Content uploaded by Michael Kern
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Michael Kern on Apr 08, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
What Do You Expect?: Assessing Whether a Situation is “Ripe” for Collaborative Governance
Negotiation and Conflict Management Research
What Do You Expect?: Assessing Whether a
Situation is “Ripe” for Collaborative Governance
Michael A Kern1,2,3 and Amanda G. Murphy4,2
1 Michael Kern Consulting, LLC, Seattle, Washington, USA
2 Washington State University Extension, Pullman, Washington, USA
3 University of Washington Evans School of Public Policy and Governance, Seattle, Washington, USA
4 William D. Ruckelshaus Center, Seattle, Washington, USA
Keyword s
collaborative governance, public
policy, conflict resolution, practice,
observation, assessment
Correspondence
Michael. A. Kern, 900 24th Avenue,
Seattle, WA 98122. Email:
m.kern@wsu.edu; mkern@uw.edu;
michaelkernconsulting@gmail.com
xx.xxxx/ncmr.xxxxx
Abstract
“Collaborative governance” has emerged as a ubiquitous term in
the United States and elsewhere, in both the public and private
sectors. It has recently received more specific definition from
scholars as it applies to multiparty, consensus-seeking
processes, often facilitated or mediated by a third party, that are
intended to resolve particular public policy challenges. But both
theory and practice have shown it is not appropriate in all
situations. So, practitioners have identified conditions they look
for in assessing the likelihood of initiating and sustaining a
successful collaborative process. Borrowing from international
relations, they often refer to this assessment as “ripeness.”
Building from experience gained during practice, we propose an
additional condition for assessing ripeness—whether initiators
and supporters are open to the proposed process resulting in a
range of outcomes and solution sets. We provide a question
that can be asked of those who are interested in initiating the
process, to help practitioners assess this new condition: “Do you
expect that the result of the collaborative process you are interested
in initiating will be that others realize the solution you currently
favor is the correct one?” We explain why this simple question
about expectations can shorten lengthy lines of inquiry; make
explicit the differences between partnerships, coalitions, and
collaborations; and help parties better understand their
priorities and process needs. The intent of this article is to
encourage practitioners to experiment with this new question
and condition, and researchers to formally evaluate its utility.
Volume X, Number X, Pages X-XX
© 2022 International Association for Conflict Management
2
What Do You Expect?: Assessing Whether a Situation is “Ripe” for Collaborative Governance
Kern and Murphy
Considerable attention has been given in both academic literature and practice in the United States (US)
and elsewhere to the use of collaborative governance processes to prevent, manage, and resolve complex
public policy issues. Such processes seek the active engagement of all affected parties – public, private, non-
governmental, and others – to address public policy challenges that cannot be easily addressed by any one
entity on its own (Amsler, 2016; Ansell & Gash, 2008; Carlson, 2007; Emerson et al., 2012; Huxham, 2003;
Weber, 2006).
The term “collaboration” has become ubiquitous in discussions of public policy, management, and
governance in the US. While calling for a broad range of initiatives, efforts, projects, and programs to be
conducted as a collaboration is increasingly popular in both the public and private sectors, evidence from
both research and practice has shown this is not appropriate in all situations (Agranoff, 2004; Margerum,
2008; Moore & Koontz, 2003; Weber, 2006).
Therefore, practitioners trained in collaborative policy processes often conduct a situation assessment,
to gauge whether circumstances are indeed “ripe” for collaboration (Murphy & Page, 2019; Susskind et al.,
1999). This concept of “ripeness” is borrowed from international relations, where it is described as, “a second
and equally necessary key” to settling disputes, alongside the substance of proposed solutions: “Parties
resolve their conflicts only when they are ready to do so—when alternative, usually unilateral, means of
achieving a satisfactory result are blocked and the parties feel that they are in an uncomfortable and costly
predicament” (Zartman, 2008, p 1). This recognition is what Zartman refers to as “a mutually hurting
stalemate and shared willingness to explore a joint way out” and is one of the necessary conditions for
parties to consider acceptance of a third-party practitioner (Zartman, 1989, 2000, 2008, 2015).
Practitioners have identified conditions to be explored in order to assess the likelihood of a successful
collaborative public policy process. This article proposes an additional condition, as well as a question that
collaborative governance practitioners, policy makers, involved parties, and academics can ask to help assess
this new condition. This condition and question can help establish whether the involved parties have in mind
collaboration in any of its more general senses—such as a partnership, or a like-minded coalition—versus a
collaborative governance process as defined below. The intent of this article is to encourage practitioners to
experiment with this new question and condition, and researchers to formally evaluate its utility.
Collaborative Governance
Defining Collaborative Governance
Governance involves the processes of managing the delivery of public goods and services.
Historically, approaches to governance in western democracies have largely been command and control,
and regulatory (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015). However, as public policy challenges have
increased in complexity, they have often exceeded the level of expertise and resources available solely within
government, and therefore, to successfully implement public policy, have required capabilities that are
outside the scope of individual agencies (Gray & Purdy, 2018). Therefore, government actors have been
increasingly turning to collaboration with other sectors to help solve public policy problems and implement
solutions (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Gray & Purdy, 2018; Sorensen & Torfing, 2011), which has transformed the
way policy making and implementation is done (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015).
There are many terms used in the literature to describe different types of collaborative processes.
These include partnerships, coalitions, and networks (Agranoff, 2006; Bidwell & Ryan, 2006; Himmelman,
2001; Leach et al., 2002; Poocharoen & Ting, 2015), collaborative rationality (Susskind, 2010), collaborative
public policy (Carlson, 2007; Innes & Booher, 2018), co-management (Borrini & Jaireth, 2007; Singleton, 2000),
3
What Do You Expect?: Assessing Whether a Situation is “Ripe” for Collaborative Governance
Kern and Murphy
collaborative public management (Agranoff, 2004; O’Leary et al., 2006), cross-sector collaboration (Page et
al., 2015), public-private partnerships (Minow, 2003; Forrer et al., 2010), and environmental conflict
resolution (Dukes, 2004; Fisher & Sablan, 2018), to name a few. Bingham, Nabatchi, and O’Leary (2005) say,
“Practitioners have developed a rich diversity of processes that use negotiation, mediation, facilitation,
citizen and stakeholder engagement, deliberation, collaboration, and consensus-building,” and describe
these processes as “the new governance” (p. 552). Scholars in public administration, political science, and
other fields (particularly in the US, but also elsewhere) increasingly use “collaborative governance” as a term
to describe these processes (Amsler, 2016).
Collaborative governance efforts include several different kinds of structures, the most common
being one that is predominantly led by a government agency (Gray & Purdy, 2018). Other examples include
shared leadership structure (such as a steering committee); organizing an entirely new entity, (such as a
stewardship council); public-private partnerships; and mandated collaboration (Gray & Purdy, 2018). Over
the last decade, collaborative governance has received more specific definition as it applies to multiparty,
consensus-seeking processes, facilitated or mediated by a third party, that are intended to resolve a
particular public policy challenge. This is helping to distinguish this type of collaborative governance from
the other types of collaboration mentioned above.
In 2008, collaborative governance was defined by Ansell and Gash as, “A governing arrangement
where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making
process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public
policy or manage public programs or assets” (p. 544).
In 2012, Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh defined collaborative governance more broadly, as “The
processes and structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people
constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and
civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished” (p. 2). In 2015,
Emerson and Nabatchi built a conceptual framework around that definition, describing the “collaborative
governance regimes” under which parties engage in this type of governance. They borrowed the term
“regime” from international political theory, where it refers to “sustained cooperation between state and
nonstate actors” and features “explicit and implicit principles, norms, rules, and decision-making procedures.”
Their collaborative governance regime definition includes “different interests and/or jurisdictions (as
opposed to like-minded coalitions)” and “repeated interactions … over some period of time, usually greater
than one year.” (Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015, p. 18-19).
In 2018, the University Network for Collaborative Governance (UNCG) added the idea that
participants engage in collaborative governance to “enhance their communities and shape sustainable public
policy decisions,” as well as to “leverage the unique attributes and resources of (the public, private and civic
sectors) for the greatest impact” (p. 2).
Justifications, Merits and Critiques of Collaborative Governance
Both research and practice have explored the benefits and drawbacks of collaborative governance.
Proponents have argued that collaborative governance processes allow participation by all interested and
affected parties (Susskind et al., 1999); are a healthy response to policy gridlock and litigation (Kemmis, 1990);
result in more informed, creative, and adaptive solutions (Susskind et al., 1999; Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000);
are more democratic, transparent, and inclusive, leading to the likelihood of more effective and equitable
solutions (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015; Fung & Wright, 2001); can provide resources
needed to accomplish what cannot be accomplished by any one single party or smaller coalition (Dukes,
2001); and can reduce future conflict among stakeholders (Bernard & Young, 1997).
4
What Do You Expect?: Assessing Whether a Situation is “Ripe” for Collaborative Governance
Kern and Murphy
While much of the focus in research and practice has been on the benefits of collaborative
governance processes, there is also scholarship describing potential or observed drawbacks and adverse
effects (Hileman & Bodin, 2019; Kallis et al., 2009; McGuire, 2006; Purdy, 2012; Scott & Thomas, 2017). Critics
have argued that collaborative governance processes have been shown to delegitimize conflict (Kenney,
2000); can lead to government policymaking being co-opted by special interests (Koontz, 2004); can exclude
or disempower indigenous communities and minority groups (Scott & Thomas, 2017; Singleton, 2009); can
lead to environmental outcomes that are less protective of natural resources (Coglianese, 1999); and can
lead to “lowest common denominator” solutions (Kenney, 2000). Provan and Kenis (2008) observe three
tensions that exist in collaborative governance processes: efficiency versus inclusiveness, flexibility versus
stability, and internal versus external legitimacy.
We mention both the many types of collaborative processes, and these merits and critiques, in order
to establish the importance of assessing “ripeness.” It may be that these merits rise to the fore when a
process is initiated and sustained under a favorable set of conditions, and that the critiques become
warranted when this is not the case. Therefore, it is imperative to carefully explore and evaluate current
conditions before initiating a collaborative governance process. Scholars are inclined, understandably, to
seek definitive answers to questions such as, “Do collaborative governance processes lead to better policy
outcomes?” If they must resign themselves to living in a world where the answers to those questions are
most typically, “It depends,” we at least hope to shine light upon one of the areas upon which those outcomes
may depend.
Conditions Favorable to Initiate and Sustain a Collaborative Governance Process
In general, researchers and practitioners agree there are conditions that, if present at the onset of a
collaborative governance process, will influence the success of that process. Ansell and Gash (2008)
narrowed the starting conditions down to three variables: (1) imbalances between the resources or power of
different stakeholders, (2) incentives that stakeholders have to collaborate, and (3) past history of conflict or
cooperation among stakeholders (p. 550-551). Emerson and Nabatchi (2015) identified four conditions (which
they refer to as drivers) that are necessary for a collaborative governance regime to come to fruition: (1)
uncertainty, (2) interdependence, (3) consequential incentives, and (4) initiating leadership (p. 44).
Moving beyond initiation, the literature on collaboration identifies several conditions that are
essential in determining whether the collaborative process will be successfully sustained. For example,
Mattessich et al. (2001) identify 20 factors that influence the success of a collaborative process, based on a
review of 281 studies. These factors are grouped into six categories: (1) Environment, (2) Membership
characteristics, (3) Process and structure, (4) Communication, (5) Purpose, and (6) Resources (Mattessich et al.,
2001). Ansell and Gash (2008) reviewed 137 studies of collaborative governance, identifying a number of
features necessary for successful collaborations including trust-building, participant commitment to the
process, developing shared understanding, face-to-face dialogue, and intermediate outcomes. Emerson and
Nabatchi (2015) discuss how the surrounding political, legal, socioeconomic, and environmental “system
context” influences the formation and performance of collaborative governance regimes, and identify six key
conditions: (1) public service or resource conditions, (2) policy and legal frameworks, (3) socioeconomic and
cultural characteristics, (4) network characteristics, (5) political dynamics and power relations, and (6) history of
conflict. Other commonly-cited conditions include a broad representation of stakeholders, shared and open
decision-making processes, well-defined and agreed-upon goals and objectives, and open communication
and sharing of information throughout the process (Bryson et al., 2006; Cestero, 1999; Emerson et al., 2012;
Gray, 1985; Mattessich et al., 2001).
The “ripe moment” is a crucial concept in the study of peace and conflict. Ripeness theory seeks to
explain why and when parties in a conflict will decide that an attempt at resolution (e.g., negotiation) is a
5
What Do You Expect?: Assessing Whether a Situation is “Ripe” for Collaborative Governance
Kern and Murphy
better option than continued conflict. According to Zartman (2001), “parties resolve their conflict only when
they are ready to do so – when alternative, usually unilateral means of achieving a satisfactory result are
blocked and the parties feel that they are in an uncomfortable and costly predicament” (p. 8). Specifically,
the parties in conflict must reach a point where they recognize a mutually hurting stalemate (MHS) and a
way out (WO) through negotiation (Zartman, 2000).
However, ripeness theory has been critiqued by several scholars and does have its limitations
(Coleman et al., 2008; Druckman, 2001; Lederach, 1997; Mooradian & Druckman, 1999; Pruitt, 2007; Walsh,
2016). According to Walsh (2016), such critiques have largely focused on three areas: (1) low predictability or
alleged tautology, (2) inability to explain why parties stay at the negotiation table, and (3) the micro-
foundations of the theory or limited consideration of non-rational factors (p. 78-79) For instance, the basic
reasoning of MHS lies in cost-benefit analysis (Zartman, 2000), which may be accurate when describing
economic forms of decision making in conflict, but does not account for other types of decisions (Coleman
et al., 2008). According to Coleman et al. (2008), “(D)ecisions related to maintaining group cohesiveness and
solidarity typically use a very different set of criteria from decisions to maximize outcomes or achieve goals
efficiently” (p. 6). In addition, the elements of ripeness theory (MHS, perceived way out, impending
catastrophe, enticing opportunity, and valid spokesperson) (Zartman, 1996) are joint states that concurrently
affect both parties. But this does not consider uneven states of ripeness amongst the parties (Pruitt, 1997).
According to Pruitt (1997), “(T)he theory is more flexible if these components are viewed as perceptions by
each party separately rather than as joint perceptions, though overall ripeness must be a joint phenomenon”
(p. 248).
Readiness theory addresses some of the limitations of ripeness theory. According to Pruitt (1997), “It
differs from ripeness theory in that it uses the language of variables rather than necessary states and focuses
on the thinking within a single party rather than on the joint thinking of both parties to a conflict” (p. 1524-
1525). This revision to ripeness theory makes it possible to examine factors that lead to changes in degrees
of readiness, and to make predictions about conflict outcomes such as third-party intervention (Coleman et
al., 2008). As Pruitt (2005) explains, “Readiness theory allows some parties to be motivated mainly by a belief
that they cannot win, others mainly by the cost of the conflict, and still others mainly by the risk of a future
catastrophe or pressure from a powerful third party. Such a model fits reality better than ripeness theory,
which requires a uniform hurting stalemate for all cases” (p. 9).
Because readiness theory allows for different parties to be driven by these different motivations,
“readiness” may actually be a better fit as a term to describe conditions favorable for initiating a collaborative
public policy process, despite the fact that “ripeness” is the term more likely to be borrowed and employed
as a metaphor by collaborative governance practitioners.
Assessing the Likelihood for Success of a Collaborative Governance Process
As the paradigm of collaborative governance has emerged, so has a field of process experts. These
practitioners (working from private, public, and non-governmental settings) serve as professional neutrals,
specializing in multi-party public policy dispute resolution, and designing collaborative processes (Susskind
et al., 1999). They often work under contract with public agencies or other sponsoring entities, serving as
third-party facilitators for collaborative governance processes (Weber, 2006).
Practitioners will often begin by assessing the situation, to determine if the requisite conditions exist
for a collaborative governance process to succeed (Susskind et al., 1999). This is referred to as a “situation
assessment” or “conflict assessment,” and derives from a standard practice in two-party mediations in which
the mediator meets with each party separately, before meeting with them together (Herrman, 2009; Keir &
Ali, 2014; Susskind, et al., 1999). The purpose is to better understand key issues, identify involved parties,
and assess the prospects for collaboration (Murphy & Page, 2019; Susskind et al., 1999). Before initiating a
6
What Do You Expect?: Assessing Whether a Situation is “Ripe” for Collaborative Governance
Kern and Murphy
situation assessment, practitioners will often hold preliminary, informal conversations with key entities
involved in the situation (sometimes referred to as a “pre-assessment”), to gauge whether a formal situation
assessment would be productive (Murphy & Page, 2019). Together, pre-assessment and situation
assessment form a typical first stage of the collaborative governance process. Later stages include planning,
organizing, educating, negotiating, resolving, and implementing (Carlson, 2007).
Both pre-assessments and situation assessments focus on whether conditions are favorable (or “ripe”)
for a collaborative governance process. The Center for Collaborative Policy (CCP) at California State University,
Sacramento identified eleven conditions, phrased as questions, for practitioners to use to assess the
favorability for a successful collaborative process (Weber, 2006):
1) Do issues focus on fundamental legal rights or societal values?
2) Are there potential areas for agreement, preferably with multiple issues for tradeoffs?
3) Are the primary parties identifiable and willing to participate?
4) Does each party have a legitimate spokesperson?
5) Are any potential “deal-breakers” at the table?
6) Does any party have assurance of a much better deal elsewhere?
7) Do the parties anticipate future dealings with each other?
8) Is there a relative balance of power among the parties?
9) Are there external pressures to reach agreement?
10) Is there a realistic timetable for completion?
11) Are there adequate resources and funding to support the negotiation?
Note that while a “yes” is an indication of favorability for most of these questions, that is not the case for
questions one, five and six. At times, it is apparent to the practitioner during the pre-assessment that
conditions are not favorable to initiate a collaborative governance process. At other times, this only becomes
clear when a full situation assessment is completed. If that conclusion is reached at either point, the
practitioner works with the parties to discuss what other approaches can be taken to make progress on the
issues involved and/or to shift the conditions to a place where they are more favorable. But, if the conclusion
is that conditions are indeed favorable, the assessment will likely recommend proceeding with a
collaborative process, and will provide guidance on how to design and conduct that process in order to
maximize the chances for successful outcomes (Murphy & Page, 2019; Susskind et al., 1999).
An example can help illustrate how this assessment process functions in practice. In 2012, university-
based practitioners in the states of Washington and Oregon conducted a collaborative engagement
assessment at the request of the Columbia River Gorge Commission (Commission). The Commission is an
interstate compact agency authorized by the National Scenic Area Act with the dual purposes of protecting
and enhancing the scenic, natural, cultural, and recreational resources of the Columbia River Gorge, while
encouraging growth and allowing development consistent with resource protection (Oregon Consensus
National Policy Center [OCNPC] & The William D. Ruckelshaus Center [WDRC], 2012). The purpose of the
collaborative engagement assessment was to assess the potential for collaborative approaches to the
management of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (NSA). The practitioner team conducted
interviews with individuals representing a wide range of interests, to better understand what issues needed
to be addressed in managing the NSA, the positions and interests of those affected by management
decisions, and the likelihood that collaborative approaches to managing these issues would be successful
(OCNPC & WDRC, 2012).
As described throughout the assessment report, the practitioner team considered many of the eleven
conditions (identified below via italics) in determining whether the situation and the relevant interests were
amenable to collaborative processes. For example, in relation to whether there were potential areas for
7
What Do You Expect?: Assessing Whether a Situation is “Ripe” for Collaborative Governance
Kern and Murphy
agreement, the parties’ willingness to participate, and whether they believed they had a better alternative, the
assessment identified ten key scenic area issues (OCNPC & WDRC, 2012, p. 4-13) for which interviewees
offered support for developing a collaborative process. The assessment found that many believed a
collaborative process was either the best or only feasible option to successfully address those key issues
(OCNPC & WDRC, 2012, p. 13). As to whether the parties anticipated future dealings with each other and the
existence of external pressures to address the issues, the assessment found that interviewees believed a
collaborative process would help parties achieve a better understanding of each other’s interests and
improve working relationships, which they, in turn, thought may help those divergent parties find solutions
that would meet their collective needs (OCNPC & WDRC, 2012, p. 14). The assessment paraphrases one
interviewee who captured a sentiment expressed by others, “As one interviewee suggested, there are 30
years of divergent and entrenched positions that might be beneficially impacted by a process to build the
trust needed to solve complex problems by providing the parties with an opportunity to meet each other as
equals, learn about each other’s points of view, and get to know each other as people, not as opponents”
(OCNPC & WDRC, 2012, p. 14).
The assessment also identified barriers to collaboration and what interviewees saw as challenges to
successful collaboration (OCNPC & WDRC, 2012, p. 16-18). For example, it was unclear whether there were
adequate resources and funding to support a collaborative process (OCNPC & WDRC, 2012, p. 16). In assessing
the condition of good faith participation and whether there were preferred alternative forums, the assessment
identified concern among interviewees that some parties would not be willing to seek compromise or had
any incentive to participate in a collaborative process because the status quo, particularly current regulations,
worked in their favor (OCNPC & WDRC, 2012, p .17). Other interviewees were concerned that some parties
may agree to participate in a collaborative process, but if the outcome wasn’t everything they wanted, they
would then later file lawsuits (OCNPC & WDRC, 2012, p. 17). This situation affected the relative balance of
power among the parties.
Ultimately, the assessment concluded there was potential for successful collaboration, but upfront work
was needed to address some of the identified barriers. This upfront work included the Commission first
engaging in internal development work, and then convening parties to development a common base of
information before launching into a more formal collaboration process. This phased approach is referred to
as building collaborative capacity, involving developing of a habit of collaboration and trust building among
the various interests, and working together in situations of reduced risk, prior to attempting to reach
consensus on more challenging topics (OCNPC & WDRC, 2012, p. 23). These recommendations moved the
process toward a more realistic timetable for completion of collaborative agreement-seeking.
In considering the first condition (whether issues focus on fundamental legal rights or societal values), it is
important to note that there is no such thing as a public policy challenge that in no way, shape or form affects
legal rights or societal values. That is, in fact, what makes them public policy issues. So, in applying this
condition, practitioners need to be on the lookout for situations where the impact is so large that it becomes
fundamental. In those situations, the clarity of a judicial, legislative, or executive decision may be necessary,
rather than a collaborative governance approach. For example, in this case study, the Gorge Commission’s
decisions often affect individual property rights, which are a legal right and a societal value. In many cases,
the impacts of these decisions are at a scale where a collaborative approach is appropriate. But the
Commission may be called upon to make certain decisions affecting property rights that are at a size or scale
beyond which a collaborative governance approach would be effective; what we might call fundamental
decisions, and where the Commission may be advised to seek judicial review, rather than a multiparty
negotiation.
8
What Do You Expect?: Assessing Whether a Situation is “Ripe” for Collaborative Governance
Kern and Murphy
A Question of Expectations
The William D. Ruckelshaus Center (Ruckelshaus Center or Center), a joint effort of Washington State
University and the University of Washington, is an example of a practitioner organization working from the
public and academic settings (Hall & Kern, 2017). Its mission is to help parties involved in complex public
policy challenges in the State of Washington and the Pacific Northwest tap university expertise to develop
collaborative, durable, and effective solutions. Practitioners at the Center use the CCP conditions, as well as
the Center’s own set of project criteria (William D. Ruckelshaus Center, 2020), to help identify the
appropriateness of the Center’s involvement in a given policy situation, and the “ripeness” of the issues
involved for a collaborative governance approach (using the Ansell and Gash 2008, Emerson and Nabatchi
2015, and UNCG 2018 definitions of the term collaborative governance).
Practitioners at the Center have learned from over 15 years of practice that it is not uncommon to
determine through pre-assessments and situation assessments that, while the initiating parties have interest
in participating in a collaborative process, they have in mind the more general definitions of collaboration
mentioned earlier. They are seeking to develop a new, or strengthen an existing, advocacy-based partnership,
working together to share responsibilities and tasks. Or they wish to develop a like-minded coalition, pursuing
a common aim in the belief unity will make each member stronger, more effective, and more likely to achieve
a mutually agreed-upon solution. In either case, the goal is to gain allies for, and reduce opposition to, the
adoption and implementation of a specific policy prescription, often one they have already thought through
and adopted as their preferred outcome. Another way to think about this is in terms of the dual concerns
model, which “makes the following predictions about (strategies available to negotiators): concern about
both own and other party’s outcomes encourages a problem-solving strategy; concern about only one’s own
outcomes encourages contending.” (Pruitt, 1983, p. 172).
For these reasons, practitioners at the Center have come to believe that it is important to determine if
this is the case, and therefore propose to extend current negotiation/mediation theory by adding a twelfth
condition to the current CCP list of eleven conditions practitioners explore in assessing favorability for a
successful collaborative process. That new condition is this: whether initiators and supporters are open to the
process resulting in a range of outcomes and solution sets. To help practitioners assess this new condition, the
Center proposes a question that can be asked of those who are interested in initiating the process:
“Do you expect that the result of the collaborative process you are interested in initiating will be
that others realize the solution you currently favor is the correct one?”
This simple question about expectations can shorten potentially lengthy lines of inquiry, make
explicit the differences between partnerships, coalitions, and collaborations, and help the parties better
understand their priorities and process needs. Practitioners can get valuable information both from the
parties’ answers, and from their own inferences and interpretations of those answers. They can learn where
the parties stand in the dual concern model (Pruitt, 1983), whether they yet have concern for the other
parties’ interests and needs.
For example, if a party answers yes to the question (or if the practitioner comes to believe that there
is really a “yes” behind one or more parties’ “no,” “maybe,” or more complex/nuanced answers), it can indicate
that those parties have a set position on policy outcomes they wish to pursue, via gaining allies to “sign on”
to their view. Put another way, they are seeking a partnership or like-minded coalition, not a collaborative
governance process as defined above. In the latter, one anticipates, expects, or hopes that the result will be
a solution that meets one’s and other parties’ needs and interests. But one does not enter this type of
collaborative governance process believing one already knows what that solution will be. Rather, it emerges
from the process. This is similar to how a “ripe moment” is described by Zartman (2008): “Parties do not have
9
What Do You Expect?: Assessing Whether a Situation is “Ripe” for Collaborative Governance
Kern and Murphy
to be able to identify a specific solution, only a sense that a negotiated solution is possible for the searching
and that the other party shares that sense and the willingness to search too” (p. 2).
This is an extremely important point to explain to the parties because it represents the fundamental
value of this type of collaborative process. Out of the myriad possible solutions to a complex, multifaceted
public policy challenge, the participants do not remain fixed on the solutions they have developed over
weeks, months, years, or even decades of thinking about, working on and/or fighting over the issue(s) prior
to the collaborative governance process. Those solutions were likely based mostly or solely on what they, or
the interest(s) they represent, want, and need. Instead, they work not just with other like-minded parties,
but with parties whose wants and needs are often very different from their own, to identify a solution set
that harmonizes all interests and addresses all needs. It is this search for a mutually-beneficial solution set
that distinguishes the type of collaboration intended in these collaborative governance processes from
partnerships, coalitions, networks, etc.
This type of collaboration has value because there is often a collective creativity in a collaborative
governance process that exceeds what any interest, partnership or coalition is likely to achieve on its own.
There is also the advantage that all parties to a collaborative policy solution have the incentive to work
together toward its implementation, versus the “active opposition” that is created when a solution is
implemented via traditional governance processes, especially one adopted via a narrow approval margin.
(Dukes, 1993; Emerson & Nabatchi, 2015; Imperial, 2005; Innes & Booher, 1999).
Practitioners at the Ruckelshaus Center have over the past few years asked this question about
expectations during informal pre-assessment and assessment conversations, on policy challenges ranging
from natural resource management to education. For example, they used it to frame conversations about
an expert commission that state and county officials were forming to create consensus recommendations
in the wake of a natural disaster. They employed it to help a state legislator realize he was already invested
in a specific outcome for a collaborative process he envisioned relating to education governance, and would
be better served by initially investing in a situation assessment. And they used it to help advocates of flood
prevention and fish restoration in one of the state’s largest watersheds realize that the “collaborative”
processes they had been involved in for years were not making progress because they were not focusing on
comprehensive solution sets that take into account these and other important goals.
While the Center’s practitioners have not gathered empirical data on the results of asking this
additional question, their anecdotal experience has been that answering this question has the benefit of
leading potential process sponsors, participants, and decision-makers to engage in valuable introspection
and come to one of several conclusions, each of which is useful for productively proceeding. In some cases,
respondents can authentically say no, they are not entering the potential policy process with a preconceived
sense of the “correct” solution. This bodes well for a collaborative governance approach, for the reasons
discussed above.
More often, they realize that they are in fact entering the process with a specific solution set in mind.
If they are truly wedded to that solution, the parties (and the practitioner) can know that they are unlikely to
benefit from a collaborative governance process. But it is not uncommon that this realization, and
subsequent conversations with the practitioner, help parties to understand the potential value of a
collaborative process, and the need to reset their expectations, and open themselves to other possible
solution sets, before engaging in a such a collaboration. Or that they may want to consider leading or
participating in a like-minded coalition on some (perhaps short-term) aspect of the issue, while also
supporting a (perhaps longer-term) collaboration on a larger element, or different aspect, of the issue.
The question also has the value of helping to dispel the notion that the reason others do not yet agree
with the solution one favors is that they have not yet been exposed to it (and the logic behind it) properly,
thoroughly, slowly (or even loudly) enough. As such, it is a good starting point for preparing the parties in a
collaborative governance process for the need to be open to new information (establishing a shared set of
10
What Do You Expect?: Assessing Whether a Situation is “Ripe” for Collaborative Governance
Kern and Murphy
facts or common information base), see the issues from other perspectives, and (while holding firm to their
underlying interests), loosen up their thinking about particular positions and solutions (Emerson & Nabatchi,
2015; Susskind et al., 1999). For these reasons, practitioners at the Center intend to add this question about
expectations to the questions they ask during formal situation assessments as well, and are proposing that
the corresponding condition be added to the set of criteria practitioners use for evaluating the “ripeness” of
a collaborative process.
As it becomes a more widespread part of the thinking among practitioners, this condition and question
should also help inform the thinking of researchers and scholars, as they explore under what circumstances
collaborative governance leads to favorable outcomes, and results in better public policy. The purpose of
authoring this article is to present the Ruckelshaus Center’s experience with and observations about
including this “question of expectations” in its practice, in order to encourage other practitioners to
experiment with this new condition, and researchers to formally evaluate its utility.
Conclusion
It is important to recognize that there is not a value judgment implied in this question about expectations
for the outcomes of a process. As mentioned before, the type of collaborative governance discussed in this
article is not inherently “better” than partnering, coalition-building, or other ways of resolving policy
challenges. It is not a failing to determine that one is seeking these other approaches. Though some of the
potential advantages of collaborative governance have been articulated above, those advantages are likely
to disappear if collaborative governance is applied to situations where it is not appropriate. So, all these
means of resolving conflicts and addressing policy challenges should be seen as different tools in the public
policy toolbox that are appropriate, and likely to be successful, under different circumstances. The goal
should be to deploy the right tool for the situation. The “twelfth condition” and “question about expectations”
presented in this article can be important additions to the standard set of conditions and questions
practitioners currently use to identify when collaborative governance is the correct tool, and that researchers
use to evaluate and understand those collaborative governance processes.
References
Agranoff, R. (2004). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Georgetown
University Press.
Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers. Public Administration
Review, 66, 56-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00666.x
Amsler, L. B. (2016). Collaborative governance: Integrating management, politics, and law. Public
Administration Review, 76(5), 700-711. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12605
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Bernard, T., & Young, J. (1997) The ecology of hope: Communities collaborate for sustainability. New Society
Publishers.
Bidwell, R. D., & Ryan, C. M. (2006). Collaborative partnership design: The implications of organizational
affiliation for watershed partnerships. Society and Natural Resources, 19(9), 827-843.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920600835585
Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O'Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for
stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5),
547-558. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00482.x
11
What Do You Expect?: Assessing Whether a Situation is “Ripe” for Collaborative Governance
Kern and Murphy
Borrini, G., Jaireth, H., Farvar, M. T., Pimbert, M., & Kothari, A. (2007). Sharing power: learning-by-doing in co-
management of natural resources throughout the world. Earthscan.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of Cross‐Sector
collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66, 44-55.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x
Carlson, C. (2007). A practical guide to collaborative governance. Policy Consensus Initiative.
Cestero, B. (1999). Beyond the hundredth meeting: A field guide to collaborative conservation on the West's
public lands. Sonoran Institute.
Coglianese, C. (1999). The limits of consensus: The environmental protection system in transition: Toward a
more desirable future. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 41(3), 28-33.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00139159909604620
Coleman, P. T., Hacking, A. G., Stover, M.A., Fisher-Yoshida, B., & Nowak, A. (2008). Reconstructing ripeness
I: A study of constructive engagement in protracted social conflicts. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 26
(1): 3–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.222.
Druckman D. (2001). Turning points in international negotiation: A comparative analysis. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 45(4):519–544.
Dukes, F. (1993). Public conflict resolution: A transformative approach. Negotiation Journal, 9(1), 45-57.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000415
Dukes, E. F. (2001). Collaboration: A guide for environmental advocates. Institute for Environmental
Negotiation, University of Virginia.
Dukes, E. F. (2004). What we know about environmental conflict resolution: An analysis based on
research. Conflict Resolution Quarterly., 22, 191. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.98
Emerson, K., & Nabatchi, T. (2015). Collaborative governance regimes. Georgetown University Press.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative
governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1-29.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
Fisher, M., & Sablan, T. (2018). Evaluating environmental conflict resolution: Practitioners, projects, and the
movement. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 36(1), 7-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21222
Forrer, J., Kee, J. E., Newcomer, K. E., & Boyer, E. (2010). Public–private partnerships and the public
accountability question. Public Administration Review, 70(3), 475-484. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-
6210.2010.02161.x
Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory
governance. Politics & Society, 29(1), 5-41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329201029001002
Gray, B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relations, 38(10), 911-936.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872678503801001
Gray, B. & Purdy, J. (2018). Collaborating for our future: Multistakeholder partnerships for solving complex
problems. Oxford University Press.
Hall, W., & Kern, M. (2017). The public sector as mediator: The role of public institutions in environmental
collaboration and conflict resolution. In A. Georgakopoulos (Ed.), The mediation handbook: Theory,
research, and practice (pp. 282-289). Routledge.
Herrman, M. S. (Ed.). (2009). The Blackwell handbook of mediation: Bridging theory, research, and practice. John
Wiley & Sons.
Hileman, J., & Bodin, Ö. (2019). Balancing costs and benefits of collaboration in an ecology of games. Policy
Studies Journal, 47(1), 138-158. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12292
Himmelman, A. T. (2001). On coalitions and the transformation of power relations: Collaborative
betterment and collaborative empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 277.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010334831330
12
What Do You Expect?: Assessing Whether a Situation is “Ripe” for Collaborative Governance
Kern and Murphy
Huxham, C. (2003). Theorizing collaboration practice. Public management review, 5(3), 401-423.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1471903032000146964
Imperial, M. T. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed
management programs. Administration & Society, 37(3), 281-320.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399705276111
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building and complex adaptive systems: A framework for
evaluating collaborative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(4), 412-423.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369908976071
Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2018). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for
public policy. Routledge.
Kallis, G., Kiparsky, M., & Norgaard, R. (2009). Collaborative governance and adaptive management:
Lessons from California's CALFED Water Program. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(6), 631-643.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.07.002
Keir, L. S., & Ali, S. H. (2014). Conflict assessment in energy infrastructure siting: Prospects for consensus
building in the northern pass transmission line project. Negotiation Journal, 30(2), 169-189.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12054
Kenney, D. S. (2000). Arguing about consensus: Examining the case against western watershed initiatives
and other collaborative groups active in natural resources management. Natural Resources Law
Center, University of Colorado School of Law.
Kemmis, D. (1990). Community and the politics of place. University of Oklahoma Press.
Koontz, T. (2004). Collaborative environmental management: What roles for government? Washington, DC:
Resources for the Future.
Leach, W. D., Pelkey, N. W., & Sabatier, P. A. (2002). Stakeholder partnerships as collaborative policymaking:
Evaluation criteria applied to watershed management in California and Washington. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management: The Journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and
Management, 21(4), 645-670. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.10079
Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. Washington, D.C.: United
States Institute of Peace.
Margerum, R. D. (2008). A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environmental
Management, 41(4), 487-500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9067-9
Mattessich, P. W., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B. R. (2001). Collaboration: What makes it work (2nd ed.)
Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.
McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it. Public
Administration Review, 66, 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x
Minow, M. (2003). Public and private partnerships: Accounting for the new religion. Harvard Law
Review, 116(5), 1229-1270. https://doi.org/10.2307/1342726
Mooradian, M., & Druckman, D. (1999). Hurting stalemate or mediation? The conflict over Nagorno-
Karabakh. Journal of Peace Resolution, 36(6):709–727.
Moore, E. A., & Koontz, T. M. (2003). Research note a typology of collaborative watershed groups: Citizen-
based, agency-based, and mixed partnerships. Society & Natural Resources, 16(5), 451-460.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309182
Murphy, A.G. & C. S. Page, C. S. (2019). A framework for conducting situation assessments. WSU Extension
publication FS318E. Washington State University. http://hdl.handle.net/2376/13219
O'Leary, R., Gerard, C., & Bingham, L. B. (2006). Introduction to the symposium on collaborative public
management. Public Administration Review, 66, 6-9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4096565
Oregon Consensus National Policy Center and The William D. Ruckelshaus Center. (2012). Collaborative
engagement assessment report of the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.
13
What Do You Expect?: Assessing Whether a Situation is “Ripe” for Collaborative Governance
Kern and Murphy
https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/2180/2013/06/GorgeNSACollaborativeAssessmentFINALREPORTredu
ced.pdf
Page, S. B., Stone, M. M., Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2015). Public value creation by cross‐sector
collaborations: A framework and challenges of assessment. Public Administration, 93(3), 715-732.
https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12161
Poocharoen, O. O., & Ting, B. (2015). Collaboration, co-production, networks: Convergence of
theories. Public Management Review, 17(4), 587-614. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.866479
Pruitt, D. G. (1983). Strategic choice in negotiation. American Behavioral Scientist, 27(2), 167–
194. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276483027002005
Pruitt, D. (2005). Whither ripeness theory? George Mason University, Working
Paper No. 25.
Pruitt, D. (2007). Readiness theory and the Northern Ireland conflict. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(11),
1520-1541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764207302467
Provan, K. G. & Kenis, P. N. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and
effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-52.
Purdy, J. M. (2012). A framework for assessing power in collaborative governance processes. Public
Administration Review, 72(3), 409-417.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02525.x
Scott, T. A., & Thomas, C. W. (2017). Winners and losers in the ecology of games: Network position,
connectivity, and the benefits of collaborative governance regimes. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 27(4), 647-660. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux009
Singleton, S. (2000). Co‐operation or capture? The paradox of co‐management and community
participation in natural resource management and environmental policy‐making. Environmental
Politics, 9(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010008414522
Singleton, S. (2009). Native people and planning for marine protected areas: how “stakeholder” processes
fail to address conflicts in complex, real-world environments. Coastal Management, 37(5), 421-440.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08920750902954072
Sorensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2011). Enhancing collaboration innovation in the public sector. Administration &
Society, 43 (8): 842-68.
Susskind, L. (2010). Complexity science and collaborative decision making. Negotiation Journal, 26, 367.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2010.00278.x
Susskind, L. E., McKearnen, S., & Thomas-Lamar, J. (1999). The consensus building handbook: A comprehensive
guide to reaching agreement. Sage Publications.
University Network for Collaborative Governance (UNCG). (2018). University Network for Collaborative
Governance Strategic Directions Plan.
https://www.kitchentable.org/page/uncg-strategic-directions
Walsh, C. (2016). Rethinking ripeness theory: Explaining progress and failure in civil war negotiations in the
Philippines and Colombia. International Negotiation (Hague, Netherlands), 21(1), 75–103.
https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-12341325
Weber, G. S. (2006). Initial steps towards an assessment of the potential for a collaborative approach to
Colorado Delta ecosystem restoration. Pac. McGeorge Global Bus. & Dev. LJ, 19, 79.
William D. Ruckelshaus Center. (2020). Project Criteria. http://ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu/provide/
Wondolleck, J. M., & Yaffee, S. L. (2000). Making collaboration work: Lessons from innovation in natural
resource management. Island Press.
Zartman, I. W. (1989). Ripe for resolution: Conflict and intervention in Africa. New York: Oxford University
Press.
14
What Do You Expect?: Assessing Whether a Situation is “Ripe” for Collaborative Governance
Kern and Murphy
Zartman, I. W. (1996) Bargaining and conflict resolution. In E. A. Kolodziej and R. E. Kanet (Eds.), Coping with
conflict after the Cold War. Johns Hopkins Press.
Zartman, I. W. (2000). Ripeness: The hurting stalemate and beyond. In P. C. Stern and D. Druckman (Eds.),
International conflict resolution after the Cold War. National Academy of Sciences.
Zartman, I. W. (2001). The timing of peace initiatives: Hurting stalemates and ripe moments. The Global
Review of Ethnopolitics, 1(1), 8-18.
Zartman, I. W. (2008). “Ripeness”: The importance of timing in negotiation and conflict resolution. E-
International Relations.
https://www.e-ir.info/2008/12/20/ripeness-the-importance-of-timing-in-negotiation-and-conflict-
resolution/
Zartman, I. W. (2015). Mediation: Ripeness and its challenges in the Middle East. International
Negotiation, 20(3), 479-493. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718069-12341317
Author Bio
Michael Kern is Principal at Michael Kern Consulting, LLC. He spent 12 years as Director of the William D.
Ruckelshaus Center at Washington State University (WSU) and the University of Washington (UW). He is an
Adjunct Associate Professor at WSU Extension, and Affiliate Associate Professor at the UW Evans School of
Public Policy & Governance (where he earned a Master of Public Administration degree). Michael has over
30 years of experience helping diverse groups reach common ground on public policy issues. He has
published on the role of universities in collaborative governance, evaluating environmental collaboration,
the public sector as mediator, hatchery reform, nuclear site cleanup, eldercare, and other topics.
Amanda Murphy is a Senior Facilitator at the William D. Ruckelshaus Center, and an Associate Professor with
Washington State University Extension. Amanda designs and leads or co-leads multi-party, collaborative
processes that help people develop shared solutions to public policy issues; the Ruckelshaus Center’s
Collaboration Governance Training Program; and the Center’s Collaborative Leaders Internship Program.
She has a Master of Marine and Environmental Affairs degree from the University of Washington; and a
Bachelor of Science degree in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology from the University of Arizona. Amanda has
published on situation assessments, and marine protected areas.