paradigms; the nature of knowing and knowledge; the nature of nature; and goals underlying a particular approach to science; interests; values; beliefs, etc. are portholes through which many different authors investigate and discuss the philosophy of science. NRM (extension) philosophy on the other hand, is much less covered, however it can draw much from these discussions.

“When we can recognize a paradigm in ourselves, how it affects us, and how paradigms bring us together or separate us from our fellow humans and other species of, we open the door to life changingpossibilities. We can benefit greatly when we are able to use the different paradigms that are on offer to us in divers people and relationships.”xi Paradigm conflict is a major element in human conflict that is generally undeveloped and unexplored.xii A critical challenge for negotiation in NRM participatory practice is to ‘develop a partnership among people who do not share the same culture (e.g. values, attitudes, capacities, ways of working, reference systems, languages), which means overcoming serious communication difficulties.’xiii

Patterson and Williamsxiv

Patterson and Williams (1998) highlight the fact that increasingly, natural resource management is seeing calls for new paradigms. They look to the philosophy of NRM science and the lack of attention to epistemological issues underlying it as cause for concern for several reasons:

  • Failure to achieve the stated goals for a discipline may result from a failure to critically examine epistemological assumptions and make necessary changes in methodology (Malm 1993).
  • The philosophical foundations that underly our approach to science determine our approach to research. (Weissinger 1990). We most often adopt a single traditional models for our work, eg. "the scientific method." We rarely question the philosophical foundations of what we are doing
  • Isolation from other human science disciplines addressing related phenomena may occur.

Patterson and Willams note that recent discussions in the philosophy of science focus on the concept of pluralism — the idea that different scientific paradigms can and should coexist within a field or discipline. The concept of pluralism is based on the recognition that all paradigms have inherent boundaries and limitations which define and limit the domains (types of problems) for which they are applicable. They note that it is therefore difficult to comprehend, evaluate, and assess the implications of contrasting epistemological positions in natural resource management. The reason is that a framework is lacking for structuring such epistemological negotiations.

Richard Bawdenxv

From sources in research, education and extension Bawden sees that our collective capacity to deal with change and the complexities of global challenges is actually retrogressing rather than progressing. There is a need for psychological and philosophical—paradigmatic—transformation to sustain the changes that are needed.

Bawden sees the way forward as the acceptance and adoption of a paradigm that reflects differences in both ontological and epistemological assumptions. He maintains that the holoncentric paradigm ‘of persistence’, a relativist and holistic position on learning and decision making in natural resource management is a necessary progression away from the fragmented, polarised and often adversarial attributes of paradigms that are now before us.

Brent Steelxvi

In the United States, Steel points out that most scholars investigating postindustrial society agree that a relatively small number of key socioeconomic factors have led to the development of conflicting natural resource management paradigms. Among the most important factors generally thought to be involved are the following:

Population change: highly educated and/or skilled younger cohorts leaving rural areas to take up residence in the urban core.

Economic change: substantial economic decline in the rural sector often leads to a felt imperative to increase natural resource extraction.

Technological change: technological innovations have led to increased efficiency and productivity in manufacturing industries, in agriculture, and in natural resource extraction/processing industries.

Value change: individual value structures among citizens have altered (particularly younger cohorts) such that "higher order" needs (e.g., quality of life) have begun to supplant more fundamental subsistence needs (e.g., material acquisition) as the motivation for much societal behavior.

As economic growth and the increasing application of technology to societal has transformed US politics. They call into question previous faith in progress, and people have begun questioning their conventional values, and discovering ever broader stakeholders in decisions about natural resource management. He indicates that there is a need to negotiate difficult trade-offs between deeply felt needs and values.

From these and many other authors it can be deduced that the negotiation of new paradigms are essential for advancing sustainable NRM. This challenges New Extension to advance negotiation in NR&M and in NRM. A strategic way to do this will be to model negotiation in participatory practice in the implementation of New Extension across the department. This will ‘kill two birds with one stone’ as NR&M staff, through action learning, will experience the effectiveness of a negotiation approach.

Conclusion

Jeff Coutts refers to five “Domains of Extension”xvii They are:

  1. Defining policy needs and priorities
  2. Facilitating linkages with formal research
  3. Facilitating information exchange and access
  4. Facilitating informal research and learning
  5. Researching (policy and) RDE methodologies and processes.

I suggest a sixth domain that relates particularly to extension within NR&M core business: Facilitating negotiations in both chosen and unchosen change dilemmas (ie where individual resource managers and users choose to make practice changes which fly in the face of legislation and policy, such as water reform or vegetation management).

Contemporary negotiation theory and practice needs to be investigated and applied to the implementation of New Extension in the department of Natural Resources and Mines and in New Extension practice, with internal as well as external clients. This will undoubtedly be a test-bed for improving the departmental approach to working through conflictual NRM with community.

References

i “New Extension” - A Strategic Framework for the Department of Natural Resources and Mines http://insite.dnr.qld.gov.au/staff/depbus/rsk/ext_strat/extension.htm

ii People for Peace Conflict Resolution Centre 2001 “Problem Solving Terms And Tools” http://members.aol.com/pforpeace/cr/con3.htm

iii ConflictNet 2000 “Consumers Guide to Conflict Resolution” http://www.igc.org/guide/intro.html

iv Chadwick, Bob 2001 “Beyond Conflict to Consensus: An Introductory Learning Manual” Patterns of Choice: A journal of people, land, and money http://www.orednet.org/~pdonovan/chadwick.htm

v Tyler, Stephen R. 2001 “Policy implications of natural resource conflict management”, International Development Research Centre http://www.idrc.ca/books/899/414tyler.htm

vi Leeuwis, C., Reconceptualizing Participation for Sustainable Rural Development: Towards a Negotiation Approach, Development and Change, Volume 31 : Issue 5, November 2000.

vii Dangbegnon, 1998; Eyben and Ladbury, 1995; Khamis, 1998; Leeuwis, 1995; Mosse, 1995; Wagemans and Boerma, 1998; Zuniga Valerin, 1998.

viii Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Farvar, M. T., Nguinguiri, J. C. & Ndangang, V. A.: Co-management of Natural Resources: Organising, Negotiating and Learning-by-Doing. GTZ and IUCN, Kasparek Verlag, Heidelberg (Germany), 2000.

ix Rling, Niels 1997 “The soft side of land: socio-economic sustainability of land use systemsITC Journal 1997-3/4 http://lanra.dac.uga.edu/hdwm/readings/Roling/Text.html

x The People For Peace Conflict Resolution Center, 2000 “Problem Solving Terms And Tools” The People For Peace Project Http://Members.Aol.Com/Pforpeace/Cr/Con3.Htm

xi Texas A&M Mindwalk, the movie/video 199? http://www.esb.utexas.edu/drnrm/Reading-Viewing/MindWalk.html

xii Marsh, Stephen R. 2000 Patterns, Pathologies and Paradigms-- Issues and Elements in Human Conflict, Beyond Needs Based Analysis http://adrr.com/adr4/ppp.htm

xiii Allen, Will 2000 Strengthening the links between research and management: From technology transfer to collaborative learning 3. The negotiation phaseNRM-changelinks working paper No. 1 http://nrm.massey.ac.nz/changelinks/cmnr3.html

xiv Patterson, M.E. & Williams, D.R., Paradigms and Problems: The Practice of Social Science in Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources 11:279-295, 1998.

xv Bawden, Richard 1999 “The Crucial Trinity: Aligning Policy, Psychology and Philosophy” Paper from Greenhouse Beyond Kyoto—Conference Day 1: Issues, Opportunities and Challenges http://www.brs.gov.au/social_sciences/kyoto/crucial.html

xvi Steel, Brent S. 2000 “Competing Natural Resource Paradigms in the West” Environmental Politics and Policy – Oregon State University http://www.orst.edu/dept/pol_sci/fac/steel/cl/ps475/read1.htm

xvii Coutts, Jeff, 2000 “Five Domains of Extension - a Queensland Perspective”, Creating a Climate for Change: Extension in Australasia - APEN Forum

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page