1
Professor Ed Weber
Gilkey Hall 306
Summer 2015
Natural Resources Leadership Academy
PPOL 544/Collaborative Governance
This course explores and develops the norms, rules, institutional design, decision-making dynamic, and
politics of collaborative governance arrangements for complex public policy problem settings. Designed
to bring together traditional adversaries, government agencies, and citizens to resolve and improve
management of collective public problems, collaborative governance is now an important problemsolving tool that is employed in thousands of communities, watersheds, and landscapes across the U.S.
and the world. Many of these recent collaborative governance efforts have, in fact, challenged the
primacy of government bureaucracies in deciding and implementing public policy by bringing society
back into decision-making through a heavy reliance on voluntary, citizen-led/civic-based collaboratives.
As we work our way through all things collaborative governance, the course will explore the underlying
theories that support it; what we know from research about how it works; the methods used to evaluate
it and what we can learn from practice to inform your own research. You will be asked to evaluate the
conditions necessary for successful collaborative governance arrangements and outcomes from different
case studies, apply theory to understand motivations for collaboration, and develop an understanding of
the strengths and limitations of collaborative governance in real world settings.
Required Books:
• NONE – all required readings will be accessible in the Canvas online course space.
Required readings:
These have been placed on Canvas in a chronological, class-by-class basis.
Assessment/Grading: (500 points total) Remember that while we meet all day during the
week, work for the course itself is stretched out over several weeks in order to make the
Academy week more comfortable from a workload perspective. My best advice is to do some of
the reading beforehand and to get the first Essay/Report done too.


Attendance
Participation

Group Project/Presentation: CG Institutional Design Exercise
(50 points/due Tuesday, June 16)

Group Project/Presentation: CG Outcomes Exercise

Essay/Response Paper #1: What were the most important lessons you learned
from the field trip and how did it help you improve your understanding of CG
principles, processes and outcomes? (2-3 pp.)
(50 points/outline due June 19)
75 points
75 points
(50 points/due Friday, June 19)
2
o Given that this comes the day after the all day field trip, the only thing due on
Friday is a “rough” outline of the paper. You can then use the in-class
discussion to inform your paper further. The final paper is due on
Tuesday, June 23.

Essay/Response Paper #2: Given the explosion of collaborative governance
institutions over the past 20 years, is the era of traditional top-down, hierarchical
government over? Why or why not? (2-3 pages)
(50 pts/due June 29)

Essay/Response Paper #3: What are the primary strengths & weaknesses of the
Collaborative Governance approach? (2- 3 pp.; list & discuss 3-4 of each)
(50 pts/due July 8)

Policy Paper 1: Leading a CG to Success: Value and What Else Do You Need to
Know? (5 pp.)
Approach CG from the perspective of a politician and/or administrator. Let’s say you’re either
interested in supporting (politician) and/or have been charged with developing and
administering a CG arrangement (administrator/leader). What is most valuable in these readings
and what else do you need to know to be successful/effective? What tweaks/changes are needed
to “translate” the academic literature into something useful for actual, real world problem
solving?
(100 points/due July 17)

Extra Credit: What were the 3 most important things you learned in this class &
what are the 3 things you wished you would have learned in this class?
(20 points/due July 17)
Disability & Accommodation
"Accommodations are collaborative efforts between students, faculty and Disability Access Services
(DAS). Students with accommodations approved through DAS are responsible for contacting the faculty
member in charge of the course prior to or during the first week of the term to discuss accommodations.
Students who believe they are eligible for accommodations but who have not yet obtained approval
through DAS should contact DAS immediately at (541) 737-4098."
Cheating/Plagiarism Policy
The text below is the official OSU policy.
OAR 576-015-0020 (2) Academic or Scholarly Dishonesty:
a) Academic or Scholarly Dishonesty is defined as an act of deception in which a Student seeks to
claim credit for the work or effort of another person, or uses unauthorized materials or fabricated
information in any academic work or research, either through the Student's own efforts or the
efforts of another.
b) It includes:
(i) CHEATING - use or attempted use of unauthorized materials, information or study aids, or an act
of deceit by which a Student attempts to misrepresent mastery of academic effort or information.
This includes but is not limited to unauthorized copying or collaboration on a test or assignment,
using prohibited materials and texts, any misuse of an electronic device, or using any deceptive
means to gain academic credit.
3
(ii) FABRICATION - falsification or invention of any information including but not limited to
falsifying research, inventing or exaggerating data, or listing incorrect or fictitious references.
(iii) ASSISTING - helping another commit an act of academic dishonesty. This includes but is not
limited to paying or bribing someone to acquire a test or assignment, changing someone's grades or
academic records, taking a test/doing an assignment for someone else by any means, including
misuse of an electronic device. It is a violation of Oregon state law to create and offer to sell part or
all of an educational assignment to another person (ORS 165.114).
(iv) TAMPERING - altering or interfering with evaluation instruments or documents.
(v) PLAGIARISM - representing the words or ideas of another person or presenting someone else's
words, ideas, artistry or data as one's own, or using one's own previously submitted work.
Plagiarism includes but is not limited to copying another person's work (including unpublished
material) without appropriate referencing, presenting someone else's opinions and theories as
one's own, or working jointly on a project and then submitting it as one's own.
c) Academic Dishonesty cases are handled initially by the academic units, following the process outlined
in the University's Academic Dishonesty Report Form, and will also be referred to SCCS for action under
these rules.
Rules for Discussion/Participation in class.
It is expected that all students will treat others with respect, civility, and generosity at all times. Always
assume that a colleague making a statement has come to their conclusions honestly, no matter how much
you might disagree with a particular statement or conclusion. We will recognize that we all are entitled
to different opinions, but that it is also fair game for anyone to ask us to defend our opinions or
statements/conclusions. It is never acceptable in this class to denigrate others or to call others by
offensive names. Keep the conversation and debate above board at all times. Finally, recognize that this
class is a free speech zone. We need to be able to explore some very contentious, contested policy topics
in order to fully grasp all the different perspectives on public policies since that is the very basis for the
course. This means you likely will hear students who think differently than you utter what may appear to
you as insane or otherwise disagreeable things. Keep yourself in check (i.e., discipline yourself and your
responses) so that we can have civil, constructive dialogues, and remember, our primary purpose is
learning. In order to do that, we have to create a safe space for discussion so that all feel free to join
in/contribute.
______________________________________________
Opening Session: Monday, June 15 (8:00 to 8:30 AM) – Scott Reed, OSU Vice
President, Leader of Extension Services
Session #1: Monday, June 15 (8:30 AM to 9:45 AM) – Course Overview +
Background on Collaborative Governance


Weber. 2000. "A New Vanguard for the Environment? ..." Society and Natural Resources.
Weber. 2013. [Excerpt] from Auckland Report on CG. This covers some of the benefits and
compares CG to traditional top-down, experts-in-charge administration (aka “consultation” in
Commonwealth countries.) See attached.
4

O’Brien, Marg. 2010. [excerpt from her NZ Ministry of Env report]. This doc covers different
definitions of CG.
Lecture & Class Discussion
Session #2: Monday, June 15 (10:00 AM to 11:30 AM) – Wicked Problems & The
Value of Practice-Based Knowledge

Edward P. Weber, Jill Belsky, Denise Lach, and Antony Cheng. 2014. “The Value of PracticeBased Knowledge,” Society and Natural Resources 27 (10): 1074 – 1088.
UTube Video: Steve Nixon. 2012. “Solving Wicked Problems.” (6 minutes)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUH5XOPF8pc
Lecture & Class Discussion
Session #3: Monday, June 15 (12:30 PM to 5:00 PM) – Other Motivations for
Choosing CG


“Government as enabler?” Sirianni, Carmen. 2010. Investing in Democracy. Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institutions. Pp. 1 – 65. (see attached file).
Pisano, G., & Verganti, R. (2008). “Which kind of collaboration is right for you,” Harvard
Business Review, (December 2008), 78–87

Individualized exchanges -- (grazing)http://perc.org/articles/peaceable-solution-range-warover-grazing-rights

(water) http://perc.org/articles/scott-river-water-trust-improving-stream-flows-easy-way

The transaction cost savings argument. Chapter 3 only of … Weber, E. P. (1998). Pluralism
by the Rules: Conflict and Cooperation in Environmental Regulation. Georgetown University Press.
Session #4: Tuesday, June 16 (8:00 AM to 9:45 AM) – The Importance of
Existing/Starting Conditions


Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
Cambridge University Press. Read Chapters 1 & 2 (attached).
Pretty, Jules, et al. 2003. “Social Capital and the Collective Management of Resources,” Science
302: 1912 – 1915. http://www.julespretty.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/3.-Science-3021912-1915-Pretty.pdf
Lecture & Class Discussion
5
Session #5: Tuesday, June 16 (10:00 AM to 11:30 AM) – Collaborative Futuring
and Planning


Weber (forthcoming). “The Third Wave: Government Led Techno-Democratic Collaboration in
New Zealand.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning.
Dietz, T. (2013). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 Suppl 3, 14081–7.
Lecture & Class Discussion
Session #6: Tuesday, June 16 (12:30 PM to 2:45 PM) – Institutional Design and
Principles for Success (Part I) (all readings for next two sessions are located here.)





Ansell, Chris, & Gash, Alison. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
O’Brien, Marg. 2010. “Review of Collaborative Governance: Factors crucial to the internal
workings of the collaborative process,” Report for the Ministry of Environment (New Zealand)
(April).
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.
Cambridge University Press.38 Read pp. 88 - 102.
Weber, Edward P. 2013. “Building Capacity for Collaborative Water Governance in Auckland,”
Report for the Water Management Strategy and Policy Team, Auckland Council, a Regional
Government in New Zealand (June). Read only pp. 9 – 19.
Daniels, Steven, & Walker, Gregg. 2001. The Collaborative Learning Approach.9 Chapters 2 (pp. 15 –
24) and 4 (pp. 55 – 76)
Group Presentations/Discussion:
Teams will take the design principles from course readings and develop/synthesize them into their own
“dressed for success” CG arrangement. Your goal is to develop an integrated, coherent institutional
design and explain why yours is better and more likely to succeed than those on offer here. This will
require good, solid understanding of how strengths are operationalized and critiques of the weaknesses
of the models on offer in the readings, including my own. Teams will present their models in class.
Session #7: Tuesday, June 16 (3:00 PM to 5:00 PM) – Institutional Design and
Principles for Success (Part II)

No readings.
Group Presentations/Discussion
(same as above – the CG Institutional Design Exercise continues)
_____________________________________________
6
Session #8: Wednesday, June 17 (8:00 AM to 9:45 AM) – CG Outcomes (Part I)


Conley, A., & Moote, M. (2003). Evaluating collaborative natural resource management. Society
& Natural Resources, 371–386.
Process Outcome Measures. O’Brien, Marg. 2010. Last part of her CG review for the New
Zealand Ministry of Environment (full cite is included under the Institutional Design week of
this course).
Group #1 Presents/Discussion
(same as above – the CG Institutional Design Exercise continues)
Session #9: Wednesday, June 17 (10:00 AM to 11:30 AM) – CG Outcomes (Part
II)


Rogers and Weber (2010). “Thinking Harder about Outcomes for Collaborative Governance
Arrangements,” American Review of Public Administration, 40 (5) (September): 546 -56724
Weber, Edward P., Nicholas Lovrich, and Michael Gaffney. 2007. “Assessing Collaborative
Capacity in a Multi-Dimensional World,” Administration & Society 39 (2) (April): 194-220.
Group #2 Presents/Discussion
(same as above – the CG Outcomes Exercise continues)
Session #10: Wednesday, June 17 (12:30 PM to 2:45 PM) – Empirical Examples
in Water & Forestry


Weber, Edward P. 2014. Whychus Creek case (Deschutes River. Oregon): Shows how
application of collaborative “principles” creates success. Shows how network
analysis/surveys, along with other principles, are used to measure and report markers of
collaborative problem solving capacity.
The Collaborative All Lands Approach to Forestry (readings TBD)
Lecture & Class Discussion
Session #11: Wednesday, June 17 (3:00 PM to 5:00 PM) – Managing Collaborative
Governance in the Real World

Guest Lecture: Emily Jane Davis, OSU College of Forestry & OSU
o Readings TBD
Background pieces (will help w/ prep for Thursday’s Field Trip)
 Deschutes River Conservancy (DRC) (see attached)
 Deschutes River & Bend, OR (see attached)
 Sisters (OR) & Salmon Recovery (see attached)
7
_____________________________________________
DEPART FOR BEND, OR for Thursday Field Trip
(will stay in Bend Wednesday night)
_____________________________________________
Session #12: Thursday, June 18 (8:00 AM to 5:00 PM) – Central Oregon Field
Trip (Deschutes River, Whychus Creek, Sisters and Bend, OR)
_____________________________________________
Session #13: Friday, June 19 (8:00 AM to 9:45 AM) – Field Trip Debriefing
Group Discussion focused on these questions:
1) What did we learn from the Deschutes/Sisters field trip?
2) How did these lessons enhance our understanding of Collaborative Governance
arrangements?
Session #14: Friday, June 19 (10:00 AM to 11:30 AM) – Limitations &
Weaknesses of CG


Connelly, David R., Jing Zhang, and Sue Faerman. 2008. “The Paradoxical Nature of
Collaboration.” In Bingham and O'Leary. Ch. 2. pp. 17-35
Huxham, C., S. Vangen, C.Huxham, and C. Eden. 2000. The Challenge of Collaborative
Governance. Public Management Review 2(2) pp. 337 – 35834
In-Class Discussion on Readings and the Question “what are the top 10 criticisms or
limitations of collaborative governance?”
Session #15: Friday, June 19 (12:30 PM to 2:45 PM) – The Role of Govt. in CG


Re-read/skim both Weber (forthcoming). “The Third Wave” (from Session #5) and Carmen
Sirianni. 2010. Investing in Democracy (from Session #3).
Koontz, T. M., Steelman, T. A., Carmin, J., Korfmacher, K. S., Moseley, C., & Thomas, C. W.
(2004). Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government (p. 224). Routledge40
Chapters to be Assigned.
Session #16: Friday, June 19 (3:00 to 4:00 PM) – The Question of Scale & WrapUp

Karkkainen, B. (2002). Collaborative ecosystem governance: Scale, complexity, and dynamism.
Va. Envtl. LJ
8
In-Class Discussion: Can the issues of scale for collaborative governance be overcome? If not,
why not? If so, why? Thinking back on other course readings, are these challenges any different for
CG than other forms of governance? And if “large scale” doesn't work with collaborative
governance, then what else would work better and why/how?
_____________________________________________
Closing Session: Friday, June 19 (4:00 PM to 5:00 PM) – Panel Discussion w/ All
NRLA Classes (location TBA)