4.2.1 Practitioners and the pathways
In development studies, Andrea Cornwall (2008) argues that aid workers possess differing motivations towards the same development goal, such as aspiration for citizen participation (p. 271). She explained that these individual differences directly influence the impact of participatory development initiatives on citizens (p. 271). Markedly, the research
Page 68
found that a similar relationship exists between PV practitioners, their motivations for raising citizen voice and potential impact. For while practitioners share similar, altruistic aspirations for their PV praxis, as Section 4.1.2 explained, the study revealed critical differences in their perceptions of raising citizen voice. Through analysing the data from the PV practitioners’ storyboards and interview texts, three clear approaches to voice emerged, which the study classified as the amplified voice, engaged voice and equitable voice pathways. Table 4.1 distinguishes key differences between the voice pathways by showing the type of questions PV practitioners might ask as a starting point within each view.
Table 4.1: Questions one could ask within the three voice pathways
Voice pathway Questions
Amplified voice Which citizen voices are not represented in this decision-making process? How can PV activities help to include them?
Engaged voice Which citizens are not represented in democratic deliberation? How can PV activities help them actively participate in decision-making spaces?
Equitable voice Why are certain citizens not represented or participating in decision-making processes? How can PV transform conditions to improve this situation?
The questions highlight key differences in the pathways for citizen engagement and voice. For example, through amplified voice, PV’s intention primarily focused on citizens’ representational right to speak on issues that affect them, as described in Section 4.3. Within engaged voice, PV primarily focused on ensuring people’s right to participate as informed citizens in public decision-making spaces, as described in Section 4.4. Through the equitable voice pathway, PV’s main attention primarily focused on citizens claiming their right to influence decisions core to their marginalisation, as described in Section 4.5.
PV practitioners in the study were engaged in multiple PV activities, each possessing different conditions for practice. Hence, a practitioner may work through an amplified voice pathway on one project, and an engaged or equitable voice pathway in another. However, for the sake of analysis and scholarly discussion, the study linked each practitioner to one of the three identified categories. It did so by putting them into the category that seemed most fitting to how they described their ideals for PV practice in the study interviews. In this way, the classification process was interpretive. What this means is that the exercise
Page 69
was not to categorise individual practitioners as adhering to a particular voice pathway in their everyday practice. Rather, the categorisation supported the storyboard and interview data analysis as a means to inform discussion. Important to reiterate here is that while practitioners’ experiences no doubt influenced their ideals, they were not the focus of the categorical analysis process. Through the interpretive analytical approach, the study categorised ten practitioners as primarily orienting towards amplified voice, nine as expressing PV characteristics most fitting to engaged voice, and six aligning their experiences and ideals most closely to equitable voice. Noticeably, as shown in Table 4.2, practitioners with the most PV experience tended to hold equitable or engaged voice views of idealised PV practice, and those with the least experience to hold engaged or amplified voice perspectives. For the group of practitioners in the study, this data implies that an evolution in perception correlates with time and experience.
Table 4.2: Analysis of PV practitioner responses to idealised PV practice
4.2.2 Characteristics of the voice pathways
Through the process of categorising differing conceptualisations of raising citizen voice, the research identified specific characteristics that seemed to motivate each voice pathway. For instance, practitioners aligned with the amplified voice pathway mainly
Pseudonym Years practiced Voice pathway Pseudonym Years practiced Voice pathway
Jessie 16+ Equitable Shane 4-7 Engaged
Katulpa 16+ Equitable Addison 4-7 Amplified
Misha 16+ Equitable Ash 4-7 Amplified
Sal 16+ Engaged Juno 4-7 Amplified
Devon 8-15 Equitable Kai 4-7 Amplified
Nic 8-15 Equitable Kendall 4-7 Amplified
Tyler 8-15 Equitable Mel 4-7 Amplified
Quinn 8-15 Engaged Morgan 4-7 Amplified
Toni 8-15 Engaged Alex 1-3 Engaged
Zhenya 8-15 Engaged Sasha 1-3 Engaged
River 8-15 Amplified Gustl 1-3 Amplified
Cass 4-7 Engaged Seri 1-3 Amplified
Page 70
described PV efforts as enhancing visibility, communication and evidence. Practitioners categorised in the engaged voice pathway primarily talked about advancing participation, dialogue and capacity with PV. Practitioners placed in the equitable voice pathway tended to prioritise PV processes that strengthened agency, receptivity and relationships. Table 4.3 highlights these key epistemological differences through linking the characteristics to PV actions.
Table 4.3: Key characteristics of the three voice pathways
Voice pathway
Characteristics
Amplified voice
Visibility Communication Evidence
PV activities create
opportunities for citizens to express and amplify their opinions and concerns in decision-making spaces where they have previously been absent.
PV activities provide access to communicative PV activities and
technologies for citizens to create their own messaging.
PV activities capture locally generated knowledge, concerns and lived experiences of citizens.
Engaged voice
Participation Dialogue Capacity
PV activities foster new
possibilities for citizens to enter into previously closed decision- making spaces, participate in formal governance spaces or to create new spaces for
engagement.
PV activities build mutual understanding between citizens and decision- makers through engaging with each other’s
perspectives.
PV activities ensure citizens can better understand and reflect on their
marginalisation so they are more equipped to try to change it.
Equitable voice
Agency Receptivity Relationships
PV activities help citizens recognise and socially and/or politically act using their own knowledge, capabilities and power.
PV activities generate possibilities for more responsive listening by decision-makers to its citizens.
PV activities cultivate equitable exchange between citizens and decision-makers through greater connectedness, empathy and mutual trust.
Naming and describing the characteristics helped distinguish the uniqueness of the three voice pathways. Admittedly, however, these characteristics were not the only ones identified in each pathway. Certain characteristics were apparent in multiple pathways, such as the value of making citizen concerns more visible. Nonetheless, for the sake of scholarly debate, the study narrowed the findings to the three most prominent
Page 71
characteristics discussed by the study’s practitioners in each voice pathway, as described in the subsequent sections.