Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />4) The ran kings of specific actions associated I/ith each future are <br />compared to the rankings associated with each other future to <br />isolate those points in tii:1e and space ~/here behaviors I'll 11 come <br /> <br />into confl ict anti futures threaten each oUler. At I/hat points <br /> <br />wi 11 the pursuit of one future by one-subset of Utes jeopardi ze <br />the possibilities of another future valued by oti,er sub-sets of <br />Utes? <br />5) Each alternative future (tourism, ranching, pottery, etc.) repre- <br />sents benefits to some Indians and C05tS to others; the clash of <br /> <br />social groups is the clash of conflicting alternative futures. <br /> <br />Supportive and opponent groups organize. The research task then <br /> <br />becor.1es one of identifying ~I;tich grou}Js support and oppose the <br /> <br />specific futures, i dentifying ~Ihi ch cultural values are in <br />conflict, determining I/hich structural changes in role-sets are <br /> <br />in the offing, ferreting out the perceived costs and benefits <br /> <br />associated 11ith the alternutive futures in question. This problem <br /> <br />of conflict among future possibilities is then broken down <br /> <br />further into tile fo11O\ling researchable questions: <br />a) Which tribal groups sup;lOrt and oppose ~/hich alternative <br />futures? Data can be gathered about tile ranking of future <br />alternatives and these rankings can be statistically <br /> <br />ana lyzed for rel ati oilshi ps to deiliographic ami other soci a 1 <br /> <br />categories into which Ute Indians fall. <br /> <br />b) Which specific actions can be expected to crystallize the <br /> <br />conflict? Could the proj2cts be re-designed so as to <br /> <br />el iminate or reduce the cOlifl i ct? <br /> <br />. <br />.~._._---~_.- - <br /> <br />-- <br />