Deciding How to Decide: Cultural Theory and Rule Making in Collaborative Watershed Organizations

Abstract

The growing field of collaborative governance has long sought to explain processes of collective decision making. Insights from institutional analysis highlight the influence of rules in shaping collective decisions. Yet, less is known about how such rules are created; in other words, how collaborative organizations decide how to decide. By drawing on concepts from Cultural Theory, we examine the connections between worldviews and decision rules across four collaborative watershed organizations in Ohio, United States. Results from this comparative case analysis indicate correlations between the group dimension of worldview and decision rules about choice, as well as between the grid dimension of worldview and two different types of decision rules, choice and aggregation. These results highlight the explanatory value of integrating aspects of Cultural Theory with the Institutional Analysis and Development framework. Results also suggest how governments might more effectively engage with collaborative organizations. KEY WORDS: partnerships, worldviews, IAD framework, watershed 长期以来‚协同治理领域不断寻求对集体决策过程进行解释。制度分析的见解突出了规则在塑 造集体决策上的影响。然而‚我们对于这样的规则是如何产生的‚或者说‚协同组织如何决定他们的 决策‚却知之甚少。通过借鉴文化理论中的概念‚我们研究了俄亥俄州中部四个协同流域组织的世界 观和其决策规则之间的联系。 该比较案例分析的结果表明‚世界观的群体维数与选择的决策规则之 间具有相关性‚世界观的网格维数与两种不同类型的决策规则、选择和聚集之间也具有相关性。这 些结果突出了将文化理论的各个方面和制度分析与发展框架相结合的解释价值。此外‚我们的结果 还显示了政府怎样才能更有效地与协同组织合作。Collective action for natural resource management has long been of interest to policy scholars. As complex, interconnected challenges arise, collaborative and community-based approaches are increasingly used. A fruitful way to understand such approaches is institutional analysis, which provides conceptual tools for analyzing interactions among the physical world, community attributes, and institutions that affect actions. Of particular attention in such studies is the set of rules that shape human behavior. While ample scholarship has examined how rules affect collective action, less is known about what factors affect the kinds of rules that are created. At the same time, a tradition of scholarship in Cultural Theory has explained the role Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework (Ostrom, 1990), and the group and grid dimensions developed in Cultural Theory (Douglas, 1970). Organizations with a high group level are linked to prohibitions on members speaking for the organization. Organizations with a high grid level are associated with high-barrier boundary rules for members seeking leadership positions within the organization and use of majority voting aggregation rules.The results of this study expand our knowledge about how groups decide which decision-making rules to adopt and use, and how cultural worldviews are connected to these rules. We see both theoretical and practical value in making this connection: (i) theory building for the IAD framework: this study helps fill a gap between the framework's treatment of attributes of community and rules in use by suggesting that world view-an attribute of community-affects rules in use; (ii) empirica...

Editorial Introduction: Governance, Citizenry, and Methodological Advancement in Policy Research

“…As the final article within our governance theme, Horndeski and Koontz (2020) examine collaborations across agencies, showcasing an innovative approach to Cultural Theory (CT) by mapping it onto the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IAD). Using a comparative case study of four collaborative watershed organizations in Ohio, the authors examine the connection between the group and grid dimensions of CT worldviews and decision rules.…”