The first tension is related to planners’ understanding of and decisions about who the (potential) participants of the interorganizational collaboration should be. Although
conveners are not necessarily gatekeepers, planners have agency to determine with whom they wish to keep minimal contact or work together more closely for specific purposes in their collaborative efforts. Most planners recognized that any individuals or groups with lived experiences in the region can voice their thoughts about and should be able to get involved in the planning process; but, an oppositional tension arose when some planners differentiated experience from objective expertise obtained from professional training and believed that people with expertise are more effective contributors. This tension existed in
both regions, but two communicative practices revealed differences in planners’ approaches to this tension in Region A and B.
a. Defining Experts
Planners in both regions acknowledged that experts’ participation in the planning process was helpful in advancing planning activities through offering unique knowledge and experiences that they do not have. However, planners in Region A had a narrow definition of who “experts” were, and preferred incorporating the narrowly defined expertise into the planning activities over inputs from groups whose experiences do not fit their definition of expertise. Specifically, they believed that experts were those who did not communicate their ideas with emotion and/or have an agenda that went against the current planning vision put forward by decision makers.
For example, advocacy groups worked actively to build connections with their respective region’s planning organizations, and most of them have professional backgrounds in public policy or their specific interest area (e.g., education, environment, or social equity). While they were biased toward their goals, advocates were an important part of the region’s political and social systems due to their impacts on key decision making processes. Planners in Region A, however, believed that engaging with advocacy groups “raises a lot of
questions if it is an appropriate thing” due to their emotional reactions, and assumed that “advocacy groups do not want to see the development (included in the current regional plan) happen because of their agenda.” Therefore, Region A’s planning organization preferred to select experts whom they viewed as relevant and qualified for their collaboration, such as the region’s well-established business developers, and seek their involvement. By avoiding interacting with “biased advocates,” they ignored the fact that they are working with groups
that may well be as biased as advocates—biased in that they were chosen for their support for the current planning directions.
By selecting groups with narrowly defined expertise and limiting participation of those with relevant experiences that do not fit their understanding of expertise, planners in Region A attempted to prevent the tension between the two from emerging and complicating their collaboration process. By contrast, planners in Region B did not have preconceived ideas of what expertise should look like in order to contribute to the planning process. The planners explained that those with any experience in the region could be experts in their own rights and should have the right to participate in the process, even if they are biased and do not have the same visions as the planning professionals’. One planner’s quote illustrates this approach:
Working with those groups (e.g., advocacy groups) is very interesting, because they are adversary in the sense that one of those groups will very likely sue us--and if they sue us, it’s very expensive and complicated. On the other hand, we want them to have the right to sue us because, if we’re
carrying our duties in a way that is in conflict with the law or harming the environment unnecessarily—or whatever their basis is for the lawsuit—they are entitled to sue us.
This way, planners in Region B reframed participants’ expertise—experience tension as exercising the right to participate in the open collaboration process. Therefore, they were not concerned about who participates; instead, they focused on and valued what the
participating groups had to say about the current regional plan. For not having specific criteria or expectations for who should participate, they even welcomed involvement of groups that strongly oppose the regional plans. This practice reflected their acceptance of the tension, which emerges from diverse—often conflicting—ideas shared by collaboration participants with different expertise and experience, as necessary to do their job well.
b. Identity Work
The expertise—experience tension was managed differently also based on planners’ identity work. Identity work is an ongoing social and communicative negotiation process by which people construct a sense of self that they view appropriate in a given context (Watson, 2008); for example, professionals in prestigious occupations, such as physicians, engage in defensive mechanisms to uphold their roles (Bisel, Zanin, Rozzell, Risley-Baird, & Rygaard, 2016). The analyses showed that planners’ management of the expertise—experience tension was related to how they attempt to construct their professional identities as planning
professionals and conveners.
Planners in Region A viewed themselves and sought to maintain their identity as objective data scientists. Further, they wanted to be trusted and respected by their
stakeholders for their data-driven work that is unquestionable. These desires translated into their practices as conveners. To construct and communicate the “objective” identity, they believed that it is important to be selective about who they keep in their collaboration network. Thus, the planners preferred to involve other professionals who share such
“objective” identities as well as who understand the importance of data-based practices One planner mentioned that it is “a dangerous place to go” to involve groups who do not have those qualities, because it would hurt their efforts to communicate that they have “rigor and neutrality” and to protect their identity as a “respected and unbiased group of data analysts.” In this way, the planners’ identity work also reflected their preference for and selection of expertise over experience regarding who to (and not to) involve in the collaborative process.
On the other hand, planners in Region B constructed their identity realistically by admitting that their work can involve errors and biases, and wanted to be trusted for their
openness to criticism and willingness to make changes to their work based on collaborators’ inputs. For example, when a nonprofit group asked questions about planning data, they were overwhelmed by the planners’ explanations and said, “Oh my gosh, that is a lot. We trust you.” John, a planner who was in the meeting, responded, “Well, don’t trust us just because it’s complicated!” The planners accepted that they cannot work alone to develop a rigorous regional plan and tried to communicate their identity based on the idea of approachability. A head planner, Dylan, described the time when one advocacy group came to his team to negotiate their entry into the planning process. The group made efforts to gain credibility and increase the possibility to get involved by explaining how they know Dylan’s current collaborator. Dylan responded to the group, “It doesn’t matter who you are, you don’t need to know someone to get involved.”
In this way, planners in Region B were not concerned about protecting their positive identity by limiting who participates in their collaboration. Instead, they tried to construct a realistic identity and embraced the fact that they may gain a negative reputation when/if the shortcomings of their work are revealed by collaboration participants. Hence, they reframed the expertise—experience tension as necessary sources to help spot errors and improve the planning project, which requires a variety of perspectives, experiences, and expertise. Through such reframing, the planners communicated their identity as conveners who prioritize the quality of the regional plan over their reputation.