Multiple Ontologies and Shared Terms of Debate in Southern Appalachian National Forest Planning

Ontological approaches are rarely used to investigate US public lands controversies and collaborative planning efforts, specifically among non-indigenous groups. This paper examines the potential role of ontological differences in driving persistent disputes within a national forest planning process in the southern Appalachians. Using participant observation and interviews with planning participants, I found contention not over the resources of a single forest but rather the social and ecological relationships that constituted five distinct forests whose threats and needs were made obvious through personal experiences, community histories, and scientific and local knowledge. Collaborative efforts sought to work through controversies in part by appealing to shared principles. However, what appeared to be shared terms of debate transposed ontological conflicts into narrow technical disputes that often remained intractable. The ontological dimensions of contention in collaborative planning suggest the need to broaden dialogue and revisit core themes in collaboration scholarship and practice.