Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Rationale and Objective

This module describes who the local stakeholders in the conflicts are, what they believe, what they want, and what they might be willing to give up. This is critical if the development of policy instruments, the participatory decision strategies, and the framework of action plans are to respond meaningful to the political and social realities in which mitigation options are created and implemented. The “local” level always begins with the individual and community levels where behaviors take place, but what constitutes the upper bound of the “local” will vary among different conflicts.

A meaningful response will be best facilitated if both the identities and desires of the local stakeholders are understood in the terms and categories they themselves are using. The group implementing a reconciliation strategy or reconciliation action plan (RAP) should not assume that they, or even the key informants they interviewed during the screening (module 1), know who all the stakeholders are; let alone how the stakeholders see themselves and their problems. Above all, they should not make assumptions about which groups do or do not have a legitimate stake.

This module should be thought of as the “listening module” (Fig. 1). It is the time when those who wish to facilitate the creation of a RAP listen to the stakeholders and learn how they see themselves and their problems. It informs those responsible for facilitating the RAP about the best ways to approach the different stakeholder groups, the kinds of information they will be interested in, and where there is a potential for compromise on contentious issues. The main product of the module is a systematic description of the facts, values, and interests that the different stakeholder groups bring to the process of RAP creation.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Scientists interviewing a fisherman at the bank of a pond about damages caused by Eurasian otters and great cormorants. Photo: Irene Ring

Full size image

2 Methods and Approaches

2.1 Theoretical Background

The scientific approach used in this module is the discourse analysis (Hajer 1995; Phillips and Hardy 2002). Discourse analysis is more effective than alternative methods for facilitating a participatory process because, rather than focusing on reconstructing beliefs and attitudes that are believed to exist in the actors’ heads, they focus on what actors are saying to one another. Discourse examines the shared and divergent understandings of social reality that form the background of both verbal and physical behavior. Most alternative socio-logical approaches focus on competition between either individuals or groups. While both are critically important for understanding the political context of the RAP, these theoretical perspectives achieve their insights by overemphasizing the competitive aspects of society and underemphasizing the cooperative aspects.

Discourse analysis is well suited for research in support of the development of a RAP or reconciliation strategies in general. Because of the sheer number of human interactions, most methods focused on interactions, e.g., network analysis, are very time consuming. Discourse analysis can be done very thoroughly, but it can also be done simply by holding a series of interviews and then intuitively arranging the results into themes. This gives only a limited picture of the social and political realities but for most RAP situations this will provide important information from a relatively small investment of time and resources.

Discourse analysis focuses on existing and potential communications among stakeholders. In particular, it is interested in the intersection of facts, values, and interests in the things that people say about the conflict. Understanding how people link these three things makes a number of contributions. On the side of facts, the discourse analysis helps to reveal where the presentation of validated scientific information may aid in reconciliation. It may also identify real disagreements that may benefit from, or even require, further research that will lead to potential solutions within the RAP. On the side of values, the discourse analysis helps to uncover those areas where compromise may be blocked by strong beliefs. On the side of interests, it helps to illuminate where compromises and/or win–win outcomes are possible.

The product of the discourse analysis is a description of the discursive themes. Themes are repeated patterns in which facts, values, and interests are linked in the same way by participants in the discourse (see Box 1. Discursive themes).

Box 1 Discursive Themes

An example of a discursive theme that emerged in the Swedish seal-fishery conflict case analyzed by the FRAP project (Bruckmeier et al. 2012) was that “compensation payment for damage to gear or catch is a component of the Swedish mitigation method”. Stakeholders would express this theme in as a valuing statement, such as “compensation payment for damage to gear and catch is an efficient form of mitigation because it helps the fishermen to continue their profession”. Such statements combine assertions of fact “fishers are economically threatened” with assertions of interests “help the fishermen” and values “efficiency”.

Themes are interpretations of the interplay among facts, values and interests (Fig. 2). Themes cannot be given precise boundaries and different ways of describing themes can be valid. The only meaningful test is the degree to which participants see the themes as a coherent picture of their discussions. Some groups will agree with particular themes, some groups will disagree with the themes, but all the groups should be familiar with the themes as recurring parts of the discourse. Themes that are drawn on by only one group reflect world views and may be very limited in the degree to which they reflect shared understandings, while other themes that are drawn on by many groups may reflect shared understandings that can be the basis of conflict management and compromise.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The parts of a discursive theme

Full size image

2.2 The Definition of a Stakeholder

A stakeholder is any group that can influence the content or effectiveness of reconciliation strategies or an action plan. This definition includes government agencies at various levels, environmental groups, resource users, and local businesses, such as those related to tourism, etc. Stakeholders can wield such influence either by participating in the creation of the RAP or by helping or hindering its implementation. In other words, if an environmental group in a distant city has the possibility of having influence on the content of the RAP then that group is a stakeholder. Furthermore, if user groups have a possibility of violating the rules of a RAP then they are stakeholders because they can have a negative impact on its effective implementation, even if they did not have any influence on its content.

2.3 Minimum Required Steps

2.3.1 Regional Level Interviews

The module begins with interviewing people working in the region where the conflict is found. A set of initial interviews has already been done in the screening process in module 1. If those interviews have already mapped the main stakeholder groups in the region, then this module can move directly to the “local” level. In a more complex conflict further interviews on a regional level may be advisable to ensure that no necessary stakeholder group is being overlooked. These interviews provide more information about the nature of the conflict. They document the positions, of the various agencies and NGOs. Most importantly they identify the primary local stakeholder groups.

The main types of stakeholders in ecological conflicts are usually:

  1. 1.

    Conservationists;

  2. 2.

    Consumptive user groups and related industries;

  3. 3.

    Non-consumptive user groups and related industries;

  4. 4.

    Government officials from various agencies.

However, these categories can hide many differences. Conservation groups have many different priorities. Very large differences in interests can exist between consumptive user groups who use one technique versus those who use another. Different government agencies have different mandates. It is important that the investigator identifies the actual critical stakeholder groups at this more detailed level. The number of such groups will depend on the actual situation and may vary considerably between different issues. The first job of the investigator after the regional interviews is to decide which different groups have to be involved in the discussions around the RAP. This decision must remain open to changes and redefinition during the entire module as more will be learned about differences during the interviews.

The second job of the investigators at this point is to define what is meant by “local”. The purpose of this module is to understand the local level political realities that will have an impact on the success of the RAP. “Local” should not be taken in this discussion to mean a predefined geographical or administrative area. What constitutes the upper bound of “local” in respect to a particular RAP should be defined by both the ecological, geographical, and social landscapes over which the conflict is taking place. The local is the space where the members of the stakeholder groups are operating and interacting with one another. An important question in determining what is local would be to whom the stakeholders complain about the conflict. Another will be the area over which members of a particular stakeholder group meet with one another, for example a chapter of a concerned conservation organization or business group. However, it is important to realize that the lower bound of the local is always the most local community level because it is the actual behavior of individuals that determines the effectiveness and relevance of any policy.

2.3.2 Local Level Interviews

Enough interviews should be carried out at the local level to get a complete picture of the conflict. The best practice is to keep interviewing until you start hearing mainly things you have heard before. A good initial goal would be three interviews for each of the main types of stakeholders (1 through 4 above). It is important here that they are people with quite different roles and at least one of these three should not be a “leader”. The meaning of “leadership” in each group can be very different and this will be a critical question throughout the RAP process. The assessment of leadership in the interviews should still be looked at as very tentative as the reconciliation process continues.

Interview goal 1: Understanding perceptions of interests

This step begins with gathering information on perceived costs and benefits and their distribution. The most important part is collating information on how the local stakeholders see these costs and benefits and their distribution. The products of this work are of use not only to understand stakeholder interests in relation to the discourse analysis, but can also provide input into a regional level analysis of the economic context of the conflict (module 5).

In particular the following issues need to be covered:

  1. 1.

    The perceived economic costs of the conflict (e.g., reduced fish catch due to predation);

  2. 2.

    The perceived economic benefits of both consumptive and non-consumptive economic activities (e.g., commercial fishing, wildlife-based tourism);

  3. 3.

    The perceived social costs and benefits of conservation (e.g., education, pride, more diverse environment) and the social role played by both the consumptive and non-consumptive economic activities in the life of the community (e.g., traditions, local networks, and community organization);

  4. 4.

    Appropriate potential mitigation strategies for the RAP (module 7).

For each of these four items the analyst needs to discover how perceptions differ among local stakeholders, how extensive these social and economic costs and benefits are from the perspective of the overall community, and how these costs and benefits are distributed among stakeholder groups.

Interview goal 2: Understanding perceptions of facts

The second goal is approached in concert with the natural science team and begins with the prioritization of the factual basis for a potential RAP. The emphasis here is on biological and ecological facts (modules 2 and 3), but economic facts (module 5) may also play a role. The interviews involve:

  1. 1.

    Examining how respondents see causal processes. A good way to do this is to ask what they see as the most important changes in the ecosystem over some appropriate time period and why they think it happened. Asking them to draw maps is a useful technique where landscape factors are important (module 2);

  2. 2.

    Examining which facts they believe to be the most relevant to the conflict itself. What they see as the most important “science factors” in the conflict. What they believe has caused these factors and what they think can be done about it;

  3. 3.

    Finally, after having examined their “undiluted” perceptions, the interview introduces the biological factors that the RAP team sees as important and asks for reactions and assessments.

Interview goal 3: Understanding stakeholders’ values

The final goal is to understand the values that stakeholders attach to the issues involved in the conflict. One part of this is uncovering important group identities for both the respondent and for how the respondent sees other stakeholders. It would not be effective to directly ask “what are your values,” that would lead to an abstract discussion of the meaning of a “value”. It would be better to use indirect approaches to this question such as the following:

  1. 1.

    Ask who the respondent sees as main players in the conflict and what they are after;

  2. 2.

    Ask how the respondent became involved personally in the conflict;

  3. 3.

    Ask the ways the respondent sees the conflict being resolved and what their preference would be;

  4. 4.

    Ask who the respondent thinks has the primary responsibility for creating the problem and why. Then ask who has primary responsibility for resolving the problem.

A number of other ways to explore the value issues will come up in the interviews. The important thing is to be alert to this issue and be willing to ask follow up questions.

3 Analysis

Analysis begins with writing up the notes from the interviews. From these notes a team should work together to identify the themes using the following steps:

  1. 1.

    On a set of cards write statements made by respondents that connect at least two of facts, interests, and values. Choose statements that are seen as relevant to the RAP and that meet one of two other criteria: (1) they are statements that are repeated by three or more respondents or (2) they are statements that the respondent felt strongly about. Continue until there are no more statements that fit these criteria.

  2. 2.

    As a team, group these cards intuitively into thematic categories. At first, do not worry about the number of categories or the number of cards in the categories. When you have finished the grouping then you should merge the cards until you have no groups with less than three cards.

  3. 3.

    Give each group a descriptive name that is an “assertion”, meaning a statement that can be agreed or disagreed with. The reason is to make sure that the themes are comparable with each other and can be analyzed the same way. It is important to keep in mind that a theme is much larger than just its name.

  4. 4.

    Write paragraphs describing each theme. The name is a summary, it should be the most important, representative, and central assertion within a theme, but it is not the entire theme. The entire theme is the whole set of facts, values, and interests linked together and this should be described in the paragraph.

3.1 Standard Steps

In some circumstances module 6 may be carried out just to provide background information for module 9 and 10 because some specific program or institution is going to carry out module 10 without involving stakeholders. This would most often be the case if there is already a functioning forum where the stakeholders are addressing these issues and the RAP would be most effectively picked up by this group rather than by trying to organize its own stakeholder group. In this case module 6 information may simply be handed over or presented to this group. If this is the case then the minimum methods described are enough and the information in module 6 can be taken directly to the resolution and implementation phase (modules 9 and 10).

4 Confirmation Meeting

Once the themes have been identified, they should be presented to the stakeholders you have interviewed for confirmation and reflection. As mentioned above, the only meaningful test of the validity of the themes is whether or not the stakeholders see them as a coherent representation of their discussion. Presenting them to the stakeholders makes it possible to ask this question. It also begins to put the results of the module to work, providing a way for the stakeholders to reflect on the nature of their disagreements and begin to discuss possible directions for the RAP.

One helpful way to make this presentation is as a graphic design that illuminates three important dimensions of the discourse analysis. This involves scoring all the themes you have identified along three dimensions. On each of these dimensions the scoring will have to be done intuitively, first by the team and then later by stakeholders. The dimensions can be represented by an X axis and Y axis and by colors as follows:

  1. 1.

    The Y axis: Frequency of Use. The Y axis is the frequency with which the theme is drawn upon.

  2. 2.

    The X axis: Importance for the RAP. If all stakeholders see the theme as a minor one, it is scored low, if everyone sees it as important it is scored high, if stakeholders are divided on this point it is scored in the middle.

  3. 3.

    The Color Code: Degree of Consensus. The third dimension, represented by colors, is the degree to which the theme is contested.

This graphic can be used to present the discourse analysis to the stakeholders for reaction. This can be done individually or with groups. Such sessions would elicit overall reactions to the discourse analysis, if they see any important issues and positions as being left out, and if they would score any of the themes differently.

4.1 Advanced Steps

In some situations, particularly those involving strongly felt conflicts the RAP may not be facilitated by pulling together stakeholders early in the process. Q-sorting (Brown 1986) would then be an alternative method for confirming the discourse analysis (Brown 1986). In this technique you ask the stakeholders in individual interviews to rate the statements in terms of agreement following a forced normal distribution. These ratings are then subjected to an analysis that reveals the positions of various groups and how strongly they feel.

A number of software packages are available that can be used to identify and name discursive themes from the transcripts of the interviews. If time and resources are available these packages should be considered. The software facilitates coding the information to identify the themes.

The most thorough approach of all would be a formal survey of attitudes toward the conflict aimed at all the people living in the area or a sub-population. This is an expensive option that must be carried out by survey professionals. This might include seeing a need for a broad educational campaign or the need to introduce policies that will only succeed with public support.

5 Summary and Conclusion

Table 1 summarizes the methods to be used in module 6. The minimum approach is to identify, listen to, and understand the people who are able to have an influence on the development and/or the implementation of the measures identified in reconciliation strategies or the RAP. In the standard approach this understanding is described in a clear form and then presented to the stakeholders for reflection and feedback. More precise methods of data gathering and analysis are also available at the advanced level to address particularly complex or sensitive situations. These can be implemented where need arises.

Table 1 Steps for implementing module 6
Full size table