Adaptive management? Observations of knowledge coordination in the communication practice of Swedish game management

Abstract

Modern management of natural resources is guided by the normative theory of adaptive management (AM). Behind this theory lies a strong, albeit implicit, expectation that organisations aiming for AM have the capacity to communicate in a way that facilitates the required coordination of the knowledge perspectives involved. h e aim of this article is to discuss the extent to which the communication practice of Swedish game management organisations facilitates coordination of knowledge corresponding to AM. Based on operationalizations of communicative rationality and agonistic pluralism, we use the concepts ' discursive closure ' and ' discursive opening ' to investigate how the coordination of knowledge is carried out through communication in relatively recently established organisations, the Swedish Game Management Delegations (GMDs). We analyse four communication episodes from GMD meetings and notice that multiple perspectives were expressed (discourse openings) but were not evaluated in a communicative rational way before being closed. h e consequences of these closures were that knowledge perspectives with potential relevance, but with unclear validity for game management, were not elaborated upon, in terms of their truth, intelligibility, legitimacy or sincerity, which inhibited AM. h e concepts of discursive closure and discursive opening proved useful for investigating communicative capacity. An important question which needs to be addressed to improve communicative capacity for AM is whether it would be practically possible to keep to the agenda and rules of the GMD meetings and still admit discursive openings about diff erences in perspectives.

Governing Large Carnivores—Comparative Insights from Three Different Countries

“…There seems to be a misfit between the formal institutional arrangement and members' expectations in that the delegation meetings lack reasoned debate, the role of the chairperson is problematic, and there is a pressing need to make decisions rather than communicating properly. There is also a perception of restricted ability to influence the top-down structure (von Essen 2012; Hallgren and Westberg 2015).…”

“…A possible proposal to avoid this issue of misfit is to build power based on sociological legitimacy, where affected actors decide on forms of collaboration (which procedures to use and how to build trust and sharing of knowledge) rather than building power based on state authority and the right to rule (Borgström 2012;von Essen 2012;Hallgren and Westberg 2015;Lundmark and Matti 2015). To our knowledge, this issue has not been discussed in contemporary literature in Norway.…”

“…In the Finnish case, researchers promote collaboration to establish common goals and agree on procedures and actions in management (Borgström 2012;Pohja-Mykrä and Kurki 2013). In Sweden, communication among participants in various forms and settings is equally encouraged, for example, the management structure should encourage interpersonal relationships between stakeholders (von Essen 2012; Hallgren and Westberg 2015).…”

“…Similarly, several authors argue that engaging local and regional actors in the process must increase in terms of both inputs, decision-making and implementation. The common denominators include (1) increased participation from lower levels; (2) more local governance; (3) incorporation of influence from relevant actors in the process of management; and (4) building collaborative governance between state and private actors with the objective to share responsibilities, risks, and benefits (Sandström et al 2009;Heikkinen et al 2011;Borgström 2012;von Essen 2012;Hiedanpää 2013;Pohja-Mykrä and Kurki 2013;Hallgren and Westberg 2015;Lundmark and Matti 2015;Skogen 2015).…”

“…They promote the strengthening of stakeholder influence as a solution to problems of trust, argue that trust should be built among all actors, and contend that sharing of knowledge should be organized in ways that do not privilege specific types of knowledge over others (Borgström 2012;von Essen 2012;Hallgren and Westberg 2015;Lundmark and Matti 2015). In other words, they argue that the basis for power should stem from deliberative governance theory.…”