Contesting and integrating multiple ways of knowing in collaborative natural resource governance

Contesting and integrating multiple ways of knowing in collaborative natural resource governance | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Contesting and integrating multiple ways of knowing in collaborative natural resource governance Molly C. Levy, Vicken Hillis, Hailey Wilmer, Lauren M. Porensky, and 2 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7403297/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Collaborative governance is increasingly used to address complex natural resource issues, yet integrating diverse knowledge systems remains a persistent challenge. This study investigates how stakeholders engage with scientific, experiential, and administrative ways of knowing (WoKs) in a collaborative effort to manage public rangelands in the Thunder Basin ecoregion of Wyoming, USA. Applying a qualitative case study approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews, a focus group, and participant observation to examine how different WoKs inform land management goals, shape perceptions of knowledge legitimacy, and influence attitudes toward collaboration. Findings indicate that knowledge is strategically interpreted and relationally constructed through participants’ institutional roles, values, and social positions. While collaboration created opportunities for mutual learning, it also surfaced tensions around credibility, authority, and representation. Stakeholders who embraced epistemic humility and treated knowledge as a tool for governance were better positioned to foster integration. These findings highlight the importance of attention to power dynamics, institutional norms, and the relational work necessary to support inclusive and effective governance. The insights from this case contribute to a growing recognition that meaningful collaboration requires moving beyond stakeholder diversity to critical engagement with how knowledge is produced, negotiated, and used in decision-making. collaborative governance ways of knowing natural resource management knowledge integration public lands stakeholder engagement Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Management of public lands in the American West is complex and often contentious due to competing interests, ecological concerns, and historical legacies (Keiter and McKinney 2019). A range of factors, including competing land uses, legal and regulatory complexity, environmental and economic pressures, and sources of knowledge have the potential to contribute toward overlapping and sometimes contradictory management objectives. Subsequently, decision-making processes related to environmental governance frequently become sites of social, legal, or even physical conflict where divergent interests, values, and knowledge systems collide (Reid et al. 2006; Armitage et al. 2011; Tengö et al. 2014). Collaborative governance is often posited as an effective way to approach management conflicts due to its potential to integrate diverse ways of knowing into decision-making processes. Recognizing and incorporating multiple forms of knowledge, such as scientific, professional, and local, is increasingly seen as essential for informed and adaptive governance (Cash et al. 2003; Berkes 2009). However, while collaborative governance is meant to be an inclusive and deliberative process, frictions may result between different epistemological traditions. For instance, scientific expertise, bureaucratic knowledge, and place-based, experiential understandings may come into conflict, revealing challenges for effective knowledge integration (Wyborn et al. 2019; Hill et al. 2020). These tensions are exacerbated by power imbalances, competing values, and institutional constraints that shape the extent to which diverse knowledge is acknowledged and utilized (Wyborn et al. 2019; Hill et al. 2020). Much of the existing literature on collaborative governance examines the conditions that contribute to either the success or failure of collaboration, focusing on structural and procedural factors such as stakeholder participation, institutional support, and trust-building (Ansell and Gash 2008; Emerson et al. 2012; Koontz et al. 2015). However, less attention has been paid to the sociocultural dimensions that shape how collaboration unfolds in practice. Sociocultural, political, and institutional contexts can play a critical role in shaping how stakeholders engage with one another, interpret information, and navigate conflict. In particular, disparities in how different stakeholders produce, access, and legitimize knowledge can significantly influence governance processes and outcomes (Nightingale 2016; Brugnach 2017). Exploring these dynamics offers an important lens for evaluating whether collaborative governance not only produces effective environmental solutions, but also the degree to which it fosters meaningful and equitable participation across diverse knowledge systems. This research investigates the role of diverse ways of knowing in collaborative natural resource governance through a case study of a multi-stakeholder working group convened to inform public rangeland management and planning (on a US Forest Service National Grassland in Wyoming, USA) in the context of environmental disturbance. Using participant observation, focus groups, and semi-structured interviews, we observe that participants drew from a range of knowledge sources, including scientific expertise, lived experience, professional practice, and place-based knowledge, to inform their views on land management. We observed that these diverse ways of knowing often aligned with different management priorities and visions for the landscape. We specifically examined how participants perceived, engaged with, and responded to different ways of knowing during the collaborative process. By analyzing their reflections and interactions, we seek to address how diverse ways of knowing can shape collaborative governance, particularly in terms of how knowledge is perceived, valued, and integrated in defining goals and evaluating success. Through this investigation, we contribute to ongoing discussions about how diverse forms of knowledge influence collaborative decision-making in natural resource governance (Berkes 2009; Armitage et al. 2011; Reed et al. 2018). In particular, we highlight how knowledge is valued, negotiated, and integrated within multi-stakeholder collaborations. Background Navigating knowledge diversity in collaborative governance Collaborative governance has become a widely adopted approach for addressing complex environmental challenges, particularly in contexts where diverse stakeholders must navigate competing knowledge, interests, and relationships regarding shared resources (van Tol Smit et al. 2015 ). In the American West, collaboration is especially common in public lands management, where a history of conflict over land use, identity, and access has created a need for more inclusive and durable decision-making processes such as those offered by place-based collaboratives (e.g., Malpai Borderlands Group [Allen 2006 ], Quivira Coalition [White 2003 ], Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program [Urgenson et al. 2017 ]. Defined by its emphasis on participatory and non-hierarchical decision-making, collaborative governance aims to foster legitimacy, trust, and social learning among governmental, non-governmental, and community actors (Ansell and Gash 2008 ; Emerson et al. 2012 ; van Tol Smit et al. 2015 ). The growing adoption of collaborative governance in recent decades has been driven in part by declining trust in top-down management approaches, the increasing complexity of socio-ecological problems, and policy mandates that encourage stakeholder participation and decentralized decision-making (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000 ; Emerson et al. 2012 ; Koontz et al. 2015 ). Collaborative governance is not a single model, but can take multiple forms in relation to institutional arrangements, histories of conflict, and the particular actors involved. It can range from loosely-structured partnerships to co-management institutions with formal decision-making authority. Regardless of its structure, these processes aim to produce context-sensitive solutions that enhance compliance, improve ecological resilience, and mitigate long-standing conflicts (Folke et al. 2005 ; Berkes 2009 ). However, the success of collaborative governance is contingent upon more than assembling diverse stakeholders, but rather requires negotiating underlying differences in how those stakeholders understand and value environmental problems and potential solutions (Innes and Booher 2003 ; Brugnach and Ingram 2012 ). An increasingly recognized challenge in navigating these differences stems from differences in ways of knowing (WoKs). WoKs broadly refer to the various methods through which individuals and groups generate, validate, and apply knowledge in order to interpret and engage with the world. These include scientific and technical knowledge, local and experiential knowledge, and professional and managerial knowledge systems (Schneider and Ingram 2007 ; Endter-Wada et al. 2009 ). In collaborative governance, WoKs are not just information, but rather are relational and political, shaped by place, identity, values, social position, institutional role, and histories of conflict or collaboration (Gerlak and Mukhtarov 2015 ; Brugnach 2017 ; Almazán-Casali et al. 2021 ). These knowledge systems shape how stakeholders frame problems, define priorities, and envision solutions (Feldman et al. 2006 ; Welsh 2014 ). For example, a rancher may draw on experiential knowledge tied to seasonal land use, while an agency scientist may rely on monitoring data or models, each informing different goals and interpretations of success. As such, WoKs play a crucial role in shaping both the processes and outcomes of collaboration. Plural ways of knowing and challenges in collaboration Although collaborative governance is intended to create an inclusive decision-making process, the integration of multiple WoKs is often shaped by existing power dynamics and institutional norms. Scientific and technical knowledge, which are often perceived as objective and generalizable, tend to be privileged over local or experiential knowledge, which may be dismissed as anecdotal or subjective (Turnhout et al. 2012 ; Reed et al. 2018 ; Morrison et al. 2019 ). This creates hierarchical structures within collaborative processes, which influence the degree to which WoKs are legitimized or marginalized. As a result, the process of integrating knowledge is not only technical but also political, as it reflects broader struggles over whose perspectives count in environmental decision-making (Gerlak and Mukhtarov 2015 ; Almazán-Casali et al. 2021 ). While integrating these different forms of knowledge can improve adaptive capacity and enhance governance legitimacy (Armitage 2005 ; Tengö et al. 2014 ), doing so also introduces tensions around authority, participation, and equity. When one WoK is elevated above others, certain goals and success metrics may be privileged, while others are overlooked or discounted. Subsequently, attempts to integrate WoKs requires careful consideration of the tensions that underlie the differences in understanding. In conflicts related to natural resource management, differences in WoKs are commonly enmeshed in highly complex relationships, often involving power asymmetries (e.g. disparity of power between the resource manager and resource user), issues of identity (e.g. being a rancher vs. a federal employee), access or control over resources or information (e.g. allocation and distribution of permitted land uses), and know-how and expertise (e.g. knowledge about local practices vs. scientific method) (Schneider and Ingram 2007 ; Brugnach 2017 ). These complexities then impact whose voices and perspectives are legitimized in decision-making (Meijerink 2005 ; Schneider and Ingram 2007 ; Brisbois and de Loë 2016 ; Morrison et al. 2019 ; Almazán-Casali et al. 2021 ). This understanding calls for greater attention not only to the presence of different WoKs within collaboration, but also to how stakeholders perceive, engage with, and use that knowledge in shaping collective goals and defining what success looks like. Based on this review of the literature, we ask the following questions: What types and sources of knowledge are present in the collaborative, and how do they inform different management goals? How do stakeholders perceive and engage with different ways of knowing in the context of collaboration? How do these perspectives on knowledge shape participants’ understandings of success in collaborative governance? Methods Thunder Basin Ecoregion Case Study Study Area and Background This case study examines the Thunder Basin ecoregion (TBER), a 7,000 km 2 region located in northeastern Wyoming, USA (Figure 1). TBER sits within a rangeland ecotone, or boundary zone, located between the Great Plains to the east and sagebrush steppe to the west (Porensky et al. 2018). The system supports numerous grassland and sagebrush species of conservation concern (Duchardt et al. 2018; Duchardt et al. 2019; Davidson et al. 2022), including black-tailed prairie dogs ( Cynomys ludovicianus ; hereafter: prairie dogs), mountain plovers ( Charadrius montanus ), and greater sage-grouse ( Centrocercus urophasianus ). Over the past two decades in TBER, prairie dog conservation efforts have also become a management priority for numerous conservation advocacy groups (Wilmer et al. 2025). TBER also encompasses the Thunder Basin National Grassland, which is managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for multiple uses, including ranching, energy extraction, and wildlife conservation. These uses occur across a highly interspersed mixture of private and public lands, creating multiple intersecting land ownership and management interests. Ranching is central to the culture and economy of the region, with stocking rates and grazing seasons varying across allotments based on local conditions and management objectives. Management of federal and state lands permits grazing activities, and the overseeing agencies manage rangeland resources in collaboration with local grazing associations. In recent history, conflict over management decisions in TBER has arisen as a result of extreme fluctuations, or “boom-bust cycles”, in prairie dog populations, which exacerbate differences between ranching and conservation goals (Wilmer et al. 2019a; Connell et al. 2019b; Connell et al. 2019a; Duchardt et al. 2019). Specifically, populations of prairie dogs in TBER increased by 234% between 2012-2016, with the prairie dog complex exceeding 75,000 acres in size by 2017 (Davidson et al. 2022). However, from 2017-2018, a sylvatic plague event reduced prairie dog colony acreage by 99% (Davidson et al. 2022; Duchardt et al. 2023). The resultant ecological and social upheaval highlighted differences in attitudes regarding prairie dog management. Specifically, black-tailed prairie dogs are classified as an agricultural pest by the state of Wyoming, and ranchers perceive prairie dogs as a major threat to the sustainability of ranching in TBER. Conversely, prairie dogs are a keystone species and provide important habitat for other native species (Duchardt et al. 2018; Duchardt et al. 2019), and are classified as a species of special concern by USFS. The resulting divergence in management goals created friction between different stakeholder groups, decreased trust among stakeholders, and occupied the resources of management agencies attempting to navigate these conflicting concerns (Wilmer et al. 2019a). Amidst the dramatic ecological shifts and discontent with existing management options, the conflict expanded beyond prairie dog management and came to represent a conflict over larger socio-political concepts such as equity, tradition, private property rights, government control, power, and acceptable forms of knowledge (Patterson et al. 2003). In an attempt to respond to this conflict, a collaborative multi-stakeholder group known as the “TB working group” was formed to provide input to USFS in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to amend the Thunder Basin National Grassland Management Plan. However, in complex systems such as TBER, collaboration remains difficult due to the number of involved stakeholders and their diverse WoKs (Guerrero et al. 2015; Bodin 2017), as detailed in the following section. Thunder Basin Collaborative Working Group Efforts Prairie dog management in TBER has been the focus of collaborative discussions for over 25 years, and spurred the creation of a local non-profit, the Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association (TBGPEA), in 1999. In 2015, USFS approached the Ruckelshaus Institute at the University of Wyoming to assess stakeholder perspectives regarding prairie dog issues (USFS 2015). The assessment identified potential for a collaborative process to address management issues (Clement and Glendenning 2015), leading to a series of public collaborative learning workshops in 2016-2016 that informed subsequent working groups. The most recent effort, the TB working group, was convened in 2018 by the Wyoming Department of Agriculture and later the Wyoming County Commissioners Association to advise USFS on a Grassland Plan amendment revising prairie dog management approaches. The amendment’s scope was to balance prairie dog conservation and control with other grassland uses, in response to dramatic 2016-2018 population fluctuations that alarmed multiple stakeholders. Participants in the working group included representatives from federal management and research agencies, state and local agencies, non-profit organizations related to conservation and/or agriculture, academic and private researchers, and members from the local community including livestock producers. In 2018, the group submitted their major set of recommendations to USFS and continued meeting through 2020. USFS released the Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment at the end of 2020 (USFS 2020). The amendment was subsequently challenged in the courts by environmental conservation groups who did not participate in the working group, and in 2024 the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to USFS to address deficiencies in its analysis ( Western Watersheds Project, et al. v. Vilsack, et al. No. 23-8081, 10th Cir. Oct. 28, 2024; see D. Wyo. No. 1:22-CV-00214-SWS). The working group continues to meet, coordinate on-the-ground prairie dog monitoring, and provide management recommendations to the USFS. A comprehensive timeline of events relevant to this collaborative process is provided in (Wilmer et al. 2025). Recruitment and Data Collection Data was collected between 2018 and 2021, and was initiated at the invitation of the Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association (TBGPEA), a local landowner-led nonprofit focused on supporting science-based management that supports both ecosystems and agricultural productivity. We worked with TBGPEA to identify and contact individuals that have been involved in management and/or decision-making processes in TBER. We initially used purposive sampling to recruit participants with a range of different backgrounds and areas of expertise (e.g., rancher, conservationist, scientist, agency official, etc.), in order to capture the diverse WoKs utilized in management within TBER. To ensure that a range of WoKs were represented in the study, we asked each participant if there were other relevant individuals we should reach out to. We continued interviewing new subjects through our referral process until we reached data saturation, or the point where no new information emerged with additional data collection (Lincoln and Guba 1986; Morse 2008; Wilmer and Fernández-Giménez 2015). We conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with 43 stakeholders [1] (Table 1), 36 of which occurred in-person and 4 of which were conducted remotely over the phone during the COVID-19 pandemic. Roughly 20% of interviewees were producers, 50% represented state, federal, or local governmental agencies, and the final 30% represented NGOs, universities, or the private sector. One co-author participated in the study as an interviewee; consistent with ethical guidelines (World Medical Association 2013), they contributed to study design but did not analyze or interpret their own data. Interviews ranged from 37 minutes to 3 hours and took place at a location of the participants’ choosing. Interviews with producers often included conversations with multiple family members involved in the operation as well as a ranch tour. Our interview guides inquired about management practices within TBER, relationships to TBER, sources of conflict, and how information is shared among stakeholders. A separate interview guide was utilized for ranchers and non-ranchers in order to address different areas of expertise. A more comprehensive summary of the interview guides is available in Supplementary Material A (Table A1), and full interview guides are available upon request. In addition to the interviews, the research team also conducted a focus group with TBGPEA board members in Fall 2019 to capture collective insights and group dynamics. Members of the TBGPEA board included ranchers, an environmental scientist affiliated with private industry, and the owner of a natural resource-based consulting firm. In 2021, the lead author engaged in participant observation with ranchers, USFS staff, and conservation NGO representatives to contextualize interview findings and observe interactions directly. Additionally, members of the research team either participated in or observed over 100 hours of collaborative working group meetings from 2019 to 2025. Finally, we reviewed relevant documents generated during the EIS development period, including scoping documents, public comments and responses, draft statements, amendments, and final records of decision. Specific locations, names of individuals, and other identifying information have been omitted from the study. This study was conducted under Boise State University IRB protocol #10877. Table 1. Summary table of participant type. These categories are used for communication purposes only and do not imply fixed boundaries as some individuals may cross categories and important variation exists within a participant type. Participant type sub-type n (%) Description Producer Cow-calf and/or sheep operator 9 (21) Individuals who self-identify as a working rancher and rely primarily on a livestock operation for their livelihood Federal governments Management, research 11 (26) Federal entities tasked with managing, conserving, regulating, or researching natural resources under federal policy and authority State governments Management 5 (12) State-level entities responsible for the management, regulation, conservation, and monitoring of natural resources within state boundaries County and local governments Management 4 (9) Local government bodies at the county, municipal, or community level responsible for planning, managing, regulating, and monitoring local natural resources and related land-use decisions NGO Agriculture, conservation, interdisciplinary 6 (14) Independent entities focused primarily on environmental, social, or policy issues related to natural resource management University research Ecosystem science, rangeland ecology 4 (9) Individuals employed primarily by academic institutions, whose primary livelihood is derived from conducting original research, teaching, and disseminating knowledge Private scientist / consultant Industry, consultant 4 (9) Professionals employed by private firms, consulting businesses, or operating independently, whose primary livelihood comes from providing expertise or technical support to clientele Total 43 (100) Data Analysis We audio-recorded and transcribed all interviews to text. The lead author validated transcriptions for accuracy by comparing all transcripts against audio recordings and imported into qualitative data analysis software (NVivo), and documented analysis with a series of memos throughout the study (Tracy 2024). To interpret stakeholder WoKs in relation to collaborative decision-making, the lead author engaged in an iterative examination of the WoK literature, collaborative governance literature, and our qualitative data. The lead author undertook multiple rounds of coding using an inductive-deductive approach, which allowed both for themes to emerge from the dataset, as well as in relation to the theoretical framework informed by our literature review on knowledge and collaboration (Charmaz 2006; Glaser and Strauss 2017). During preliminary initial coding, the lead author used an inductive approach to discover themes that arose from the data. Initial codes corresponded with the broad analytical questions used in the interview instrument: What do different actors make decisions about? What are the important sources of information for different actors, and how is information shared within and across groups? What are the successes and challenges of cross-group collaboration? What is driving conflict in TBER, and how is it being addressed? The results of initial coding were synthesized in a research memo and shared with members of the research team. The lead author iteratively refined codes and developed a codebook that consisted of code name, description, and examples (Tracy 2024). Subsequent rounds of coding focused on developing hierarchical codes by examining the transcripts line-by-line and labeling codes related to types and sources of knowledge of participants, management goals, perceptions and engagement with different WoKs during the collaborative process, and how these perspectives shaped participants’ understandings of success in a collaborative environment. Findings were also compared to relevant literature and triangulated themes from our focus group, participant observation, and document review. To establish the trustworthiness of our qualitative findings, we applied the four criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln and Guba 1986; Ahmed 2024). Credibility was strengthened through prolonged engagement in the field (>100 h of meeting observation), triangulation of multiple data sources (interviews, focus group, participant observation, document review), and presentation of preliminary findings to participants and other stakeholders. Transferability was supported by providing thick description of the collaborative context and extended quotations in Supplementary Material B. Dependability was addressed by following a consistent interview protocol, recruiting a representative sample across stakeholder categories, and maintaining a transparent audit trail through analytic memos and version-controlled codebooks. Confirmability was supported by documenting analytic decisions, using reflexive memos to acknowledge researcher perspectives, and grounding interpretations in direct evidence from the data. [1] This sample represents a substantial proportion of the total stakeholder population: working group meetings typically draw 15–25 participants, and fewer than 100 individuals regularly engage in collaborative or management activities across the Thunder Basin region. Results This section presents findings related to the types and sources of knowledge present in collaborative contexts, and how different WoKs inform different goals for management. It then examines how stakeholders interact with different WoKs, and how these interactions shape their perspectives on collaboration, and their understanding of success. Excerpts from the interviews are provided to illustrate how various WoKs are expressed and operationalized by participants. This section presents a condensed summary of key themes; additional context, subgroup variation, and extended participant quotations are available in Supplementary Material B. What types and sources of knowledge are present in the collaborative, and how do they inform different management goals? Participants describe different WoKs related to their training and background. While boundaries between WoKs were fluid, three general categories of WoKs (scientific, local/experiential, and administrative) were consistently referenced (Table 2). Extended descriptions of WoKs are available in Supplementary Material B. Types and sources of knowledge Scientific WoKs emphasize empirical observation, reproducibility, and peer review to produce objective, generalizable knowledge. They were primarily described by university researchers and federal scientists relying on peer-reviewed and gray literature and collaboration. NGO and agency respondents reported using scientific WoKs mainly for ecosystem monitoring and regulation enforcement. At state and local levels, respondents relied more on internal networks and trusted colleagues rather than scientific literature. Local/experiential WoKs rely on firsthand, place-based knowledge developed through daily experience, observation, trial-and-error, and generational knowledge transfer. Primarily referenced by ranchers and long-term residents, these WoKs emphasize practical application. Participants also collected informal longitudinal data (e.g., wildlife monitoring), shared insights within community networks, and collaborated with extension agents and agency staff. Administrative WoKs are grounded in formal training, legal mandates, and bureaucratic procedures. Federal and state agency respondents described drawing on academic training, professional experience, and science-based assessments, but stressed their decisions are guided by legal obligations. Local agency staff highlighted integrating administrative frameworks with local knowledge. NGO staff and private consultants used administrative knowledge to facilitate regulatory compliance and support management advocacy. Table 2. Summary of three generalized ways of knowing (WoKs) present in the Thunder Basin collaborative working group, including definitions, examples of use, mechanisms of knowledge verification, and illustrative quotes from interviews. Way of Knowing Knowledge Production Dynamics Over Time Example of Use Illustrative Quotes Administrative Formal training, legal mandates, and bureaucratic processes; academic background and professional expertise Adjusts with changes in regulations and policies; accountable to professional standards and on-the-ground outcomes Developing management plans, interpreting NEPA requirements “As far as the process and collaborative portion… we’re going to have to go through the entire NEPA process and objections and probably a lawsuit or two.” (TB27, state agency) Local / Experiential Firsthand, place-based knowledge developed through daily experience, observation, trial-and-error, generational exchange Evolves through generational transfer, demonstrations of practical success, community networks of trust; cross-checking with agency and extension staff Adjusting grazing based on forage availability and long term observation; implementing drought responses rooted in lived experience “All I can tell you is years and years of being around ranching and just talking and being taught by my parents and my grandparents, and… just having an eye for what’s going to work and not work.” (TB02, producer) Scientific Systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation; established methods to generate objective, generalizable results Builds through iterative research, replication of studies, meta-analyses; evaluated by formal peer review processes and professional networks Designing and interpreting ecological monitoring studies; publishing research on rangeland dynamics “What’s nice about replication is you can think about meta replication, just multiple studies over a large space, and those inferences, and someone could do a meta-analysis… and come up with the larger effect that may be out there.” (TB06, university research) Ways of knowing inform varied management goals Stakeholders across groups described a shared goal of achieving balance in land management. However, interpretations of balance varied, shaped by differences in WoKs as well as institutional roles, land tenure, or organizational mandates. Local knowledge and management goals . Producers emphasized balancing economic livelihoods with long-term land stewardship. Their goals reflected site-specific knowledge of the landscape and a desire to sustain the range for future generations. As one participant described, “My goal is just to make it as functional [sic] and make it better… anything I can do to help the range, help the water, the wildlife, all of it… just trying to improve what’s here, and sustain a living” (TB02, producer). While many valued conservation outcomes, others voiced concerns about management approaches (such as protections for prairie dogs) that felt misaligned with working lands viability. Scientific knowledge and management goals. Scientists often framed their goals in terms of ecosystem processes and landscape-scale outcomes, emphasizing trade-offs and synergies across multiple land uses. One researcher explained, “These are lands that are… managed for multiple ecosystem services. Most of my research has been trying to address trade-offs or synergies in… achieving those services” (TB10, federal research). Others described how engaging with local WoKs deepened their understanding or shaped new lines of inquiry. One scientist reflected that, “Because of what [local producers] asked questions about, we now have a much more robust explanation of what went on” (TB09, federal research), describing how incorporating stakeholder perspectives sometimes prompted them to revisit and broaden earlier interpretations of data. Administrative knowledge and management goals. Agency staff described navigating between technical information and administrative mandates, while also attending to community concerns. Many described cross-agency information sharing through informal reports and communications, as summarized by one local official: “I go to workshops, and I talk to anyone with expertise. I talk to Game & Fish and Fish & Wildlife, I talk to the Prairie Dog Coalition… I find people with expertise in the area” (TB40, county agency). Federal employees also described a goal of “walking that balance” in regards to finding a “sweet spot” between ecological goals and public acceptance, for example, maintaining viable prairie dog populations while keeping colonies off key cattle ranges to reduce conflict. Many officials reside in the surrounding community and emphasized wanting to build trust and understanding at the local level. As one participant described it, “When you’re dealing with someone’s livelihood, you can’t always just consider the science. There has to be that balance between that cultural need and that scientific need” (TB16, federal management). How do stakeholders perceive and engage with different ways of knowing in the context of collaboration? Collaborative processes provided stakeholders opportunities to engage with diverse WoKs, yet also surfaced tensions regarding their perceived legitimacy. These perceptions vary across and within stakeholder groups, and suggest that perceptions are shaped not just by roles, but by individual experiences, values, and relationships (Figure 2). Interactions between WoKs are described below, while a more detailed exploration of how stakeholders describe and navigate different WoKs is provided in Supplementary Material B. When knowledge systems collide Tensions between different WoKs emerged most visibly when scientific findings contradicted stakeholders’ lived experiences. For example, participants frequently cited an example of a recent study suggesting prairie dog colonies may enhance forage quality under certain conditions (Connell et al. 2019b). Conservation-oriented respondents felt the findings reinforced their understanding of prairie dogs’ ecological role. As one participant explained, “At certain levels… colonies will actually increase the nutritional value of the vegetation that is on their colonies… There may be less available forage for cattle, but every bite they take is more efficient, and more nutritious” (TB11, conservation NGO). Conversely, several producers rejected these conclusions as disconnected from their observed realities, with one producer dismissing the study as “hogwash” because the findings contradicted the visibly barren conditions experienced firsthand: “She had a big research paper and said, ‘There's more [grass] production on prairie dog towns because they chop it off and so it's higher protein...’ I mean, what she's saying may be true but [the forage] is all that tall [makes hand gesture denoting very short]” (TB21, producer). Other participants acknowledged a mismatch between the scale of scientific observation and stakeholders’ experience, explaining that the measurements were taken on small colonies at the edges of the complex, while many landowners were dealing with large colonies where ‘there was just absolutely no forage’ (TB10, federal researcher). While not disputing the study’s methods or findings, the researcher acknowledged that the study’s credibility was compromised by underlying issues: the science wasn’t ‘wrong’, but it wasn’t addressing the ‘right’ question regarding stakeholder concerns (i.e. visibly barren landscapes). Learning across boundaries Despite tensions, participants described meaningful instances of mutual learning across WoKs. Producers’ observations prompted new scientific questions, scientists reframed data through local insight, and agency staff worked to reconcile top-down mandates with place-based knowledge. One federal researcher explained how encountering experiential knowledge prompted deeper inquiry: “If a rancher tells me something surprising… there's a reason for that, right? … It makes me want to go bigger or go in a different direction… It just makes me think maybe I missed something else that's going on.” -TB13 (federal research). Agency staff also emphasized blending short-term scientific findings with long-term, place-based observations, recognizing the value of multi-generational knowledge in interpreting local trends in order to address “what’s missing”. As one federal manager stated, “You can’t just come and do research for two or three years and answer a question that may have taken 50 years, 70 years of watching the landscape change and get an answer, and so sometimes that cultural aspect, that history within families is so vitally important” (TB16, federal management). Participants also described how long-term collaboration (over the course of 20+ years) shifted perspectives on the relevance of research, particularly when researchers engaged directly with managers to identify knowledge gaps and management needs. One agency representative described this transition, stating: “I was not a fan of research, having not had researchers ever really ask what management needed. And then they come in with this data, and it's like… that's not helpful. Then they would walk away with the data too, a lot of times. That was one thing that was really neat… for a long time now, we've been able to meet with the researchers and talk, and that's what they ask. ‘What do you need?’ They take our feedback… so now I'm a big fan.” - TB24 (federal management) While epistemic tensions persisted overall, participants were able to identify conditions under which integration was possible. In such cases, shared inquiry served as a catalyst for continued dialogue. Stakeholders characterized successful knowledge integration as a product of transparent research processes, openness to feedback, mutual respect, and sustained engagement across multiple WoKs. As one county manager summarized, effective collaboration required “professionalism from all corners… if everybody will give a little, you can go a long way… You need every bit of that from every corner” (TB40, county management; see Supplementary Material B for further details and extended quotes). How do perspectives on knowledge shape participants’ understandings of success in collaborative governance? Participants’ emphasized the central role of knowledge in shaping their experiences with collaboration. Rather than treating knowledge as neutral, many described how it was selectively interpreted or strategically used by stakeholders, influencing both how participants engaged with the process and assessed outcomes. Selective interpretation and strategic use of knowledge Participants described instances in which both scientific and experiential WoKs were selectively referenced to support particular management goals. Instead of treating knowledge as static or universally applicable, respondents noted how stakeholders framed evidence to align with their perspectives or desired outcomes. Selective use of knowledge was particularly evident in discussions around controversial species like prairie dogs and their impacts on wildlife and rangeland health. Describing how individuals used different WoKs to support competing claims, one state agency official described: “Somebody comes in and says, ‘Well we know from studies that prairie dogs only do this.’ Then you have somebody else over here saying, ‘Well, but from my experience as the owner of those lands for 100 years, I could tell you that's not totally true.’” - TB25 (state agency) In this context, scientific and experiential claims were both presented as authoritative despite divergent conclusions. The same respondent noted that the perceived value of a study often depended less on its methodology and more on its alignment with stakeholder preferences: “You have all those figures and of course in a situation with sides, and with desired outcomes, people are going to try and use those to fit their situation.” Others observed that knowledge is “situated,” meaning that it is developed and actionable in certain contexts (Schwandt 2000; Robbins 2006; Wilmer et al. 2018), and therefore stakeholder positions could influence how research questions were framed. As one county agency representative explained: “I think [the research] is reliable. But it's just like anything. If you are for expansion, that's where you're going to lean your research toward. If I was out there doing research on the damage, it would go the other way. So I think it all depends on what side of the line you're on.” -TB40 (county agency) Participants also reflected on the influence of selective knowledge use on collaborative discussions, especially when knowledge was used to assert authority rather than invite dialogue. One state agency respondent described a contentious public exchange over mountain plovers: “When people try and weaponize whatever knowledge they think they have, that's when you get into a bind… Somebody who got up and said, ‘Oh I've seen plovers in tall grass. It's not like they don't use it,’ and somebody else got up and said, ‘You're full of crap. You don't know what you're talking about and I'm a scientist’ or whatever. That's where you do have a problem with that, as opposed to if the question is ‘I'm pretty sure I've seen a plover in tall grass. What do you know about that,’ and they go, ‘Don't know. I've never seen it. We've never studied it though so maybe it's possible.’ That's much different because you're bringing two pieces of knowledge together there to try and actually have that conversation rather than ‘I know this’ and ‘I know this.’” -TB27 (state agency) Here, scientific knowledge was used to invalidate rather than explore alternative perspectives. The hypothetical second response, however, could have created space for mutual learning by acknowledging limitations of both scientific and experiential WoKs. Participants also linked selective use of knowledge to historical tensions around whose knowledge was legitimized. A federal manager noted that repeated dismissal of local observations influenced how landowners engaged with ecological research: “It doesn't matter what research says… and it may be just because they've gotten hammered on all these years. Every time [landowner] said, ‘We've seen them [wildlife] somewhere else," somebody said, ‘You're wrong.’” (TB24, federal management). Such interactions contribute to a pattern in which landowners rely more heavily on personal or place-based knowledge, particularly when they feel their observations have been consistently challenged or discredited. Consequently, some landowners viewed scientific findings as less trustworthy, especially when they do not align with firsthand experience, as described above. Perceptions of WoKs influence attitudes toward collaboration Interviews revealed a strong association between participants’ perceptions of WoKs and broader attitudes toward collaboration. Respondents who valued multiple knowledge systems and were open to cross-group learning often described collaboration positively, seeing it as an opportunity to bridge gaps and co-create solutions. One conservation NGO representative highlighted collaborative potential: “How can we reach out to the people that have a lot to say in all of the silos of categories of people that we're working with to find out how to move forward now?... We have an opportunity, what are the steps to take? What are the barriers and how can we move forward? What are the needs? Forest Service still has to manage prairie dogs, landowners still live on the ground, we still want ferrets. Okay, so let's come up with a game plan and can we organize a group of people to create that game plan.” -TB20 (conservation NGO) This illustrates how bringing stakeholders together prompted individuals to consider how their expertise could advance broader group goals rather than remaining entrenched in individual siloes. Others described a shift among participants in how they approached collaborative discussions. One respondent recalled observing other participants broadening their framing of land management to consider diverse stakeholder interests: “They’ve [producers] become engaged in a productive way that’s not just, how do we maximize production? It is, how do we sustain ecosystems and livelihoods in this region?” (TB13, federal researcher). However, not all participants shared this optimism. Some, particularly those representing scientific or conservation-focused perspectives, expressed dissatisfaction when they perceived their contributions as undervalued and described feelings of exclusion and reduced confidence in the value of participating. One university-affiliated researcher recalled their experience in collaborative meetings as discouraging due to the perceived lack of appreciation for scientific input: “Scientists’ voices should matter regardless and so should like anybody from the public. I don't feel like that's being appreciated or respected or included, and so therefore... I was very disturbed by the meetings” (TB18, university research). Others shared frustrations about exclusion from discussions, particularly around wildlife conservation issues. Some respondents (often holding positions they perceived as outside the dominant consensus) expressed concern that their perspectives were not given equal weight, and that this imbalance undermined the integrity of the process. These individuals also described feelings of weariness, and questioned whether the collaborative process was truly inclusive or capable of addressing the full range of concerns: “We're forbidden from discussing some of these realities… if we dare try to bring it up, we are told that's off the table… We're bullied basically into being quiet, and complying with the other side's desire to talk about how to get rid of the planned protections. Meanwhile, we have an environmental disaster occurring on the landscape, and nobody will even allow us to discuss it.” -TB11 (conservation NGO) At the same time, other participants felt that discussions were often dominated by the most vocal stakeholders, which could crowd out more moderate or conciliatory perspectives, creating an environment in which both “outside” and “middle ground” participants felt sidelined for different reasons. One federal agency representative reflected on this imbalance: “The people that are … really willing to compromise aren't the loudest… Oh, you know, the old expression, ‘The squeaky wheel is the one that gets greased’? And that's kind of how it feels… the ones that are making the most noise are the ones that get addressed, and yet we have a huge, like 98% of the folks that we deal with are [not] outlying groups, and they really aren't so polarized. They're much more, where they can kind of come to the middle and work together. But, we have a few distinct folks on each side that make it very, very, very polarized.” - TB16 (federal management) These accounts illustrate how perceptions of whose knowledge was valued shaped attitudes toward collaboration and whether it led to meaningful outcomes. While some remained hopeful about the potential for inclusive decision-making and shared solutions, others reported adversarial dynamics when they felt particular WoKs were dismissed. These varied experiences reflect the complexity of multi-stakeholder collaborations and provide the basis for further interpretation in the discussion that follows. Discussion We sought to examine how stakeholders in TBER draw on different WoKs in collaborative land management, focusing on how this knowledge diversity shapes management goals, perceptions of credibility, and attitudes toward collaboration. While participants demonstrated the capacity to engage with multiple forms of knowledge, WoKs were often applied in uneven and context-dependent ways. We observed that perceptions of knowledge were closely tied to broader understandings of management priorities and collaborative dynamics. Our findings suggest that interactions between WoKs are shaped by institutional structures, historical relationships, and power dynamics. Ways of knowing: Integration, conflict, and politics Collaborative governance in complex socio-ecological systems is shaped not only by stakeholder diversity but also by the interplay of multiple WoKs. In TBER, the convergence of scientific, experiential, and administrative knowledge gave rise to both tensions and opportunities for mutual learning. Our findings indicate that knowledge is not merely integrated or rejected, but actively co-produced through the situated interactions of stakeholders whose positions, values, and institutional roles shape what counts as credible knowledge. This aligns with scholarship emphasizing knowledge as political and relational, rather than objective or universal (Boshoff 2014; Nightingale 2016; Brugnach 2017). Politics of knowledge integration. Although scientific WoKs are often regarded as the ‘gold standard’ of knowledge in environmental policy contexts due to its perceived objectivity and rigor, our findings suggest that in TBER, this assumption is frequently contested. Producers and other local actors whose experiential knowledge is grounded in generational ties to the land often challenged the authority of scientific claims when they conflicted with lived realities. Rather than viewing scientific knowledge as universally privileged, participants deployed different WoKs strategically, often in alignment with their personal objectives or institutional affiliations. This pattern of use suggests that knowledge use and reception are deeply shaped by positionality and historical relationships. Scientific findings were not always accepted as neutral; instead they were often politicized and interpreted through the lens of stakeholders’ values, goals, and social positioning (Turnhout et al. 2012; Boshoff 2014; Gerlak and Mukhtarov 2015; Morrison et al. 2017; Almazán-Casali et al. 2021). In contrast, we observed moments where knowledge was used pragmatically, rather than ideologically. While some participants appeared primarily concerned with affirming the authority of their own WoK, some were willing to draw selectively on any WoK that supported their goals, whereas others demonstrated openness to using any form of knowledge that might support problem-solving and compromise (Supplementary Fig. C1). The distinction was evident in discussions where entrenched positions led to impasse, and more flexible participants were able to bridge divides in knowledge perspectives and move conversations forward. Rather than acting as formal ‘knowledge brokers,’ these individuals exhibited a practical orientation toward knowledge, treating it as a tool for governance rather than a marker of identity. As described earlier, two federal employees independently offered examples of this integrative approach when describing moments of asking “What’s missing?” when confronted with divergent knowledge claims. In both cases, knowledge was approached as a tool for shared problem-solving rather than a fixed credential or identity claim. In TBER, these types of productive exchanges were made possible in part by the collaborative partnerships built by TBGPEA through the 2000s, as well as the extended period of collaborative learning that preceded the collaborative working group. These early efforts laid the groundwork for conditions conducive to cross-boundary learning and adaptive management, such as building long-standing relationships, iterative engagement, and mutual respect (Tengö et al. 2014; Wyborn et al. 2019). Conflict as a means to transformation. Conflict among WoKs was a common occurrence in TBER, but our results suggest that conflict is not inherently detrimental; instead, it can serve as a site of potential transformation (Aylett 2010; Mancilla García et al. 2019). Participants described instances in which entrenched commitments to a particular WoK, often linked to identity, livelihood, or institution, led to gridlock or fatigue with collaborative processes. At the same time, others used conflict as a catalyst for creative problem-solving and expanded understanding. These findings echo research on conflict as a generative force in governance, capable of surfacing underlying values, exposing blind spots, and prompting innovation (Aylett 2010; Mancilla García et al. 2019). Understanding knowledge as shaped through conflict and interaction, rather than as static or inherently valid, offers important insights for collaborative governance. It points to the need for deliberative spaces that are intentionally structured to surface divergent viewpoints, acknowledge positionality, and support mutual learning. Yet, while participants often expressed appreciation for knowledge diversity in theory, our findings suggest that collaboration in practice was frequently approached as a venue to assert or defend one’s own position. In these cases, knowledge functioned less as a tool for shared inquiry and more as a vehicle for demonstrating expertise or legitimacy. Individuals who approached collaboration with a willingness to learn and work across perspectives were better positioned to facilitate integration, while those focused on validating their own views tended to reproduce knowledge hierarchies. In contexts of uncertainty, embracing humility and complexity was essential to supporting inclusive management (Porensky 2021). These dynamics underscore the importance of not only welcoming diverse WoKs, but cultivating the attitudes and relational conditions that shape meaningful outcomes (Brugnach 2017; Wyborn et al. 2019). Tensions in power and legitimacy Our findings illustrate how power and legitimacy within collaborative governance are shaped by social position, institutional roles, and historical context. In TBER, these dynamics influenced whose knowledge was recognized as credible, and by extension, whose interests were represented in decision-making. Public land managers who were tasked with interpreting and implementing policy often served as pseudo-gatekeepers of knowledge, implicitly determining which forms of information were considered relevant or actionable. Rather than marginalizing local knowledge outright, agency actors often appeared hesitant to rely on scientific findings unless they had first gained the support of influential local stakeholders, particularly producers. One participant captured this tension, reflecting on the challenge of balancing institutional expectations with stakeholder acceptance: “I think that's part of the breakdown, is science needs to inform the debate, but they [producers] don't always buy the science and, for some reason, they need to buy the science in order for the Forest Service to get them to agree... the science is really science, and they also need to respect that.” -TB12 (conservation NGO) Here, the speaker emphasizes that while USFS is a science-based agency expected to ground its decisions in empirical evidence, there appeared to be reluctance to act on scientific findings unless they had first secured producer buy-in. Scientific WoKs were not simply a basis for decision-making but something that needed to be socially validated by influential stakeholders. This perspective highlights the relational nature of knowledge legitimacy: it is not only about evidence or expertise, but also about trust, recognition, and historical engagement. Knowledge and goals shape perceptions of collaborative outcomes Stakeholders’ perceptions of success in collaborative governance were closely tied to their WoKs. In TBER, participants held different visions of what constituted effective land management, informed by epistemological orientations grounded in scientific research, professional mandates, or place-based experience. These divergent WoKs shaped how individuals defined management goals and evaluated the fairness and effectiveness of collaborative proceedings. While some participants viewed success as achieving measurable ecological outcomes or implementing science-based practices, others prioritized the maintenance of cultural traditions, economic viability, or local autonomy. In this context, consensus was less about full agreement on specific actions and more about finding acceptable compromises. As one participant described, “The way everyone wins is by everybody losing a tiny little bit” (TB23), a sentiment that reflects the negotiated nature of success in pluralistic settings. These findings reinforce the idea that collaborative governance cannot be evaluated solely in terms of outputs or formal agreements. Instead, it must be assessed by the extent to which it creates space for multiple perspectives and knowledge systems to be expressed and integrated. In TBER, a region described by one participant as “a lot of country and a lot of people with a lot of different needs” (TB14), the challenge was not only technical, but relational. The ability to navigate competing goals and overlapping values was shaped as much by interpersonal dynamics and mutual recognition as by institutional design. Complicating factors of collaboration Despite its promise for resolving complex environmental conflicts, collaborative governance is not a one-size-fits-all solution. In the context of TBER, our findings show that the effectiveness of collaboration was strongly shaped by how different WoKs were brought into the process and how they were received by others. Merely convening diverse stakeholders did not guarantee productive engagement, but rather the collaboration depended upon the ability of participants to work across different WoKs. However, even with prolonged preparation, the collaborative process remained vulnerable when WoKs were not afforded equal legitimacy. Participants observed a recurring tension in which agency staff appeared to be trying to navigate both scientific and local WoKs before acting on management decisions. This created uncertainty around which knowledge would ultimately guide decisions. In some cases, the lack of clarity about how different WoKs would be weighed led to frustration and reduced trust in the process. In addition, participants pointed to challenges stemming from the transient nature of agency staffing and a reliance on generalized scientific frameworks. These conditions contributed to perceptions that scientific knowledge lacked contextual grounding, while also limiting the institutional memory necessary to support long-term engagement with local knowledge holders. Recent research has emphasized how frequent staff turnover and short-term assignments in federal agencies can hinder the development of locally-embedded expertise and erode trust in collaborative governance processes (Puntenney et al. 2025; Charnley et al. 2025), a challenge that is likely to only be exacerbated by existing conflict. Subsequently, collaborative progress can be constrained by institutional structures and practices that struggle to accommodate plural knowledge systems, as evidenced in TBER. These findings suggest that collaborative governance should be designed not only to include diverse perspectives, but also to engage seriously with the conditions under which knowledge is produced, legitimized, and acted upon. In this context, more deliberate succession planning for collaborative roles and procedures may be necessary to maintain continuity and institutional memory across staffing transitions. Limitations While this case offers important insights into the relational dynamics of collaborative governance, its findings are bound by the unique political and cultural context of TBER. Stakeholders themselves frequently described the region as distinct, and our results may not generalize to other settings with different institutional arrangements or histories. Additionally, our methodology may be limited by selection bias in participant recruitment and by the interpretive lens of the researchers. Future research Future research should pursue longitudinal and comparative studies that examine how trust, knowledge integration, and conflict transformation evolve over time. In particular, more work is needed on how these processes are shaped by place-based attachments and identity (Wilmer et al. 2019b). Understanding how sense of place influences power dynamics in collaboration could clarify why certain knowledge claims gain legitimacy, and how stakeholders perceive fairness, belonging, and influence. Such research will further clarify how structural and sociocultural conditions interact to shape environmental governance outcomes, and inform governance strategies that are more responsive to the cultural and emotional dimensions of contested landscapes. Conclusions This study investigated how diverse ways of knowing (WoKs) shape collaborative natural resource governance in a complex social-ecological system. Through interviews, participant observation, and document analysis, we examined how different WoKs informed stakeholders’ perceptions of management goals, knowledge legitimacy, and successful collaboration in the Thunder Basin ecoregion (TBER). Our findings reveal that knowledge diversity plays a central role in shaping collaborative processes and outcomes. Stakeholders brought scientific, experiential, and administrative forms of knowledge into dialogue, but the degree to which these WoKs were recognized, respected, and integrated varied considerably. Collaborative governance in TBER was not only a matter of assembling diverse participants, but also a process in which power dynamics, historical relationships, and institutional cultures shaped whose knowledge counted, for whom, and under what conditions. These insights extend the collaborative governance literature by moving beyond structural or procedural factors to consider the sociocultural and epistemic dimensions of participation (Turnhout et al. 2012 ; Nightingale 2016 ; Brugnach 2017 ). While existing literature often highlights the value of stakeholder diversity, our research illustrates that mere inclusion is not sufficient. Collaboration is neither neutral nor inherently inclusive, but rather is contextual, political, and contingent upon participants’ willingness to engage across different WoKs. Importantly, we find that effective collaboration requires participants to recognize the role of positionality and identity in shaping their own knowledge and remain willing to consider alternative perspectives, rather than pursuing competitive validation of their own claims. Our emphasis on the relational and interpretive dimensions of knowledge integration contributes to a growing body of scholarship that frames collaborative governance not only as a decision-making framework, but as a site of ongoing meaning-making (Cleaver and Whaley 2018 ; Clark 2021 ; La Grouw et al. 2024 ; Westberg et al. 2024 ). Instead of being passively exchanged, knowledge is actively shaped through interpersonal interactions, institutional roles, and culturally-embedded understandings of place. This perspective illustrates how knowledge diversity shapes the content of collaborative discussions as well as the criteria by which legitimacy, fairness, and success are evaluated. This expanded conceptualization is especially relevant in other contexts characterized by: (1) multiple, potentially conflicting knowledge systems (such as Indigenous, scientific, and local ecological knowledge); (2) diverse stakeholder groups with different relationships to place and resources; and (3) complex social-ecological systems where technical solutions alone are insufficient. For example, marine protected area planning often requires integrating scientific data with fishers’ experiential knowledge and community values; watershed management requires coordination between producers, conservationists, and regulators; and climate adaptation planning increasingly depends upon bridging scientific projections, local observations, and traditional ecological knowledge. In each of these settings, as in TBER, effective governance is contingent upon interpretation, sharing, and negotiation of knowledge in pursuit of collective action. Finally, our findings also carry important implications for practice. Inclusive collaborative processes must go beyond representational diversity to invest in the relational work necessary for meaningful dialogue across WoKs. This includes cultivating long-term trust, structuring opportunities for reflection, and designing facilitation approaches that recognize difference without forcing premature consensus. Practitioners should also be mindful of how organizational norms and institutional procedures shape the perceived legitimacy and usability of different knowledge forms. At the same time, our findings underscore that collaboration also poses emotional and ethical challenges. For many participants, the politics of knowledge felt deeply personal and consequential, leading to disputes that at times appear intractable. Successful collaboration often depended less on resolving fundamental disagreements and more on participants’ willingness to engage with care, acknowledge others’ knowledge in good faith, and set aside the impulse to be ‘right.’ Alongside formal structures and technical solutions, fostering epistemic humility, cultivating shared norms of engagement, and supporting boundary-spanning leadership may be equally essential to effective governance outcomes. Statements and Declarations Acknowledgements Thank you to the TBER community and the Thunder Basin Prairie Grassland Ecosystem Association for welcoming and supporting our research in their community. We also thank Erica Peirce for sharing her cartography skills. Funding This work was supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Predoctoral Fellowship, project award no. 2023-67011-40387, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Ethics Declarations Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests. Ethics approval This study was conducted under Boise State University IRB protocol #10877. Consent to participate Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Data Availability Per the requirements of our human subjects research protocol (evaluated at Boise State University), raw data are not available to the public but de-identified, summarized data are available upon request to the corresponding author. References Ahmed SK (2024) The pillars of trustworthiness in qualitative research. J Med Surg Public Health 2:100051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100051 Allen LS (2006) Collaboration in the Borderlands: The Malpai Borderlands Group. Rangelands 28(3) Almazán-Casali S, Puga BP, Lemos MC (2021) Who Governs at What Price? Technocratic Dominance, Ways of Knowing, and Long-Term Resilience of Brazil’s Water System. Front Water 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2021.735018 Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. J Public Adm Res and Theory 18(4):543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032 Armitage D (2005) Adaptive Capacity and Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Environ Manag 35(6):703–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0076-z Armitage D, Berkes F, Dale A, Kocho-Schellenberg E, Patton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Glob Environ Change 21(3):995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006 Aylett A (2010) Conflict, Collaboration and Climate Change: Participatory Democracy and Urban Environmental Struggles in Durban, South Africa. Int J Urb Reg Res 34(3):478–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00964.x Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manag 90(5):1692–1702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001 Bodin Ö (2017) Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357(6352):eaan1114. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114 Boshoff N (2014) Types of knowledge in science-based practices. J Sci Commun 13:A06. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13030206 Brisbois MC, de Loë RC (2016) State roles and motivations in collaborative approaches to water governance: A power theory-based analysis. Geoforum 74:202–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.06.012 Brugnach M (2017) The Space in Between: Where Multiple Ways of Knowing in Water Management Meet. J Southwest 59(1/2):34–59 Brugnach M, Ingram H (2012) Ambiguity: the challenge of knowing and deciding together. Environ Sci Pol 15(1):60–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.10.005 Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100(14):8086–8091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100 Charmaz K (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. SAGE Charnley S, Stanley PL, Kaminski AR (2025) Managing for Flexibility on U.S. Forest Service Grazing Allotments. Rangel Ecol Manag 101:64–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2025.03.011 Clark JK (2021) Public Values and Public Participation: A Case of Collaborative Governance of a Planning Process. Am Rev Public Adm 51(3):199–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020956397 Cleaver F, Whaley L (2018) Understanding process, power, and meaning in adaptive governance: a critical institutional reading. Ecol Soc 23(2):art49. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10212-230249 Clement J, Glendenning S (2015) Thunder Basin National Grassland: Situation assessment and process recommendations. Connell LC, Porensky LM, Chalfoun AD, Scasta JD (2019a) Black-tailed prairie dog, Cynomys ludovicianus (Sciuridae), metapopulation response to novel sourced conspecific signals. Anim Behav 150:189–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.02.004 Connell LC, Porensky LM, Scasta JD (2019b) Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) Influence on Forage Quantity and Quality in a Grazed Grassland-Shrubland Ecotone. Rangel Ecol Manag 72(2):360–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2018.10.004 Davidson AD, Augustine DJ, Jacobsen H, Pellatz D, Porensky LM, McKee G, Duchardt C (2022) Boom and bust cycles of black-tailed prairie dog populations in the Thunder Basin grassland ecosystem. J Mammal 103(5):1112–1126. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyac035 Duchardt CJ, Augustine DJ, Beck JL (2019) Threshold responses of grassland and sagebrush birds to patterns of disturbance created by an ecosystem engineer. Landscape Ecol 34(4):895–909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00813-y Duchardt CJ, Augustine DJ, Porensky LM, Beck JL, Hennig JD, Pellatz DW, Scasta JD, Connell LC, Davidson AD (2023) Disease and weather induce rapid shifts in a rangeland ecosystem mediated by a keystone species (Cynomys ludovicianus). Ecol Appl 33(1):e2712. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2712 Duchardt CJ, Porensky LM, Augustine DJ, Beck JL (2018) Disturbance shapes avian communities on a grassland–sagebrush ecotone. Ecosphere 9(10):e02483. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2483 Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S (2012) An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. J Public Adm Res and Theory 22(1):1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011 Endter-Wada J, Selfa T, Welsh LW (2009) Hydrologic Interdependencies and Human Cooperation: The Process of Adapting to Droughts. Weather Clim Soc 1(1):54-70. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009WCAS1009.1 Feldman MS, Khademian AM, Ingram H, Schneider AS (2006) Ways of Knowing and Inclusive Management Practices. Public Adm Rev 66(s1):89–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00669.x Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive Governance Of Social-Ecological Systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30(1):441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 Gerlak AK, Mukhtarov F (2015) ‘Ways of knowing’ water: integrated water resources management and water security as complementary discourses. Int Environ Agreements 15(3):257–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-015-9278-5 Glaser B, Strauss A (2017) Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Routledge, New York Guerrero A, Bodin Ö, McAllister R, Wilson K (2015) Achieving social-ecological fit through bottom-up collaborative governance: an empirical investigation. Ecol Soc 20(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08035-200441 Hill R, Adem Ç, Alangui WV, Molnár Z, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bridgewater P, Tengö M, Thaman R, Adou Yao CY, Berkes F, Carino J, Carneiro da Cunha M, Diaw MC, Díaz S, Figueroa VE, Fisher J, Hardison P, Ichikawa K, Kariuki P, Karki M, Lyver PO, Malmer P, Masardule O, Oteng Yeboah AA, Pacheco D, Pataridze T, Perez E, Roué M-M, Roba H, Rubis J, Saito O, Xue D (2020) Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature’s linkages with people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 43:8–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006 Innes JE, Booher DE (2003) The Impact of Collaborative Planning on Governance Capacity. Keiter RB, McKinney M (2019) Public Land and Resources Law in the American West. Environ Law 49(1):1-72. Koontz TM, Gupta D, Mudliar P, Ranjan P (2015) Adaptive institutions in social-ecological systems governance: A synthesis framework. Environ Sci Pol 53:139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.003 La Grouw Y, van der Woerd O, Visser EL, Blijleven W (2024) Mundane dynamics: Understanding collaborative governance approaches to ‘big’ problems through studying ‘small’ practices. Public Policy Adm :09520767241244981. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767241244981 Lincoln YS, Guba EE (1986) Research, Evaluation, and Policy Analysis: Heuristics for Disciplined Inquiry. Rev Policy Res 5(3):546–565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00429.x Mancilla García M, Hileman J, Bodin Ö (2019) Collaboration and conflict in complex water governance systems across a development gradient: addressing common challenges and solutions. Ecol Soc 24(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11133-240328 Meijerink S (2005) Understanding policy stability and change. the interplay of advocacy coalitions and epistemic communities, windows of opportunity, and Dutch coastal flooding policy 1945–20031. J Euro Public Policy 12(6):1060–1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500270745 Morrison TH, Adger WN, Brown K, Lemos MC, Huitema D, Hughes TP (2017) Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: sources of power in the pursuit of collective goals. WIREs Clim Change 8(5):e479. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.479 Morrison TH, Adger WN, Brown K, Lemos MC, Huitema D, Phelps J, Evans L, Cohen P, Song AM, Turner R, Quinn T, Hughes TP (2019) The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Glob Environ Change 57:101934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101934 Morse JM (2008) Confusing Categories and Themes. Qual Health Res 18(6):727–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308314930 Nightingale AJ (2016) Adaptive scholarship and situated knowledges? Hybrid methodologies and plural epistemologies in climate change adaptation research. Area 48(1):41–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12195 Patterson ME, Montag JM, Williams DR (2003) The urbanization of wildlife management: Social science, conflict, and decision making. Urban For & Urban Green 1(3):171–183. https://doi.org/10.1078/1618-8667-00017 Porensky LM (2021) Embracing complexity and humility in rangeland science. Rangelands 43(4):142–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rala.2021.03.007 Porensky LM, Derner JD, Pellatz DW (2018) Plant community responses to historical wildfire in a shrubland–grassland ecotone reveal hybrid disturbance response. Ecosphere 9(8):e02363. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2363 Puntenney CP, Hulet A, Hopping KA (2025) Ranchers’ and Federal Land Managers’ Mental Models of Rangeland Management Across an Environmental Gradient. Rangel Ecol & Manag 98:94–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2024.08.025 Reed MS, Vella S, Challies E, de Vente J, Frewer L, Hohenwallner-Ries D, Huber T, Neumann RK, Oughton EA, Sidoli del Ceno J, van Delden H (2018) A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work?: A theory of participation. Restor Ecol 26:S7–S17. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541 Reid WV, Berkes F, Wilbanks TJ, Capistrano D (2006) Bridging scales and knowledge systems: concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment Robbins P (2006) The politics of barstool biology: Environmental knowledge and power in greater Northern Yellowstone. Geoforum 37(2):185–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.11.011 Schneider A, Ingram H (2007) Ways of knowing: Implications for public policy. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Schwandt TA (2000) Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publishing, pp 189–213 Tengö M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M (2014) Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach. Ambio 43(5):579–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3 Tracy SJ (2024) Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact. John Wiley & Sons Turnhout E, Bloomfield B, Hulme M, Vogel J, Wynne B (2012) Conservation policy: Listen to the voices of experience. Nature 488(7412):454–455. https://doi.org/10.1038/488454a Urgenson LS, Ryan CM, Halpern CB, Bakker JD, Belote RT, Franklin JF, Haugo RD, Nelson CR, Waltz AEM (2017) Visions of Restoration in Fire-Adapted Forest Landscapes: Lessons from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Environ Manag 59(2):338–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0791-2 USFS (2015) Situation assessment underway for prairie dog management [Press release]. USFS (2020) Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment. van Tol Smit E, de Loë R, Plummer R (2015) How knowledge is used in collaborative environmental governance: water classification in New Brunswick, Canada. J Environ Plann Manag 58(3):423–444. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.860017 Welsh M (2014) Resilience and responsibility: governing uncertainty in a complex world. Geographical J 180(1):15–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12012 Westberg L, Bergeå H, Hallgren L (2024) Meaning-making in the practice of collaboration: how implicit normative structures guide collaborative processes around contested natural resource issues. J Environ Plann and Manag 67(9):2035–2054. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2024.2326121 White C (2003) The Quivira Coalition and the New Ranch: A view from "out of the box". Rangelands 25(6):55-57. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_rangelands_v25i6_white Wilmer H, Derner JD, Fernández-Giménez ME, Briske DD, Augustine DJ, Porensky LM (2018) Collaborative Adaptive Rangeland Management Fosters Management-Science Partnerships. Rangel Ecol Manag 71(5):646–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2017.07.008 Wilmer H, Fernández-Giménez ME (2015) Rethinking rancher decision-making: a grounded theory of ranching approaches to drought and succession management. Rangel J 37(5):517–528. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ15017 Wilmer H, Hillis V, Porensky LM (2019a) Ranching and conservation in the time of plague: How prairie dogs reveal the social-ecological worlds of the Thunder Basin Ecoregion. Poster presented at: Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Richmond, VA. Wilmer H, Porensky LM, Fernández-Giménez ME, Derner JD, Augustine DJ, Ritten JP, Peck DP (2019b) Community-Engaged Research Builds a Nature-Culture of Hope on North American Great Plains Rangelands. Soc Sci 8(1):22. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8010022 Wilmer H, Wilbur R, Scasta JD, Levy MC, Hillis V, Newman G, Pellatz DW, Porensky LM (2025) When working together goes against common sense: A framework to bridge conservation and agricultural perspectives in participatory working lands research. Ecol Soc 30(2):21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-16092-300221 Wondolleck J, Yaffee S (2000) Making Collaboration Work: Lessons From Innovation In Natural Resource Management. Island Press. World Medical Association (2013) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. J Am Med Assoc 310(20):2191–2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053 Wyborn C, Datta A, Montana J, Ryan M, Leith P, Chaffin B, Miller C, van Kerkhoff L (2019) Co-Producing Sustainability: Reordering the Governance of Science, Policy, and Practice. Annu Rev Environ Resour 44:3.1-3.28. Additional Declarations Competing interest reported. Molly C. Levy reports financial support was provided by U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Supplementary Files LevySupplementaryMaterialEM.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 15 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 15 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 08 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 03 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 01 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 30 Sep, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 29 Sep, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 07 Sep, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 18 Aug, 2025 First submitted to journal 18 Aug, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7403297","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":526304775,"identity":"502e6857-e36c-4979-af7b-1f99e1b7b078","order_by":0,"name":"Molly C. Levy","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Boise State University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Molly","middleName":"C.","lastName":"Levy","suffix":""},{"id":526304776,"identity":"0d9e5d45-1968-4cf8-9553-209f67d1bfe7","order_by":1,"name":"Vicken Hillis","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Boise State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Vicken","middleName":"","lastName":"Hillis","suffix":""},{"id":526304777,"identity":"a2315895-aabd-40c7-85c4-03f8cfcf6fd5","order_by":2,"name":"Hailey Wilmer","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"USDA-Agricultural Research Service","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hailey","middleName":"","lastName":"Wilmer","suffix":""},{"id":526304778,"identity":"68e900c8-d540-48f6-a4b2-dda994230da2","order_by":3,"name":"Lauren M. Porensky","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"USDA-Agricultural Research Service","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lauren","middleName":"M.","lastName":"Porensky","suffix":""},{"id":526304779,"identity":"0e559ef3-2232-4997-9b14-6b96fc5eff71","order_by":4,"name":"Dave Pellatz","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Thunder Basin Grassland Prairie Ecosystem Association","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dave","middleName":"","lastName":"Pellatz","suffix":""},{"id":526304780,"identity":"3e55722d-5997-4a21-9273-1c9f48264e6b","order_by":5,"name":"Rebecca Som Castellano","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Boise State University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Rebecca","middleName":"Som","lastName":"Castellano","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-19 00:53:16","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7403297/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7403297/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":93396677,"identity":"f5791828-c045-4dea-9d59-5f7867771be9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:43:28","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1305659,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"LevymanuscriptEM.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7403297/v1/96e59a6321717bc961edbe98.docx"},{"id":93395786,"identity":"f24fd501-fb8d-4424-b27f-196f96d9eade","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:35:28","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":8242,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"16bda17c6865452a8a9f3ade4d8c1d04.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7403297/v1/ebd8d8a9d8745f19c1c258d5.json"},{"id":93395275,"identity":"9b6d0506-9356-4b33-ade5-bf9ef7c75708","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:27:28","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":359838,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"LevySupplementaryMaterialEM.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7403297/v1/deaeb374b62f8c55229be0f0.docx"},{"id":93395791,"identity":"a2b987fc-d51f-4339-972a-39157578bca1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:35:28","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":185963,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"16bda17c6865452a8a9f3ade4d8c1d041enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7403297/v1/f7b1b249b4517b4251a32d4f.xml"},{"id":93395278,"identity":"b3fc69f3-0161-4ea3-83b3-7cbc1f6869db","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:27:28","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":945412,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7403297/v1/9c9625263713cbe5886c3cc6.png"},{"id":93396680,"identity":"f65e391e-eb1b-4650-93dd-91d373c5857b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:43:28","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":228516,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7403297/v1/00c5acf62e2b8bf16baec07b.png"},{"id":93396679,"identity":"b578ae90-6026-4075-b35a-5c34c4df4c42","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:43:28","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":139778,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7403297/v1/47bbfbfcfca2fce39dde3a27.png"},{"id":93395788,"identity":"86c891ec-d6a5-497d-a9ab-a796801a66fb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:35:28","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":32990,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7403297/v1/0f0eb4d1b9c87873d231e27e.png"},{"id":93395279,"identity":"df10d68c-6ff7-4375-9b61-9751207b256e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:27:28","extension":"xml","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":183371,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"16bda17c6865452a8a9f3ade4d8c1d041structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7403297/v1/7c475cff981666c9c697aa1f.xml"},{"id":93395282,"identity":"4ca969ea-bfd6-41b5-92b5-fc7f5f3293c2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:27:28","extension":"html","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":193599,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7403297/v1/5b1e422ef05f7984ed0ac96e.html"},{"id":93395269,"identity":"5a740ab4-79f0-4b39-adf8-7aa099018c3d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:27:28","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":231587,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThunder Basin Ecoregion in Wyoming, USA, is a dynamic social-ecological system influenced by intersecting ecological and socio-political factors. Maps by Erika Peirce; reproduced with permission (Wilmer, H.N., R. Wilbur, J.D. Scasta, M.C. Levy, V. Hillis, G. Newman, D.W. Pellatz, and L.M. Porensky. 2025. Against common sense: Conducting participatory working land research requires heightened contextual awareness. \u003cem\u003eEcology and Society\u003c/em\u003e 30(2): 21)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7403297/v1/ec2fba3600b4101bc3b21e9b.png"},{"id":93396678,"identity":"7ce2af69-2cf4-4c6f-b262-d862b2da1941","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:43:28","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":198249,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eApproximate positioning of stakeholder groups along three overlapping ways of knowing (WoKs): local, scientific, and administrative. Positions represent tendencies rather than fixed categories: there is significant variation within stakeholder groups, and individual participants often draw on multiple WoKs depending on context.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7403297/v1/57f920a148e13cc95ff9034a.png"},{"id":93396939,"identity":"aef97971-ccf5-459c-b8c4-4d2951ca8468","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:51:28","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1525379,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7403297/v1/f6d764c8-535c-47ac-bfc2-2a267a18047d.pdf"},{"id":93395273,"identity":"3af513c1-1895-4963-a67c-3ec3cb1e6899","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-13 11:27:28","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":359838,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"LevySupplementaryMaterialEM.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7403297/v1/239c492725eb9ddd4ccf3b98.docx"}],"financialInterests":"Competing interest reported. Molly C. Levy reports financial support was provided by U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Institute of Food and Agriculture.","formattedTitle":"Contesting and integrating multiple ways of knowing in collaborative natural resource governance","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eManagement of public lands in the American West is complex and often contentious due to competing interests, ecological concerns, and historical legacies (Keiter and McKinney 2019). A range of factors, including competing land uses, legal and regulatory complexity, environmental and economic pressures, and sources of knowledge have the potential to contribute toward overlapping and sometimes contradictory management objectives. Subsequently, decision-making processes related to environmental governance frequently become sites of \u0026nbsp;social, legal, or even physical conflict where divergent interests, values, and knowledge systems collide (Reid et al. 2006; Armitage et al. 2011; Tengö et al. 2014).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCollaborative governance is often posited as an effective way to approach management conflicts due to its potential to integrate diverse ways of knowing into decision-making processes. Recognizing and incorporating multiple forms of knowledge, such as scientific, professional, and local, is increasingly seen as essential for informed and adaptive governance (Cash et al. 2003; Berkes 2009). However, while collaborative governance is meant to be an inclusive and deliberative process, frictions may result between different epistemological traditions. For instance, scientific expertise, bureaucratic knowledge, and place-based, experiential understandings may come into conflict, revealing challenges for effective knowledge integration (Wyborn et al. 2019; Hill et al. 2020). These tensions are exacerbated by power imbalances, competing values, and institutional constraints that shape the extent to which diverse knowledge is acknowledged and utilized (Wyborn et al. 2019; Hill et al. 2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMuch of the existing literature on collaborative governance examines the conditions that contribute to either the success or failure of collaboration, focusing on structural and procedural factors such as stakeholder participation, institutional support, and trust-building (Ansell and Gash 2008; Emerson et al. 2012; Koontz et al. 2015). However, less attention has been paid to the sociocultural dimensions that shape how collaboration unfolds in practice. Sociocultural, political, and institutional contexts can play a critical role in shaping how stakeholders engage with one another, interpret information, and navigate conflict. In particular, disparities in how different stakeholders produce, access, and legitimize knowledge can significantly influence governance processes and outcomes (Nightingale 2016; Brugnach 2017). Exploring these dynamics offers an important lens for evaluating whether collaborative governance not only produces effective environmental solutions, but also the degree to which it fosters meaningful and equitable participation across diverse knowledge systems.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research investigates the role of diverse ways of knowing in collaborative natural resource governance through a case study of a multi-stakeholder working group convened to inform public rangeland management and planning (on a US Forest Service National Grassland in Wyoming, USA) in the context of environmental disturbance. Using participant observation, focus groups, and semi-structured interviews, we observe that participants drew from a range of knowledge sources, including scientific expertise, lived experience, professional practice, and place-based knowledge, to inform their views on land management. We observed that these diverse ways of knowing often aligned with different management priorities and visions for the landscape. We specifically examined how participants perceived, engaged with, and responded to different ways of knowing during the collaborative process.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBy analyzing their reflections and interactions, we seek to address how diverse ways of knowing can shape collaborative governance, particularly in terms of how knowledge is perceived, valued, and integrated in defining goals and evaluating success. Through this investigation, we contribute to ongoing discussions about how diverse forms of knowledge influence collaborative decision-making in natural resource governance (Berkes 2009; Armitage et al. 2011; Reed et al. 2018). In particular, we highlight how knowledge is valued, negotiated, and integrated within multi-stakeholder collaborations.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec2\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eNavigating knowledge diversity in collaborative governance\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCollaborative governance has become a widely adopted approach for addressing complex environmental challenges, particularly in contexts where diverse stakeholders must navigate competing knowledge, interests, and relationships regarding shared resources (van Tol Smit et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In the American West, collaboration is especially common in public lands management, where a history of conflict over land use, identity, and access has created a need for more inclusive and durable decision-making processes such as those offered by place-based collaboratives (e.g., Malpai Borderlands Group [Allen \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e], Quivira Coalition [White \u003cspan citationid=\"CR63\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e], Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program [Urgenson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e]. Defined by its emphasis on participatory and non-hierarchical decision-making, collaborative governance aims to foster legitimacy, trust, and social learning among governmental, non-governmental, and community actors (Ansell and Gash \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Emerson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; van Tol Smit et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). The growing adoption of collaborative governance in recent decades has been driven in part by declining trust in top-down management approaches, the increasing complexity of socio-ecological problems, and policy mandates that encourage stakeholder participation and decentralized decision-making (Wondolleck and Yaffee \u003cspan citationid=\"CR69\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e; Emerson et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Koontz et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCollaborative governance is not a single model, but can take multiple forms in relation to institutional arrangements, histories of conflict, and the particular actors involved. It can range from loosely-structured partnerships to co-management institutions with formal decision-making authority. Regardless of its structure, these processes aim to produce context-sensitive solutions that enhance compliance, improve ecological resilience, and mitigate long-standing conflicts (Folke et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Berkes \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). However, the success of collaborative governance is contingent upon more than assembling diverse stakeholders, but rather requires negotiating underlying differences in how those stakeholders understand and value environmental problems and potential solutions (Innes and Booher \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e; Brugnach and Ingram \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn increasingly recognized challenge in navigating these differences stems from differences in ways of knowing (WoKs). WoKs broadly refer to the various methods through which individuals and groups generate, validate, and apply knowledge in order to interpret and engage with the world. These include scientific and technical knowledge, local and experiential knowledge, and professional and managerial knowledge systems (Schneider and Ingram \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Endter-Wada et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). In collaborative governance, WoKs are not just information, but rather are relational and political, shaped by place, identity, values, social position, institutional role, and histories of conflict or collaboration (Gerlak and Mukhtarov \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Brugnach \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e; Almazán-Casali et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These knowledge systems shape how stakeholders frame problems, define priorities, and envision solutions (Feldman et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Welsh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). For example, a rancher may draw on experiential knowledge tied to seasonal land use, while an agency scientist may rely on monitoring data or models, each informing different goals and interpretations of success. As such, WoKs play a crucial role in shaping both the processes and outcomes of collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePlural ways of knowing and challenges in collaboration\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough collaborative governance is intended to create an inclusive decision-making process, the integration of multiple WoKs is often shaped by existing power dynamics and institutional norms. Scientific and technical knowledge, which are often perceived as objective and generalizable, tend to be privileged over local or experiential knowledge, which may be dismissed as anecdotal or subjective (Turnhout et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Reed et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Morrison et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). This creates hierarchical structures within collaborative processes, which influence the degree to which WoKs are legitimized or marginalized. As a result, the process of integrating knowledge is not only technical but also political, as it reflects broader struggles over whose perspectives count in environmental decision-making (Gerlak and Mukhtarov \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Almazán-Casali et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile integrating these different forms of knowledge can improve adaptive capacity and enhance governance legitimacy (Armitage \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Tengö et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e), doing so also introduces tensions around authority, participation, and equity. When one WoK is elevated above others, certain goals and success metrics may be privileged, while others are overlooked or discounted. Subsequently, attempts to integrate WoKs requires careful consideration of the tensions that underlie the differences in understanding.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn conflicts related to natural resource management, differences in WoKs are commonly enmeshed in highly complex relationships, often involving power asymmetries (e.g. disparity of power between the resource manager and resource user), issues of identity (e.g. being a rancher vs. a federal employee), access or control over resources or information (e.g. allocation and distribution of permitted land uses), and know-how and expertise (e.g. knowledge about local practices vs. scientific method) (Schneider and Ingram \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Brugnach \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). These complexities then impact whose voices and perspectives are legitimized in decision-making (Meijerink \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Schneider and Ingram \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Brisbois and de Loë \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Morrison et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Almazán-Casali et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This understanding calls for greater attention not only to the presence of different WoKs within collaboration, but also to how stakeholders perceive, engage with, and use that knowledge in shaping collective goals and defining what success looks like. Based on this review of the literature, we ask the following questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat types and sources of knowledge are present in the collaborative, and how do they inform different management goals?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow do stakeholders perceive and engage with different ways of knowing in the context of collaboration?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow do these perspectives on knowledge shape participants’ understandings of success in collaborative governance?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\n\n\n\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003ch2\u003eThunder Basin Ecoregion Case Study\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eStudy Area and Background\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis case study examines the Thunder Basin ecoregion (TBER), a 7,000 km\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e region located in northeastern Wyoming, USA (Figure 1). TBER sits within a rangeland ecotone, or boundary zone, located between the Great Plains to the east and sagebrush steppe to the west (Porensky et al. 2018). The system supports numerous grassland and sagebrush species of conservation concern (Duchardt et al. 2018; Duchardt et al. 2019; Davidson et al. 2022), including black-tailed prairie dogs (\u003cem\u003eCynomys ludovicianus\u003c/em\u003e; hereafter: prairie dogs), mountain plovers (\u003cem\u003eCharadrius montanus\u003c/em\u003e), and greater sage-grouse (\u003cem\u003eCentrocercus urophasianus\u003c/em\u003e). Over the past two decades in TBER, prairie dog conservation efforts have also become a management priority for numerous conservation advocacy groups (Wilmer et al. 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTBER also encompasses the Thunder Basin National Grassland, which is managed by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for multiple uses, including ranching, energy extraction, and wildlife conservation. These uses occur across a highly interspersed mixture of private and public lands, creating multiple intersecting land ownership and management interests. Ranching is central to the culture and economy of the region, with stocking rates and grazing seasons varying across allotments based on local conditions and management objectives. Management of federal and state lands permits grazing activities, and the overseeing agencies manage rangeland resources in collaboration with local grazing associations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn recent history, conflict over management decisions in TBER has arisen as a result of extreme fluctuations, or \u0026ldquo;boom-bust cycles\u0026rdquo;, in prairie dog populations, which exacerbate differences between ranching and conservation goals (Wilmer et al. 2019a; Connell et al. 2019b; Connell et al. 2019a; Duchardt et al. 2019). Specifically, populations of prairie dogs in TBER increased by 234% between 2012-2016, with the prairie dog complex exceeding 75,000 acres in size by 2017 (Davidson et al. 2022). However, from 2017-2018, a sylvatic plague event reduced prairie dog colony acreage by 99% (Davidson et al. 2022; Duchardt et al. 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe resultant ecological and social upheaval highlighted differences in attitudes regarding prairie dog management. Specifically, black-tailed prairie dogs are classified as an agricultural pest by the state of Wyoming, and ranchers perceive prairie dogs as a major threat to the sustainability of ranching in TBER. Conversely, prairie dogs are a keystone species and provide important habitat for other native species (Duchardt et al. 2018; Duchardt et al. 2019), and are classified as a species of special concern by USFS. The resulting divergence in management goals created friction between different stakeholder groups, decreased trust among stakeholders, and occupied the resources of management agencies attempting to navigate these conflicting concerns (Wilmer et al. 2019a). Amidst the dramatic ecological shifts and discontent with existing management options, the conflict expanded beyond prairie dog management and came to represent a conflict over larger socio-political concepts such as equity, tradition, private property rights, government control, power, and acceptable forms of knowledge (Patterson et al. 2003).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;In an attempt to respond to this conflict, a collaborative multi-stakeholder group known as the \u0026ldquo;TB working group\u0026rdquo; was formed to provide input to USFS in the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to amend the Thunder Basin National Grassland Management Plan. However, in complex systems such as TBER, collaboration remains difficult due to the number of involved stakeholders and their diverse WoKs (Guerrero et al. 2015; Bodin 2017), as detailed in the following section.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThunder Basin Collaborative Working Group Efforts\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrairie dog management in TBER has been the focus of collaborative discussions for over 25 years, and spurred the creation of a local non-profit, the Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association (TBGPEA), in 1999. In 2015, USFS approached the Ruckelshaus Institute at the University of Wyoming to assess stakeholder perspectives regarding prairie dog issues (USFS 2015). The assessment identified potential for a collaborative process to address management issues (Clement and Glendenning 2015), leading to a series of public collaborative learning workshops in 2016-2016 that informed subsequent working groups.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most recent effort, the TB working group, was convened in 2018 by the Wyoming Department of Agriculture and later the Wyoming County Commissioners Association to advise USFS on a Grassland Plan amendment revising prairie dog management approaches. The amendment\u0026rsquo;s scope was to balance prairie dog conservation and control with other grassland uses, in response to dramatic 2016-2018 population fluctuations that alarmed multiple stakeholders. Participants in the working group included representatives from federal management and research agencies, state and local agencies, non-profit organizations related to conservation and/or agriculture, academic and private researchers, and members from the local community including livestock producers. In 2018, the group submitted their major set of recommendations to USFS and continued meeting through 2020.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUSFS released the \u003cem\u003eThunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment\u003c/em\u003e at the end of 2020 (USFS 2020). The amendment was subsequently challenged in the courts by environmental conservation groups who did not participate in the working group, and in 2024 the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to USFS to address deficiencies in its analysis (\u003cem\u003eWestern Watersheds Project, et al. v. Vilsack, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eNo. 23-8081, 10th Cir. Oct. 28, 2024; see D. Wyo. No. 1:22-CV-00214-SWS). The working group continues to meet, coordinate on-the-ground prairie dog monitoring, and provide management recommendations to the USFS.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA comprehensive timeline of events relevant to this collaborative process is provided in (Wilmer et al. 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eRecruitment and Data Collection\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData was collected between 2018 and 2021, and was initiated at the invitation of the Thunder Basin Grasslands Prairie Ecosystem Association (TBGPEA), a local landowner-led nonprofit focused on supporting science-based management that supports both ecosystems and agricultural productivity.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe worked with TBGPEA to identify and contact individuals that have been involved in management and/or decision-making processes in TBER. We initially used purposive sampling to recruit participants with a range of different backgrounds and areas of expertise (e.g., rancher, conservationist, scientist, agency official, etc.), in order to capture the diverse WoKs utilized in management within TBER. To ensure that a range of WoKs were represented in the study, we asked each participant if there were other relevant individuals we should reach out to. We continued interviewing new subjects through our referral process until we reached data saturation, or the point where no new information emerged with additional data collection (Lincoln and Guba 1986; Morse 2008; Wilmer and Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Gim\u0026eacute;nez 2015).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with 43 stakeholders\u003csup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[1]\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e (Table 1), 36 of which occurred in-person and 4 of which were conducted remotely over the phone during the COVID-19 pandemic. Roughly 20% of interviewees were producers, 50% represented state, federal, or local governmental agencies, and the final 30% represented NGOs, universities, or the private sector. One co-author participated in the study as an interviewee; consistent with ethical guidelines (World Medical Association 2013), they contributed to study design but did not analyze or interpret their own data. Interviews ranged from 37 minutes to 3 hours and took place at a location of the participants\u0026rsquo; choosing. Interviews with producers often included conversations with multiple family members involved in the operation as well as a ranch tour. Our interview guides inquired about management practices within TBER, relationships to TBER, sources of conflict, and how information is shared among stakeholders. A separate interview guide was utilized for ranchers and non-ranchers in order to address different areas of expertise. A more comprehensive summary of the interview guides is available in Supplementary Material A (Table A1), and full interview guides are available upon request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to the interviews, the research team also conducted a focus group with TBGPEA board members in Fall 2019 to capture collective insights and group dynamics. Members of the TBGPEA board included ranchers, an environmental scientist affiliated with private industry, and the owner of a natural resource-based consulting firm. In 2021, the lead author engaged in participant observation with ranchers, USFS staff, and conservation NGO representatives to contextualize interview findings and observe interactions directly. Additionally, members of the research team either participated in or observed over 100 hours of collaborative working group meetings from 2019 to 2025. Finally, we reviewed relevant documents generated during the EIS development period, including scoping documents, public comments and responses, draft statements, amendments, and final records of decision.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSpecific locations, names of individuals, and other identifying information have been omitted from the study. This study was conducted under Boise State University IRB protocol #10877.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u003c/strong\u003e Summary table of participant type. These categories are used for communication purposes only and do not imply fixed boundaries as some individuals may cross categories and important variation exists within a participant type.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"left\" width=\"840\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipant type\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003esub-type\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003en (%)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 408px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDescription\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProducer\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCow-calf and/or sheep operator\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9 (21)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 408px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndividuals who self-identify as a working rancher and rely primarily on a livestock operation for their livelihood\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFederal governments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eManagement, research\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11 (26)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 408px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFederal entities tasked with managing, conserving, regulating, or researching natural resources under federal policy and authority\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eState governments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eManagement\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5 (12)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 408px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eState-level entities responsible for the management, regulation, conservation, and monitoring of natural resources within state boundaries\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCounty and local governments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eManagement\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 408px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLocal government bodies at the county, municipal, or community level responsible for planning, managing, regulating, and monitoring local natural resources and related land-use decisions\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNGO\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAgriculture, conservation, interdisciplinary\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6 (14)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 408px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndependent entities focused primarily on environmental, social, or policy issues related to natural resource management\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUniversity research\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEcosystem science, rangeland ecology\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 408px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIndividuals employed primarily by academic institutions, whose primary livelihood is derived from conducting original research, teaching, and disseminating knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePrivate scientist / consultant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIndustry, consultant\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4 (9)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 408px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProfessionals employed by private firms, consulting businesses, or operating independently, whose primary livelihood comes from providing expertise or technical support to clientele\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 186px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTotal\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 168px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 78px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43 (100)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 408px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe audio-recorded and transcribed all interviews to text. The lead author validated transcriptions for accuracy by comparing all transcripts against audio recordings and imported into qualitative data analysis software (NVivo), and documented analysis with a series of memos throughout the study (Tracy 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo interpret stakeholder WoKs in relation to collaborative decision-making, the lead author engaged in an iterative examination of the WoK literature, collaborative governance literature, and our qualitative data. The lead author undertook multiple rounds of coding using an inductive-deductive approach, which allowed both for themes to emerge from the dataset, as well as in relation to the theoretical framework informed by our literature review on knowledge and collaboration (Charmaz 2006; Glaser and Strauss 2017).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring preliminary initial coding, the lead author used an inductive approach to discover themes that arose from the data. Initial codes corresponded with the broad analytical questions used in the interview instrument: What do different actors make decisions about? What are the important sources of information for different actors, and how is information shared within and across groups? What are the successes and challenges of cross-group collaboration? What is driving conflict in TBER, and how is it being addressed? The results of initial coding were synthesized in a research memo and shared with members of the research team.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe lead author iteratively refined codes and developed a codebook that consisted of code name, description, and examples (Tracy 2024). Subsequent rounds of coding focused on developing hierarchical codes by examining the transcripts line-by-line and labeling codes related to types and sources of knowledge of participants, management goals, perceptions and engagement with different WoKs during the collaborative process, and how these perspectives shaped participants\u0026rsquo; understandings of success in a collaborative environment. Findings were also compared to relevant literature and triangulated themes from our focus group, participant observation, and document review.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo establish the trustworthiness of our qualitative findings, we applied the four criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability (Lincoln and Guba 1986; Ahmed 2024). Credibility was strengthened through prolonged engagement in the field (\u0026gt;100 h of meeting observation), triangulation of multiple data sources (interviews, focus group, participant observation, document review), and presentation of preliminary findings to participants and other stakeholders. Transferability was supported by providing thick description of the collaborative context and extended quotations in Supplementary Material B. Dependability was addressed by following a consistent interview protocol, recruiting a representative sample across stakeholder categories, and maintaining a transparent audit trail through analytic memos and version-controlled codebooks. Confirmability was supported by documenting analytic decisions, using reflexive memos to acknowledge researcher perspectives, and grounding interpretations in direct evidence from the data.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003csup\u003e[1]\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/sup\u003eThis sample represents a substantial proportion of the total stakeholder population: working group meetings typically draw 15\u0026ndash;25 participants, and fewer than 100 individuals regularly engage in collaborative or management activities across the Thunder Basin region.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis section presents findings related to the types and sources of knowledge present in collaborative contexts, and how different WoKs inform different goals for management. It then examines how stakeholders interact with different WoKs, and how these interactions shape their perspectives on collaboration, and their understanding of success. Excerpts from the interviews are provided to illustrate how various WoKs are expressed and operationalized by participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis section presents a condensed summary of key themes; additional context, subgroup variation, and extended participant quotations are available in Supplementary Material B.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhat types and sources of knowledge are present in the collaborative, and how do they inform different management goals?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants describe different WoKs related to their training and background. While boundaries between WoKs were fluid, three general categories of WoKs (scientific, local/experiential, and administrative) were consistently referenced (Table 2). Extended descriptions of WoKs are available in Supplementary Material B.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTypes and sources of knowledge\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eScientific WoKs emphasize empirical observation, reproducibility, and peer review to produce objective, generalizable knowledge. They were primarily described by university researchers and federal scientists relying on peer-reviewed and gray literature and collaboration. NGO and agency respondents reported using scientific WoKs mainly for ecosystem monitoring and regulation enforcement. At state and local levels, respondents relied more on internal networks and trusted colleagues rather than scientific literature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLocal/experiential WoKs rely on firsthand, place-based knowledge developed through daily experience, observation, trial-and-error, and generational knowledge transfer. Primarily referenced by ranchers and long-term residents, these WoKs emphasize practical application. Participants also collected informal longitudinal data (e.g., wildlife monitoring), shared insights within community networks, and collaborated with extension agents and agency staff.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdministrative WoKs are grounded in formal training, legal mandates, and bureaucratic procedures. Federal and state agency respondents described drawing on academic training, professional experience, and science-based assessments, but stressed their decisions are guided by legal obligations. Local agency staff highlighted integrating administrative frameworks with local knowledge. NGO staff and private consultants used administrative knowledge to facilitate regulatory compliance and support management advocacy.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSummary of three generalized ways of knowing (WoKs) present in the Thunder Basin collaborative working group, including definitions, examples of use, mechanisms of knowledge verification, and illustrative quotes from interviews.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" align=\"left\" width=\"899\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eWay of Knowing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKnowledge Production\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDynamics Over Time\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExample of Use\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIllustrative Quotes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdministrative\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFormal training, legal mandates, and bureaucratic processes; academic background and professional expertise\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjusts with changes in regulations and policies; accountable to professional standards and on-the-ground outcomes\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDeveloping management plans, interpreting NEPA requirements\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;As far as the process and collaborative portion\u0026hellip; we\u0026rsquo;re going to have to go through the entire NEPA process and objections and probably a lawsuit or two.\u0026rdquo; (TB27, state agency)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLocal / Experiential\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFirsthand, place-based knowledge developed through daily experience, observation, trial-and-error, generational exchange\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEvolves through generational transfer, demonstrations of practical success, community networks of trust; cross-checking with agency and extension staff\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdjusting grazing based on forage availability and long term observation; implementing drought responses rooted in lived experience\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;All I can tell you is years and years of being around ranching and just talking and being taught by my parents and my grandparents, and\u0026hellip; just having an eye for what\u0026rsquo;s going to work and not work.\u0026rdquo; (TB02, producer)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 150px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScientific\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 198px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSystematic observation, measurement, and experimentation; established methods to generate objective, generalizable results\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 174px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBuilds through iterative research, replication of studies, meta-analyses; evaluated by formal peer review processes and professional networks\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 162px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDesigning and interpreting ecological monitoring studies; publishing research on rangeland dynamics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 215px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;What\u0026rsquo;s nice about replication is you can think about meta replication, just multiple studies over a large space, and those inferences, and someone could do a meta-analysis\u0026hellip; and come up with the larger effect that may be out there.\u0026rdquo; (TB06, university research)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWays of knowing inform varied management goals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStakeholders across groups described a shared goal of achieving balance in land management. However, interpretations of balance varied, shaped by differences in WoKs as well as institutional roles, land tenure, or organizational mandates.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLocal knowledge and management goals\u003c/em\u003e. Producers emphasized balancing economic livelihoods with long-term land stewardship. Their goals reflected site-specific knowledge of the landscape and a desire to sustain the range for future generations. As one participant described, \u0026ldquo;My goal is just to make it as functional [sic] and make it better\u0026hellip; anything I can do to help the range, help the water, the wildlife, all of it\u0026hellip; just trying to improve what\u0026rsquo;s here, and sustain a living\u0026rdquo; (TB02, producer). While many valued conservation outcomes, others voiced concerns about management approaches (such as protections for prairie dogs) that felt misaligned with working lands viability.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eScientific knowledge and management goals.\u003c/em\u003e Scientists often framed their goals in terms of ecosystem processes and landscape-scale outcomes, emphasizing trade-offs and synergies across multiple land uses. One researcher explained, \u0026ldquo;These are lands that are\u0026hellip; managed for multiple ecosystem services. Most of my research has been trying to address trade-offs or synergies in\u0026hellip; achieving those services\u0026rdquo; (TB10, federal research). Others described how engaging with local WoKs deepened their understanding or shaped new lines of inquiry. One scientist reflected that, \u0026ldquo;Because of what [local producers] asked questions about, we now have a much more robust explanation of what went on\u0026rdquo; (TB09, federal research), describing how incorporating stakeholder perspectives sometimes prompted them to revisit and broaden earlier interpretations of data.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdministrative knowledge and management goals.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eAgency staff described navigating between technical information and administrative mandates, while also attending to community concerns. Many described cross-agency information sharing through informal reports and communications, as summarized by one local official: \u0026ldquo;I go to workshops, and I talk to anyone with expertise. I talk to Game \u0026amp; Fish and Fish \u0026amp; Wildlife, I talk to the Prairie Dog Coalition\u0026hellip; I find people with expertise in the area\u0026rdquo; (TB40, county agency). Federal employees also described a goal of \u0026ldquo;walking that balance\u0026rdquo; in regards to finding a \u0026ldquo;sweet spot\u0026rdquo; between ecological goals and public acceptance, for example, maintaining viable prairie dog populations while keeping colonies off key cattle ranges to reduce conflict. Many officials reside in the surrounding community and emphasized wanting to build trust and understanding at the local level. As one participant described it, \u0026ldquo;When you\u0026rsquo;re dealing with someone\u0026rsquo;s livelihood, you can\u0026rsquo;t always just consider the science. There has to be that balance between that cultural need and that scientific need\u0026rdquo; (TB16, federal management).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eHow do stakeholders perceive and engage with different ways of knowing in the context of collaboration?\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCollaborative processes provided stakeholders opportunities to engage with diverse WoKs, yet also surfaced tensions regarding their perceived legitimacy. These perceptions vary across and within stakeholder groups, and suggest that perceptions are shaped not just by roles, but by individual experiences, values, and relationships (Figure 2). Interactions between WoKs are described below, while a more detailed exploration of how stakeholders describe and navigate different WoKs is provided in Supplementary Material B.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWhen knowledge systems collide\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTensions between different WoKs emerged most visibly when scientific findings contradicted stakeholders\u0026rsquo; lived experiences. For example, participants frequently cited an example of a recent study suggesting prairie dog colonies may enhance forage quality under certain conditions (Connell et al. 2019b). Conservation-oriented respondents felt the findings reinforced their understanding of prairie dogs\u0026rsquo; ecological role. As one participant explained, \u0026ldquo;At certain levels\u0026hellip; colonies will actually increase the nutritional value of the vegetation that is on their colonies\u0026hellip; There may be less available forage for cattle, but every bite they take is more efficient, and more nutritious\u0026rdquo; (TB11, conservation NGO).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConversely, several producers rejected these conclusions as disconnected from their observed realities, with one producer dismissing the study as \u0026ldquo;hogwash\u0026rdquo; because the findings contradicted the visibly barren conditions experienced firsthand: \u0026ldquo;She had a big research paper and said, \u0026lsquo;There\u0026apos;s more [grass] production on prairie dog towns because they chop it off and so it\u0026apos;s higher protein...\u0026rsquo; I mean, what she\u0026apos;s saying may be true but [the forage] is all that tall [makes hand gesture denoting very short]\u0026rdquo; (TB21, producer).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOther participants acknowledged a mismatch between the scale of scientific observation and stakeholders\u0026rsquo; experience, explaining that the measurements were taken on small colonies at the edges of the complex, while many landowners were dealing with large colonies where \u0026lsquo;there was just absolutely no forage\u0026rsquo; (TB10, federal researcher). While not disputing the study\u0026rsquo;s methods or findings, the researcher acknowledged that the study\u0026rsquo;s credibility was compromised by underlying issues: the science wasn\u0026rsquo;t \u0026lsquo;wrong\u0026rsquo;, but it wasn\u0026rsquo;t addressing the \u0026lsquo;right\u0026rsquo; question regarding stakeholder concerns (i.e. visibly barren landscapes).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLearning across boundaries\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite tensions, participants described meaningful instances of mutual learning across WoKs. Producers\u0026rsquo; observations prompted new scientific questions, scientists reframed data through local insight, and agency staff worked to reconcile top-down mandates with place-based knowledge. One federal researcher explained how encountering experiential knowledge prompted deeper inquiry: \u0026ldquo;If a rancher tells me something surprising\u0026hellip; there\u0026apos;s a reason for that, right? \u0026hellip; It makes me want to go bigger or go in a different direction\u0026hellip; It just makes me think maybe I missed something else that\u0026apos;s going on.\u0026rdquo; -TB13 (federal research). Agency staff also emphasized blending short-term scientific findings with long-term, place-based observations, recognizing the value of multi-generational knowledge in interpreting local trends in order to address \u0026ldquo;what\u0026rsquo;s missing\u0026rdquo;. As one federal manager stated, \u0026ldquo;You can\u0026rsquo;t just come and do research for two or three years and answer a question that may have taken 50 years, 70 years of watching the landscape change and get an answer, and so sometimes that cultural aspect, that history within families is so vitally important\u0026rdquo; (TB16, federal management).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants also described how long-term collaboration (over the course of 20+ years) shifted perspectives on the relevance of research, particularly when researchers engaged directly with managers to identify knowledge gaps and management needs. One agency representative described this transition, stating:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I was not a fan of research, having not had researchers ever really ask what management needed. And then they come in with this data, and it\u0026apos;s like\u0026hellip; that\u0026apos;s not helpful. Then they would walk away with the data too, a lot of times.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThat was one thing that was really neat\u0026hellip; for a long time now, we\u0026apos;ve been able to meet with the researchers and talk, and that\u0026apos;s what they ask. \u0026lsquo;What do you need?\u0026rsquo; They take our feedback\u0026hellip; so now I\u0026apos;m a big fan.\u0026rdquo; - TB24 (federal management)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile epistemic tensions persisted overall, participants were able to identify conditions under which integration was possible. In such cases, shared inquiry served as a catalyst for continued dialogue. Stakeholders characterized successful knowledge integration as a product of transparent research processes, openness to feedback, mutual respect, and sustained engagement across multiple WoKs. As one county manager summarized, effective collaboration required \u0026ldquo;professionalism from all corners\u0026hellip; if everybody will give a little, you can go a long way\u0026hellip; You need every bit of that from every corner\u0026rdquo; (TB40, county management; see Supplementary Material B for further details and extended quotes).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eHow do perspectives on knowledge shape participants\u0026rsquo; understandings of success in collaborative governance?\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Participants\u0026rsquo; emphasized the central role of knowledge in shaping their experiences with collaboration. Rather than treating knowledge as neutral, many described how it was selectively interpreted or strategically used by stakeholders, influencing both how participants engaged with the process and assessed outcomes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSelective interpretation and strategic use of knowledge\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants described instances in which both scientific and experiential WoKs were selectively referenced to support particular management goals. Instead of treating knowledge as static or universally applicable, respondents noted how stakeholders framed evidence to align with their perspectives or desired outcomes. Selective use of knowledge was particularly evident in discussions around controversial species like prairie dogs and their impacts on wildlife and rangeland health. Describing how individuals used different WoKs to support competing claims, one state agency official described:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Somebody comes in and says, \u0026lsquo;Well we know from studies that prairie dogs only do this.\u0026rsquo; Then you have somebody else over here saying, \u0026lsquo;Well, but from my experience as the owner of those lands for 100 years, I could tell you that\u0026apos;s not totally true.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo; - TB25 (state agency)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this context, scientific and experiential claims were both presented as authoritative despite divergent conclusions. The same respondent noted that the perceived value of a study often depended less on its methodology and more on its alignment with stakeholder preferences: \u0026ldquo;You have all those figures and of course in a situation with sides, and with desired outcomes, people are going to try and use those to fit their situation.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOthers observed that knowledge is \u0026ldquo;situated,\u0026rdquo; meaning that it is developed and actionable in certain contexts (Schwandt 2000; Robbins 2006; Wilmer et al. 2018), and therefore stakeholder positions could influence how research questions were framed. As one county agency representative explained:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I think [the research] is reliable. But it\u0026apos;s just like anything. If you are for expansion, that\u0026apos;s where you\u0026apos;re going to lean your research toward. If I was out there doing research on the damage, it would go the other way. So I think it all depends on what side of the line you\u0026apos;re on.\u0026rdquo; -TB40 (county agency)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants also reflected on the influence of selective knowledge use on collaborative discussions, especially when knowledge was used to assert authority rather than invite dialogue. One state agency respondent described a contentious public exchange over mountain plovers: \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;When people try and weaponize whatever knowledge they think they have, that\u0026apos;s when you get into a bind\u0026hellip; Somebody who got up and said, \u0026lsquo;Oh I\u0026apos;ve seen plovers in tall grass. It\u0026apos;s not like they don\u0026apos;t use it,\u0026rsquo; and somebody else got up and said, \u0026lsquo;You\u0026apos;re full of crap. You don\u0026apos;t know what you\u0026apos;re talking about and I\u0026apos;m a scientist\u0026rsquo; or whatever. That\u0026apos;s where you do have a problem with that, as opposed to if the question is \u0026lsquo;I\u0026apos;m pretty sure I\u0026apos;ve seen a plover in tall grass. What do you know about that,\u0026rsquo; and they go, \u0026lsquo;Don\u0026apos;t know. I\u0026apos;ve never seen it. We\u0026apos;ve never studied it though so maybe it\u0026apos;s possible.\u0026rsquo; That\u0026apos;s much different because you\u0026apos;re bringing two pieces of knowledge together there to try and actually have that conversation rather than \u0026lsquo;I know this\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;I know this.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo; -TB27 (state agency)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHere, scientific knowledge was used to invalidate rather than explore alternative perspectives. The hypothetical second response, however, could have created space for mutual learning by acknowledging limitations of both scientific and experiential WoKs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants also linked selective use of knowledge to historical tensions around whose knowledge was legitimized. A federal manager noted that repeated dismissal of local observations influenced how landowners engaged with ecological research: \u0026ldquo;It doesn\u0026apos;t matter what research says\u0026hellip; and it may be just because they\u0026apos;ve gotten hammered on all these years. Every time [landowner] said, \u0026lsquo;We\u0026apos;ve seen them [wildlife] somewhere else,\u0026quot; somebody said, \u0026lsquo;You\u0026apos;re wrong.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo; (TB24, federal management). Such interactions contribute to a pattern in which landowners rely more heavily on personal or place-based knowledge, particularly when they feel their observations have been consistently challenged or discredited. Consequently, some landowners viewed scientific findings as less trustworthy, especially when they do not align with firsthand experience, as described above.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePerceptions of WoKs influence attitudes toward collaboration\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterviews revealed a strong association between participants\u0026rsquo; perceptions of WoKs and broader attitudes toward collaboration. Respondents who valued multiple knowledge systems and were open to cross-group learning often described collaboration positively, seeing it as an opportunity to bridge gaps and co-create solutions. One conservation NGO representative highlighted collaborative potential:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;How can we reach out to the people that have a lot to say in all of the silos of categories of people that we\u0026apos;re working with to find out how to move forward now?... We have an opportunity, what are the steps to take? What are the barriers and how can we move forward? What are the needs? Forest Service still has to manage prairie dogs, landowners still live on the ground, we still want ferrets. Okay, so let\u0026apos;s come up with a game plan and can we organize a group of people to create that game plan.\u0026rdquo; -TB20 (conservation NGO)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis illustrates how bringing stakeholders together prompted individuals to consider how their expertise could advance broader group goals rather than remaining entrenched in individual siloes. Others described a shift among participants in how they approached collaborative discussions. One respondent recalled observing other participants broadening their framing of land management to consider diverse stakeholder interests: \u0026ldquo;They\u0026rsquo;ve [producers] become engaged in a productive way that\u0026rsquo;s not just, how do we maximize production? It is, how do we sustain ecosystems and livelihoods in this region?\u0026rdquo; (TB13, federal researcher).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, not all participants shared this optimism. Some, particularly those representing scientific or conservation-focused perspectives, expressed dissatisfaction when they perceived their contributions as undervalued and described feelings of exclusion and reduced confidence in the value of participating. One university-affiliated researcher recalled their experience in collaborative meetings as discouraging due to the perceived lack of appreciation for scientific input: \u0026ldquo;Scientists\u0026rsquo; voices should matter regardless and so should like anybody from the public. I don\u0026apos;t feel like that\u0026apos;s being appreciated or respected or included, and so therefore... I was very disturbed by the meetings\u0026rdquo; (TB18, university research).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOthers shared frustrations about exclusion from discussions, particularly around wildlife conservation issues. Some respondents (often holding positions they perceived as outside the dominant consensus) expressed concern that their perspectives were not given equal weight, and that this imbalance undermined the integrity of the process. These individuals also described feelings of weariness, and questioned whether the collaborative process was truly inclusive or capable of addressing the full range of concerns:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;We\u0026apos;re forbidden from discussing some of these realities\u0026hellip; if we dare try to bring it up, we are told that\u0026apos;s off the table\u0026hellip; We\u0026apos;re bullied basically into being quiet, and complying with the other side\u0026apos;s desire to talk about how to get rid of the planned protections. Meanwhile, we have an environmental disaster occurring on the landscape, and nobody will even allow us to discuss it.\u0026rdquo; -TB11 (conservation NGO)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the same time, other participants felt that discussions were often dominated by the most vocal stakeholders, which could crowd out more moderate or conciliatory perspectives, creating an environment in which both \u0026ldquo;outside\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;middle ground\u0026rdquo; participants felt sidelined for different reasons. One federal agency representative reflected on this imbalance:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;The people that are \u0026hellip; really willing to compromise aren\u0026apos;t the loudest\u0026hellip; Oh, you know, the old expression, \u0026lsquo;The squeaky wheel is the one that gets greased\u0026rsquo;? And that\u0026apos;s kind of how it feels\u0026hellip; the ones that are making the most noise are the ones that get addressed, and yet we have a huge, like 98% of the folks that we deal with are [not] outlying groups, and they really aren\u0026apos;t so polarized. They\u0026apos;re much more, where they can kind of come to the middle and work together. But, we have a few distinct folks on each side that make it very, very, very polarized.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;-\u0026nbsp;TB16 (federal management)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese accounts illustrate how perceptions of whose knowledge was valued shaped attitudes toward collaboration and whether it led to meaningful outcomes. While some remained hopeful about the potential for inclusive decision-making and shared solutions, others reported adversarial dynamics when they felt particular WoKs were dismissed. These varied experiences reflect the complexity of multi-stakeholder collaborations and provide the basis for further interpretation in the discussion that follows.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe sought to examine how stakeholders in TBER draw on different WoKs in collaborative land management, focusing on how this knowledge diversity shapes management goals, perceptions of credibility, and attitudes toward collaboration. While participants demonstrated the capacity to engage with multiple forms of knowledge, WoKs were often applied in uneven and context-dependent ways. We observed that perceptions of knowledge were closely tied to broader understandings of management priorities and collaborative dynamics. Our findings suggest that interactions between WoKs are shaped by institutional structures, historical relationships, and power dynamics.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWays of knowing: Integration, conflict, and politics\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCollaborative governance in complex socio-ecological systems is shaped not only by stakeholder diversity but also by the interplay of multiple WoKs. In TBER, the convergence of scientific, experiential, and administrative knowledge gave rise to both tensions and opportunities for mutual learning. Our findings indicate that knowledge is not merely integrated or rejected, but actively co-produced through the situated interactions of stakeholders whose positions, values, and institutional roles shape what counts as credible knowledge. This aligns with scholarship emphasizing knowledge as political and relational, rather than objective or universal (Boshoff 2014; Nightingale 2016; Brugnach 2017).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePolitics of knowledge integration.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eAlthough scientific WoKs are often regarded as the ‘gold standard’ of knowledge in environmental policy contexts due to its perceived objectivity and rigor, our findings suggest that in TBER, this assumption is frequently contested. Producers and other local actors whose experiential knowledge is grounded in generational ties to the land often challenged the authority of scientific claims when they conflicted with lived realities. Rather than viewing scientific knowledge as universally privileged, participants deployed different WoKs strategically, often in alignment with their personal objectives or institutional affiliations. This pattern of use suggests that knowledge use and reception are deeply shaped by positionality and historical relationships. Scientific findings were not always accepted as neutral; instead they were often politicized and interpreted through the lens of stakeholders’ values, goals, and social positioning (Turnhout et al. 2012; Boshoff 2014; Gerlak and Mukhtarov 2015; Morrison et al. 2017; Almazán-Casali et al. 2021).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;In contrast, we observed moments where knowledge was used pragmatically, rather than ideologically. While some participants appeared primarily concerned with affirming the authority of their own WoK, some were willing to draw selectively on any WoK that supported their goals, whereas others demonstrated openness to using any form of knowledge that might support problem-solving and compromise (Supplementary Fig. C1). The distinction was evident in discussions where entrenched positions led to impasse, and more flexible participants were able to bridge divides in knowledge perspectives and move conversations forward. Rather than acting as formal ‘knowledge brokers,’ these individuals exhibited a practical orientation toward knowledge, treating it as a tool for governance rather than a marker of identity. As described earlier, two federal employees independently offered examples of this integrative approach when describing moments of asking “What’s missing?” when confronted with divergent knowledge claims. In both cases, knowledge was approached as a tool for shared problem-solving rather than a fixed credential or identity claim. In TBER, these types of productive exchanges were made possible in part by the collaborative partnerships built by TBGPEA through the 2000s, as well as the extended period of collaborative learning that preceded the collaborative working group. These early efforts laid the groundwork for conditions conducive to cross-boundary learning and adaptive management, such as building long-standing relationships, iterative engagement, and mutual respect (Tengö et al. 2014; Wyborn et al. 2019).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConflict as a means to transformation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eConflict among WoKs was a common occurrence in TBER, but our results suggest that conflict is not inherently detrimental; instead, it can serve as a site of potential transformation (Aylett 2010; Mancilla García et al. 2019). Participants described instances in which entrenched commitments to a particular WoK, often linked to identity, livelihood, or institution, led to gridlock or fatigue with collaborative processes. At the same time, others used conflict as a catalyst for creative problem-solving and expanded understanding. These findings echo research on conflict as a generative force in governance, capable of surfacing underlying values, exposing blind spots, and prompting innovation (Aylett 2010; Mancilla García et al. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Understanding knowledge as shaped through conflict and interaction, rather than as static or inherently valid, offers important insights for collaborative governance. It points to the need for deliberative spaces that are intentionally structured to surface divergent viewpoints, acknowledge positionality, and support mutual learning. Yet, while participants often expressed appreciation for knowledge diversity in theory, our findings suggest that collaboration in practice was frequently approached as a venue to assert or defend one’s own position. In these cases, knowledge functioned less as a tool for shared inquiry and more as a vehicle for demonstrating expertise or legitimacy. Individuals who approached collaboration with a willingness to learn and work across perspectives were better positioned to facilitate integration, while those focused on validating their own views tended to reproduce knowledge hierarchies. In contexts of uncertainty, embracing humility and complexity was essential to supporting inclusive management (Porensky 2021). These dynamics underscore the importance of not only welcoming diverse WoKs, but cultivating the attitudes and relational conditions that shape meaningful outcomes (Brugnach 2017; Wyborn et al. 2019).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTensions in power and legitimacy\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur findings illustrate how power and legitimacy within collaborative governance are shaped by social position, institutional roles, and historical context. In TBER, these dynamics influenced whose knowledge was recognized as credible, and by extension, whose interests were represented in decision-making. Public land managers who were tasked with interpreting and implementing policy often served as pseudo-gatekeepers of knowledge, implicitly determining which forms of information were considered relevant or actionable. Rather than marginalizing local knowledge outright, agency actors often appeared hesitant to rely on scientific findings unless they had first gained the support of influential local stakeholders, particularly producers. One participant captured this tension, reflecting on the challenge of balancing institutional expectations with stakeholder acceptance:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e“I think that's part of the breakdown, is science needs to inform the debate, but they [producers] don't always buy the science and, for some reason, they need to buy the science in order for the Forest Service to get them to agree... the science is really science, and they also need to respect that.” -TB12 (conservation NGO)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHere, the speaker emphasizes that while USFS is a science-based agency expected to ground its decisions in empirical evidence, there appeared to be reluctance to act on scientific findings unless they had first secured producer buy-in. Scientific WoKs were not simply a basis for decision-making but something that needed to be socially validated by influential stakeholders. This perspective highlights the relational nature of knowledge legitimacy: it is not only about evidence or expertise, but also about trust, recognition, and historical engagement.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eKnowledge and goals shape perceptions of collaborative outcomes\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStakeholders’ perceptions of success in collaborative governance were closely tied to their WoKs. In TBER, participants held different visions of what constituted effective land management, informed by epistemological orientations grounded in scientific research, professional mandates, or place-based experience. These divergent WoKs shaped how individuals defined management goals and evaluated the fairness and effectiveness of collaborative proceedings.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile some participants viewed success as achieving measurable ecological outcomes or implementing science-based practices, others prioritized the maintenance of cultural traditions, economic viability, or local autonomy. In this context, consensus was less about full agreement on specific actions and more about finding acceptable compromises. As one participant described, “The way everyone wins is by everybody losing a tiny little bit” (TB23), a sentiment that reflects the negotiated nature of success in pluralistic settings.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings reinforce the idea that collaborative governance cannot be evaluated solely in terms of outputs or formal agreements. Instead, it must be assessed by the extent to which it creates space for multiple perspectives and knowledge systems to be expressed and integrated. In TBER, a region described by one participant as “a lot of country and a lot of people with a lot of different needs” (TB14), the challenge was not only technical, but relational. The ability to navigate competing goals and overlapping values was shaped as much by interpersonal dynamics and mutual recognition as by institutional design.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eComplicating factors of collaboration\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite its promise for resolving complex environmental conflicts, collaborative governance is not a one-size-fits-all solution. In the context of TBER, our findings show that the effectiveness of collaboration was strongly shaped by how different WoKs were brought into the process and how they were received by others. Merely convening diverse stakeholders did not guarantee productive engagement, but rather the collaboration depended upon the ability of participants to work across different WoKs.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHowever, even with prolonged preparation, the collaborative process remained vulnerable when WoKs were not afforded equal legitimacy. Participants observed a recurring tension in which agency staff appeared to be trying to navigate both scientific and local WoKs before acting on management decisions. This created uncertainty around which knowledge would ultimately guide decisions. In some cases, the lack of clarity about how different WoKs would be weighed led to frustration and reduced trust in the process.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;In addition, participants pointed to challenges stemming from the transient nature of agency staffing and a reliance on generalized scientific frameworks. These conditions contributed to perceptions that scientific knowledge lacked contextual grounding, while also limiting the institutional memory necessary to support long-term engagement with local knowledge holders. Recent research has emphasized how frequent staff turnover and short-term assignments in federal agencies can hinder the development of locally-embedded expertise and erode trust in collaborative governance processes (Puntenney et al. 2025; Charnley et al. 2025), a challenge that is likely to only be exacerbated by existing conflict. Subsequently, collaborative progress can be constrained by institutional structures and practices that struggle to accommodate plural knowledge systems, as evidenced in TBER. These findings suggest that collaborative governance should be designed not only to include diverse perspectives, but also to engage seriously with the conditions under which knowledge is produced, legitimized, and acted upon. In this context, more deliberate succession planning for collaborative roles and procedures may be necessary to maintain continuity and institutional memory across staffing transitions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLimitations\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile this case offers important insights into the relational dynamics of collaborative governance, its findings are bound by the unique political and cultural context of TBER. Stakeholders themselves frequently described the region as distinct, and our results may not generalize to other settings with different institutional arrangements or histories. Additionally, our methodology may be limited by selection bias in participant recruitment and by the interpretive lens of the researchers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFuture research\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture research should pursue longitudinal and comparative studies that examine how trust, knowledge integration, and conflict transformation evolve over time. In particular, more work is needed on how these processes are shaped by place-based attachments and identity (Wilmer et al. 2019b). Understanding how sense of place influences power dynamics in collaboration could clarify why certain knowledge claims gain legitimacy, and how stakeholders perceive fairness, belonging, and influence. Such research will further clarify how structural and sociocultural conditions interact to shape environmental governance outcomes, and inform governance strategies that are more responsive to the cultural and emotional dimensions of contested landscapes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated how diverse ways of knowing (WoKs) shape collaborative natural resource governance in a complex social-ecological system. Through interviews, participant observation, and document analysis, we examined how different WoKs informed stakeholders\u0026rsquo; perceptions of management goals, knowledge legitimacy, and successful collaboration in the Thunder Basin ecoregion (TBER). Our findings reveal that knowledge diversity plays a central role in shaping collaborative processes and outcomes. Stakeholders brought scientific, experiential, and administrative forms of knowledge into dialogue, but the degree to which these WoKs were recognized, respected, and integrated varied considerably. Collaborative governance in TBER was not only a matter of assembling diverse participants, but also a process in which power dynamics, historical relationships, and institutional cultures shaped whose knowledge counted, for whom, and under what conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese insights extend the collaborative governance literature by moving beyond structural or procedural factors to consider the sociocultural and epistemic dimensions of participation (Turnhout et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Nightingale \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Brugnach \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). While existing literature often highlights the value of stakeholder diversity, our research illustrates that mere inclusion is not sufficient. Collaboration is neither neutral nor inherently inclusive, but rather is contextual, political, and contingent upon participants\u0026rsquo; willingness to engage across different WoKs. Importantly, we find that effective collaboration requires participants to recognize the role of positionality and identity in shaping their own knowledge and remain willing to consider alternative perspectives, rather than pursuing competitive validation of their own claims.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur emphasis on the relational and interpretive dimensions of knowledge integration contributes to a growing body of scholarship that frames collaborative governance not only as a decision-making framework, but as a site of ongoing meaning-making (Cleaver and Whaley \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Clark \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; La Grouw et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Westberg et al. \u003cspan citationid=\"CR62\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Instead of being passively exchanged, knowledge is actively shaped through interpersonal interactions, institutional roles, and culturally-embedded understandings of place. This perspective illustrates how knowledge diversity shapes the content of collaborative discussions as well as the criteria by which legitimacy, fairness, and success are evaluated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis expanded conceptualization is especially relevant in other contexts characterized by: (1) multiple, potentially conflicting knowledge systems (such as Indigenous, scientific, and local ecological knowledge); (2) diverse stakeholder groups with different relationships to place and resources; and (3) complex social-ecological systems where technical solutions alone are insufficient. For example, marine protected area planning often requires integrating scientific data with fishers\u0026rsquo; experiential knowledge and community values; watershed management requires coordination between producers, conservationists, and regulators; and climate adaptation planning increasingly depends upon bridging scientific projections, local observations, and traditional ecological knowledge. In each of these settings, as in TBER, effective governance is contingent upon interpretation, sharing, and negotiation of knowledge in pursuit of collective action.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, our findings also carry important implications for practice. Inclusive collaborative processes must go beyond representational diversity to invest in the relational work necessary for meaningful dialogue across WoKs. This includes cultivating long-term trust, structuring opportunities for reflection, and designing facilitation approaches that recognize difference without forcing premature consensus. Practitioners should also be mindful of how organizational norms and institutional procedures shape the perceived legitimacy and usability of different knowledge forms. At the same time, our findings underscore that collaboration also poses emotional and ethical challenges. For many participants, the politics of knowledge felt deeply personal and consequential, leading to disputes that at times appear intractable. Successful collaboration often depended less on resolving fundamental disagreements and more on participants\u0026rsquo; willingness to engage with care, acknowledge others\u0026rsquo; knowledge in good faith, and set aside the impulse to be \u0026lsquo;right.\u0026rsquo; Alongside formal structures and technical solutions, fostering epistemic humility, cultivating shared norms of engagement, and supporting boundary-spanning leadership may be equally essential to effective governance outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Statements and Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThank you to the TBER community and the Thunder Basin Prairie Grassland Ecosystem Association for welcoming and supporting our research in their community. We also thank Erica Peirce for sharing her cartography skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFunding\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work was supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Predoctoral Fellowship, project award no. 2023-67011-40387, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Declarations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthics approval\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted under Boise State University IRB protocol #10877.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConsent to participate\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eData Availability\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePer the requirements of our human subjects research protocol (evaluated at Boise State University), raw data are not available to the public but de-identified, summarized data are available upon request to the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAhmed SK (2024) The pillars of trustworthiness in qualitative research. J Med Surg Public Health 2:100051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glmedi.2024.100051\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAllen LS (2006) Collaboration in the Borderlands: The Malpai Borderlands Group. Rangelands 28(3)\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlmaz\u0026aacute;n-Casali S, Puga BP, Lemos MC (2021) Who Governs at What Price? Technocratic Dominance, Ways of Knowing, and Long-Term Resilience of Brazil\u0026rsquo;s Water System. Front Water 3. https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2021.735018\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAnsell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. J Public Adm Res and Theory 18(4):543\u0026ndash;571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eArmitage D (2005) Adaptive Capacity and Community-Based Natural Resource Management. Environ Manag 35(6):703\u0026ndash;715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-004-0076-z\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eArmitage D, Berkes F, Dale A, Kocho-Schellenberg E, Patton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: Learning to adapt in Canada\u0026rsquo;s Arctic. Glob Environ Change 21(3):995\u0026ndash;1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.04.006\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAylett A (2010) Conflict, Collaboration and Climate Change: Participatory Democracy and Urban Environmental Struggles in Durban, South Africa. Int J Urb Reg Res 34(3):478\u0026ndash;495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00964.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBerkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manag 90(5):1692\u0026ndash;1702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBodin \u0026Ouml; (2017) Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357(6352):eaan1114. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBoshoff N (2014) Types of knowledge in science-based practices. J Sci Commun 13:A06. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.13030206\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrisbois MC, de Lo\u0026euml; RC (2016) State roles and motivations in collaborative approaches to water governance: A power theory-based analysis. Geoforum 74:202\u0026ndash;212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2016.06.012\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrugnach M (2017) The Space in Between: Where Multiple Ways of Knowing in Water Management Meet. J Southwest 59(1/2):34\u0026ndash;59\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrugnach M, Ingram H (2012) Ambiguity: the challenge of knowing and deciding together. Environ Sci Pol 15(1):60\u0026ndash;71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.10.005\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, J\u0026auml;ger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100(14):8086\u0026ndash;8091. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCharmaz K (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. SAGE\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCharnley S, Stanley PL, Kaminski AR (2025) Managing for Flexibility on U.S. Forest Service Grazing Allotments. Rangel Ecol Manag 101:64\u0026ndash;79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2025.03.011\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eClark JK (2021) Public Values and Public Participation: A Case of Collaborative Governance of a Planning Process. Am Rev Public Adm 51(3):199\u0026ndash;212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020956397\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCleaver F, Whaley L (2018) Understanding process, power, and meaning in adaptive governance: a critical institutional reading. Ecol Soc 23(2):art49. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10212-230249\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eClement J, Glendenning S (2015) Thunder Basin National Grassland: Situation assessment and process recommendations.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConnell LC, Porensky LM, Chalfoun AD, Scasta JD (2019a) Black-tailed prairie dog, Cynomys ludovicianus (Sciuridae), metapopulation response to novel sourced conspecific signals. Anim Behav 150:189\u0026ndash;199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.02.004\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eConnell LC, Porensky LM, Scasta JD (2019b) Prairie Dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) Influence on Forage Quantity and Quality in a Grazed Grassland-Shrubland Ecotone. Rangel Ecol Manag 72(2):360\u0026ndash;373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2018.10.004\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDavidson AD, Augustine DJ, Jacobsen H, Pellatz D, Porensky LM, McKee G, Duchardt C (2022) Boom and bust cycles of black-tailed prairie dog populations in the Thunder Basin grassland ecosystem. J Mammal 103(5):1112\u0026ndash;1126. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmammal/gyac035\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDuchardt CJ, Augustine DJ, Beck JL (2019) Threshold responses of grassland and sagebrush birds to patterns of disturbance created by an ecosystem engineer. Landscape Ecol 34(4):895\u0026ndash;909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00813-y\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDuchardt CJ, Augustine DJ, Porensky LM, Beck JL, Hennig JD, Pellatz DW, Scasta JD, Connell LC, Davidson AD (2023) Disease and weather induce rapid shifts in a rangeland ecosystem mediated by a keystone species (Cynomys ludovicianus). Ecol Appl 33(1):e2712. https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2712\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDuchardt CJ, Porensky LM, Augustine DJ, Beck JL (2018) Disturbance shapes avian communities on a grassland\u0026ndash;sagebrush ecotone. Ecosphere 9(10):e02483. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2483\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEmerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S (2012) An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. J Public Adm Res and Theory 22(1):1\u0026ndash;29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eEndter-Wada J, Selfa T, Welsh LW (2009) Hydrologic Interdependencies and Human Cooperation: The Process of Adapting to Droughts. Weather Clim Soc 1(1):54-70. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009WCAS1009.1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFeldman MS, Khademian AM, Ingram H, Schneider AS (2006) Ways of Knowing and Inclusive Management Practices. Public Adm Rev 66(s1):89\u0026ndash;99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00669.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFolke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive Governance Of Social-Ecological Systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30(1):441\u0026ndash;473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGerlak AK, Mukhtarov F (2015) \u0026lsquo;Ways of knowing\u0026rsquo; water: integrated water resources management and water security as complementary discourses. Int Environ Agreements 15(3):257\u0026ndash;272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-015-9278-5\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGlaser B, Strauss A (2017) Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Routledge, New York\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGuerrero A, Bodin \u0026Ouml;, McAllister R, Wilson K (2015) Achieving social-ecological fit through bottom-up collaborative governance: an empirical investigation. Ecol Soc 20(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08035-200441\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHill R, Adem \u0026Ccedil;, Alangui WV, Moln\u0026aacute;r Z, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bridgewater P, Teng\u0026ouml; M, Thaman R, Adou Yao CY, Berkes F, Carino J, Carneiro da Cunha M, Diaw MC, D\u0026iacute;az S, Figueroa VE, Fisher J, Hardison P, Ichikawa K, Kariuki P, Karki M, Lyver PO, Malmer P, Masardule O, Oteng Yeboah AA, Pacheco D, Pataridze T, Perez E, Rou\u0026eacute; M-M, Roba H, Rubis J, Saito O, Xue D (2020) Working with Indigenous, local and scientific knowledge in assessments of nature and nature\u0026rsquo;s linkages with people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 43:8\u0026ndash;20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.006\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eInnes JE, Booher DE (2003) The Impact of Collaborative Planning on Governance Capacity.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKeiter RB, McKinney M (2019) Public Land and Resources Law in the American West. Environ Law 49(1):1-72.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKoontz TM, Gupta D, Mudliar P, Ranjan P (2015) Adaptive institutions in social-ecological systems governance: A synthesis framework. Environ Sci Pol 53:139\u0026ndash;151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.003\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLa Grouw Y, van der Woerd O, Visser EL, Blijleven W (2024) Mundane dynamics: Understanding collaborative governance approaches to \u0026lsquo;big\u0026rsquo; problems through studying \u0026lsquo;small\u0026rsquo; practices. Public Policy Adm :09520767241244981. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767241244981\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLincoln YS, Guba EE (1986) Research, Evaluation, and Policy Analysis: Heuristics for Disciplined Inquiry. Rev Policy Res 5(3):546\u0026ndash;565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1986.tb00429.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMancilla Garc\u0026iacute;a M, Hileman J, Bodin \u0026Ouml; (2019) Collaboration and conflict in complex water governance systems across a development gradient: addressing common challenges and solutions. Ecol Soc 24(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11133-240328\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMeijerink S (2005) Understanding policy stability and change. the interplay of advocacy coalitions and epistemic communities, windows of opportunity, and Dutch coastal flooding policy 1945\u0026ndash;20031. J Euro Public Policy 12(6):1060\u0026ndash;1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760500270745\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMorrison TH, Adger WN, Brown K, Lemos MC, Huitema D, Hughes TP (2017) Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: sources of power in the pursuit of collective goals. WIREs Clim Change 8(5):e479. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.479\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMorrison TH, Adger WN, Brown K, Lemos MC, Huitema D, Phelps J, Evans L, Cohen P, Song AM, Turner R, Quinn T, Hughes TP (2019) The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Glob Environ Change 57:101934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101934\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMorse JM (2008) Confusing Categories and Themes. Qual Health Res 18(6):727\u0026ndash;728. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308314930\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNightingale AJ (2016) Adaptive scholarship and situated knowledges? Hybrid methodologies and plural epistemologies in climate change adaptation research. Area 48(1):41\u0026ndash;47. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12195\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePatterson ME, Montag JM, Williams DR (2003) The urbanization of wildlife management: Social science, conflict, and decision making. Urban For \u0026amp; Urban Green 1(3):171\u0026ndash;183. https://doi.org/10.1078/1618-8667-00017\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePorensky LM (2021) Embracing complexity and humility in rangeland science. Rangelands 43(4):142\u0026ndash;150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rala.2021.03.007\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePorensky LM, Derner JD, Pellatz DW (2018) Plant community responses to historical wildfire in a shrubland\u0026ndash;grassland ecotone reveal hybrid disturbance response. Ecosphere 9(8):e02363. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2363\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePuntenney CP, Hulet A, Hopping KA (2025) Ranchers\u0026rsquo; and Federal Land Managers\u0026rsquo; Mental Models of Rangeland Management Across an Environmental Gradient. Rangel Ecol \u0026amp; Manag 98:94\u0026ndash;109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2024.08.025\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReed MS, Vella S, Challies E, de Vente J, Frewer L, Hohenwallner-Ries D, Huber T, Neumann RK, Oughton EA, Sidoli del Ceno J, van Delden H (2018) A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public engagement in environmental management work?: A theory of participation. Restor Ecol 26:S7\u0026ndash;S17. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12541\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eReid WV, Berkes F, Wilbanks TJ, Capistrano D (2006) Bridging scales and knowledge systems: concepts and applications in ecosystem assessment\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRobbins P (2006) The politics of barstool biology: Environmental knowledge and power in greater Northern Yellowstone. Geoforum 37(2):185\u0026ndash;199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.11.011\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchneider A, Ingram H (2007) Ways of knowing: Implications for public policy. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchwandt TA (2000) Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics, and social constructionism. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publishing, pp 189\u0026ndash;213\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTeng\u0026ouml; M, Brondizio ES, Elmqvist T, Malmer P, Spierenburg M (2014) Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach. Ambio 43(5):579\u0026ndash;591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTracy SJ (2024) Qualitative Research Methods: Collecting Evidence, Crafting Analysis, Communicating Impact. John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTurnhout E, Bloomfield B, Hulme M, Vogel J, Wynne B (2012) Conservation policy: Listen to the voices of experience. Nature 488(7412):454\u0026ndash;455. https://doi.org/10.1038/488454a\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUrgenson LS, Ryan CM, Halpern CB, Bakker JD, Belote RT, Franklin JF, Haugo RD, Nelson CR, Waltz AEM (2017) Visions of Restoration in Fire-Adapted Forest Landscapes: Lessons from the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program. Environ Manag 59(2):338\u0026ndash;353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0791-2\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUSFS (2015) Situation assessment underway for prairie dog management [Press release].\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eUSFS (2020) Thunder Basin National Grassland Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003evan Tol Smit E, de Lo\u0026euml; R, Plummer R (2015) How knowledge is used in collaborative environmental governance: water classification in New Brunswick, Canada. J \u0026nbsp;Environ Plann Manag 58(3):423\u0026ndash;444. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2013.860017\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWelsh M (2014) Resilience and responsibility: governing uncertainty in a complex world. Geographical J 180(1):15\u0026ndash;26. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12012\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWestberg L, Berge\u0026aring; H, Hallgren L (2024) Meaning-making in the practice of collaboration: how implicit normative structures guide collaborative processes around contested natural resource issues. J Environ Plann and Manag 67(9):2035\u0026ndash;2054. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2024.2326121\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhite C (2003) The Quivira Coalition and the New Ranch: A view from \u0026quot;out of the box\u0026quot;. Rangelands 25(6):55-57. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_rangelands_v25i6_white\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWilmer H, Derner JD, Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Gim\u0026eacute;nez ME, Briske DD, Augustine DJ, Porensky LM (2018) Collaborative Adaptive Rangeland Management Fosters Management-Science Partnerships. Rangel Ecol Manag 71(5):646\u0026ndash;657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2017.07.008\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWilmer H, Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Gim\u0026eacute;nez ME (2015) Rethinking rancher decision-making: a grounded theory of ranching approaches to drought and succession management. Rangel J 37(5):517\u0026ndash;528. https://doi.org/10.1071/RJ15017\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWilmer H, Hillis V, Porensky LM (2019a) Ranching and conservation in the time of plague: How prairie dogs reveal the social-ecological worlds of the Thunder Basin Ecoregion. Poster presented at: Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Richmond, VA.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWilmer H, Porensky LM, Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Gim\u0026eacute;nez ME, Derner JD, Augustine DJ, Ritten JP, Peck DP (2019b) Community-Engaged Research Builds a Nature-Culture of Hope on North American Great Plains Rangelands. Soc Sci 8(1):22. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8010022\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWilmer H, Wilbur R, Scasta JD, Levy MC, Hillis V, Newman G, Pellatz DW, Porensky LM (2025) When working together goes against common sense: A framework to bridge conservation and agricultural perspectives in participatory working lands research. Ecol Soc 30(2):21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-16092-300221\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWondolleck J, Yaffee S (2000) Making Collaboration Work: Lessons From Innovation In Natural Resource Management. Island Press.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWorld Medical Association (2013) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. J Am Med Assoc 310(20):2191\u0026ndash;2194. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWyborn C, Datta A, Montana J, Ryan M, Leith P, Chaffin B, Miller C, van Kerkhoff L (2019) Co-Producing Sustainability: Reordering the Governance of Science, Policy, and Practice. Annu Rev Environ Resour 44:3.1-3.28. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-management","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"emvm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Management](http://link.springer.com/journal/267)","snPcode":"267","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/267/3","title":"Environmental Management","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"collaborative governance, ways of knowing, natural resource management, knowledge integration, public lands, stakeholder engagement","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7403297/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7403297/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eCollaborative governance is increasingly used to address complex natural resource issues, yet integrating diverse knowledge systems remains a persistent challenge. This study investigates how stakeholders engage with scientific, experiential, and administrative ways of knowing (WoKs) in a collaborative effort to manage public rangelands in the Thunder Basin ecoregion of Wyoming, USA. Applying a qualitative case study approach, we conducted semi-structured interviews, a focus group, and participant observation to examine how different WoKs inform land management goals, shape perceptions of knowledge legitimacy, and influence attitudes toward collaboration. Findings indicate that knowledge is strategically interpreted and relationally constructed through participants\u0026rsquo; institutional roles, values, and social positions. While collaboration created opportunities for mutual learning, it also surfaced tensions around credibility, authority, and representation. Stakeholders who embraced epistemic humility and treated knowledge as a tool for governance were better positioned to foster integration. These findings highlight the importance of attention to power dynamics, institutional norms, and the relational work necessary to support inclusive and effective governance. The insights from this case contribute to a growing recognition that meaningful collaboration requires moving beyond stakeholder diversity to critical engagement with how knowledge is produced, negotiated, and used in decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Contesting and integrating multiple ways of knowing in collaborative natural resource governance","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-13 11:27:23","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7403297/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-10-16T00:26:51+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-15T22:17:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-08T05:45:49+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-03T21:01:11+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"164442025928690031146563051791779939367","date":"2025-10-01T21:20:39+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"163945997539070522449412956348424435628","date":"2025-10-01T19:04:10+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"250203374918452992830700750144906535289","date":"2025-09-30T06:26:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-30T03:49:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-09-07T16:00:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-08-19T02:52:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Environmental Management","date":"2025-08-19T00:47:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"environmental-management","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"emvm","sideBox":"Learn more about [Environmental Management](http://link.springer.com/journal/267)","snPcode":"267","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/267/3","title":"Environmental Management","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"1491c23c-b9f5-4ed3-afa4-ab42a6a224c5","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 13th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-14T19:54:15+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-13 11:27:23","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7403297","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7403297","identity":"rs-7403297","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}