The unifying negotiation framework: A model of policy discourse

Abstract

The Unifying Negotiation Framework is an integrative model of policy negotiation. It flows out of the discourse tradition in public policy and political theory. It conceptualizes decision processes as discourses that occur at three levels (micro, meso, and macro), and are affected by six different factors (culture, institutions, agency, incentives, cognition, and actor orientation and experience). Initial applications of the Framework show that it has value in training, ex ante evaluation and design, and ex post evaluation and analysis. It has the additional benefit of synthesizing the disparate literatures on participatory processes. Because the Framework does not lead to specific predictions, it is more accurately referred to as an organizing meta-narrative than a theory.

The role of social capital in endangered species management: A valuable resource

“…In the United States, natural resource management is primarily the responsibility of government‐sponsored agencies, with a long history of community involvement dating to 1949 with Aldo Leopold, who admonished wildlife professionals to work with local communities whose support was crucial to successful management (Peterson et al , Newton ). Community involvement can take multiple forms, but successful strategies share common factors: strong leadership, strong social cohesion, clear boundaries and membership, congruent rules, and the exertion of influence in decisions (Ostrom , Senecah , Gutierrez et al , Daniels et al ). These factors have parallels to beneficial structural and cognitive social‐capital dimensions found in the whooping crane management community.…”

“…A broad spectrum of federal, state, and local interests are needed to manage conservation‐reliant species within a complex social, political, and cultural context. In the past 50 years, efforts to broaden public involvement in wildlife management have evolved from minimal participation via public comment or public meetings criticized as too little involvement, too late in the process (Depoe et al , Hamilton and Wills‐Toker ), to participation based on ideas of knowledge building (Daniels and Walker , van den Belt , Peterson et al , Thompson et al ) and increased decision space (Senecah , Norton , Daniels et al ). Public involvement facilitates policies that meet diverse needs, sustainable development, environmental protection, conflict management, and greater acceptance (Daniels and Walker , Schusler et al , Depoe et al , Charnley and Engelbert , Norton ).…”

Land Community Participation: A New “Public” Participation Model

“…(2) cross-disciplinary findings on the problem of power disparities in public participation processes; and (3) the environmental communication scholarship that treats Fiorino's (1996) participation gap; power is a topic that is gaining explicit attention in participation models (e.g., Daniels, Walker, & Emborg, 2012). The LCP model brings power into relief along a continuum with emancipatory and hegemonic forms of power on opposing ends (see Figure 1).…”

Extension Agents and Conflict Narratives: A Case of Laikipia County, Kenya

“…This initial investigation would then benefit an intervention based on collaborative learning, which itself is underpinned by principles of adult learning (Daniels and Walker 2001) and acknowledges and incorporates both facilitator and participant personality factors into the design (Daniels, Walker, and Emborg 2012). Interventions designed based on ideals of negotiation and learning are more likely to acknowledge and integrate various forms of knowledge into a conflict management strategy.…”