In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

431 A p p e n d i x B Theory and Methods One does not apply theory to history; rather one uses history to develop theory. —Arthur StinchcomBe (1978: 1) A major theoretical question has framed this study from the beginning: how do individually rational actors transcend the prisoners’ dilemma dynamic to solve a problem requiring joint collaborative construction of a collective good to address a tragedy of the commons? An opportunity to launch such a study emerged in my own regional neighborhood within the context of the Platte River Habitat Recovery Program negotiations. After undertaking studies of irrigation organizations internationally in the 1970s and 1980s (Freeman 1989), I had turned to a more careful examination of water management organizations in the western United States—mutual irrigation companies, irrigation districts, and conservancy districts, along with forms of river administration—in the 1980s and 1990s (Freeman 2000). When I became aware of the mid-1997 signing of the Cooperative Agreement, I launched an effort to comprehend how the actors would be mobilized to undertake a basin-wide habitat recovery program. The original thought was that the negotiations would consume no more than three or four years. This study was made feasible by my sixteen years of experience building relationships with water provider organizations in Colorado and elsewhere in the interior West. Those years gave me perspective, the language of local water culture, familiarity with project facilities, and conceptual tools with which to begin to build working relationships with water leaders involved in the three- A ppen dix B : t h eor y An d met h odS 432 state Platte River negotiations. If I had not been involved in the universe of local water organizations for a number of years prior to 1997, I would have had little chance to gain entrance to the organizational realm of the Platte negotiations, for at least two reasons: (1) I would not have possessed the requisite local knowledge to comprehend the explanations provided by people of goodwill, and (2) busy informants would have quickly lost patience with anyone not conversant with their social, legal, technical, social, and political world. It is obvious that in the world of research on urban gangs, for example, no researcher would parachute into a specific neighborhood and expect to accomplish anything meaningful quickly without a long prior process of establishing credibility with those representing the targeted study groups. This is at least as true in the case of attempting to enter the arena of highly defensive water communities, characterized internally by long histories of rivalry and never-to-be-forgotten scorecards composed of victories and defeats in past water battles. A researcher, even one with the highest level of technical research skills, simply cannot expect to enter a particular water management and policy domain without carefully building relationships of trust and mutual understanding over extended periods. To pursue the study of basin-wide negotiations on the Platte, I began by conducting individual interviews with key informants representing the major constituencies. This was essential to gain knowledge about issues, positions, and actors (individual and organizational). It was also important to win acceptance of my presence among water providers at public and private meetings. In-depth interviews not only provided me with necessary understandings, they also gave me, as a researcher, the opportunity to define myself, the project, and my objectives. Informants needed to know that I was a neutral agent, someone trying to get the facts about positions and rationales while not advancing any particular political agenda. Over time, it was possible to earn at least minimal trust by demonstrating that I wanted to comprehend the issues and positions as each community of interest saw them. Three things were critical to build the essential relationships within which key informants could comfortably share their insights amid challenging bargaining. First, I attended as many meetings as possible, especially those of the Governance Committee and the Water Committee. The simple acts of consistently showing up, taking careful notes, and engaging in follow-up discussions in hallways, during lunchtimes, before meetings started, after sessions concluded, and in more private settings earned negotiators’ confidence that I was serious and that I was authentically attempting to accurately represent the issues, positions, and unfolding dynamics among the various interests. Informants were further comforted by the fact that I returned as necessary to clarify facts and perspectives. As the years went by, a number of representatives from each community of interest had systematic opportunities to read and...

Share