Género discursivo

The dictionary definition of participation is ‘to take part^ (OED, 1994). In hght of this definition, it is unsurprising that the use o f this term, although now ubiquitous in pohcy documents and legislation, has become almost meaningless. Under the theme of participation hes an abundance of objectives, rationales and behefs o f who should be involved, why, where, when and how (Barnes, 1999). Participation is used to describe processes ranging from agencies involving volunteers, pubhc meetings (which I refer to as passive participation because o f the absence o f any direct or indirect influence over pohcy, and beyond the scope of this research), written consultation exercises, to exercises empowering local communities to define and dehver their own plans. Without further clarification the use of the term participation can be misleading and confusing. Arnstein’s ladder was the first attempt to categorise types of participation (Arnstein, 1969), and has been used and modified in many subsequent discussions o f participation (e.g. Wilcox, 1994; Sidaway, 1998; Harris, 2001). A modified version of this ladder is presented below emphasising how different ‘types’ of participation vary according to the flow of knowledge between agency and participants, and the extent to which responsibhity for decision­ making and implementation is shared between the organising agency and the participants:

Table 2.1. Typology o f Participation Indicating Communication and Control over D ecision

Participation Type

Explanation Knowledge flow Agency ^ ^ P’pants Control over decision Control over implementation Information Giving Agency provides information about decision already made Agency Agency Information Gathering Participants provide information which input into a decision made by the agency______ Agency Agency < - > Consultation Participants provided options to comment on, draft decision, asked for feedback Agency Agency < -

<

>

>

Deciding Together Interests brought together to decide best way forward Agency + Participants Agency Acting Together Deciding and sharing responsibility for implementation of decisions Agency + Participants Agency + Participants Empowerment Citizens empowered to make and implement their own plans

Participants Participants

<

(Adapted from Studd, 2002) Dominant knowledge flow

<

^ subdominant knowledge flow

The flow of knowledge can be one-way - provision of knowledge with httle concern over response; partial - with inclusion of a feedback mechanism about the extent to which the message has been received and accepted, with the initial message coming from either the

agency (e.g. consultation documents) or the consultées (e.g. focus groups / visioning); or full - a completed message is received in reply, leading to dialogue (Rowntree, 1992).

The extent to which agencies involve participants in the decision can range from informing them about decisions already made, listening and learning from participants, inputting outcomes into a decision made by the agency, to exchanging ideas and views and making the decision together (DETR, 1998a). Table 2.1. illustrates the changing relationship between agency and participants as participation moves from processes of information provision to empowerment, with an increasing emphasis on dialogue and the sharing of decision-making power. The end point o f the continuum is where agency involvement is reduced to an enabling role and citizens are empowered to take and implement their own decisions.

The phrase deliberative and inclusionary processes (DIPs), on which this research focuses, is useful as a means o f adding clarity to discussions about participation. Referring back to Table 2.1., the use of deliberative and inclusionary processes can be found in aU types of participation except information giving where the agency provides no opportunity for those outside it to input their ideas and knowledges, and remote consultation exercises where ‘participants’ provide responses to a document, but with no further interaction with those who prepared it. The key features distinguishing DIPs from other forms of participation is the focus on social interaction and agreement by consensus rather than the aggregation of individual responses. The relevance of the terms deliberation and inclusion to participation is explored in more depth below.

D eliberation - ‘careful consideration’, ‘discussion of reasons for and against’ (OED, 1994) Bloomfield et al, (2001) acknowledge the difficulty in coming up with a consistent definition of what constitutes a deliberative process. Instead, they identify a series of characteristics which Holmes and Scoones (2000) have summarised in the following six points:

• social interaction (usually face to face, but increasingly practitioners are exploring the potential role o f Information and Communications Technology)

• processes based on language - usually verbal discussion and debate • processes require respect for the different views held by participants

processes have a reflective capacity - designed to encourage participants to evaluate and re-evaluate their own position in relation to the statements made by others the emergence of mutual understanding and / or a consensus, by a process of reasoned dialogue

discussion is encouraged to take a relatively open-ended and unhurried approach to allow time for discussion and learning.

Inclusion - ‘the act o f involving others An inclusionary decision-making process is based on the active involvement of multiple social actors and usually emphasises the participation of previously excluded citizens’ (Pimbert & Wakeford, 2001:23).

Inclusion extends beyond the opportunity for people to have access to a process, to the influence people have within a process (Barnes, 1999). This links to what Webler (1995) refers to as fairness - the degree to which participants have an influence over the agenda, the structuring and moderation of the process, and the form of the debate in terms of initiating discussion, challenging and defending claims, and decision-making. In other words, Webler argues not only for allowing a wide range o f viewpoints access to the debate, but also for empowering the participants within the process to act, influence and shape the process. Inclusion raises the issue of who to include and how to include them, and raises particular challenges such as how to represent the values of those unable to represent themselves such as future generations and non-humans (O’Neill, 2001).

The relationship between deliberation and inclusion is complex. These two aspects bring different values and benefits to a process. ‘Inclusion encourages breadth in decision­ making, (i.e. broadening the range o f experience and knowledge involved) and deliberation is more concerned with depth’ (i.e. exploration o f values and perceptions in detail to develop mutual respect and understanding) (Holmes & Scoones, 2000:31). A process can be inclusionary without being deliberative. For example, pubhc meetings and referenda are widely used as a method to provide a large number o f citizens the opportunity to comment on a proposed plan / decision, without providing the opportunity to discuss the issues in any depth, or to develop relationships and understanding between decision-makers and stakeholders. A process can also be dehberative without being inclusionary when a smaU group of people, not seen as representative of ah the relevant interests, are brought together to discuss and decide on a course of action. However, according to Holmes and

Scoones (2000), only when deliberation is linked to inclusion can participatory processes start to tackle problems of democratic deficit, decreasing pubhc trust in institutions and concerns that centrahsed pohcy decisions do not meet the needs o f ah sections o f an increasingly diverse society. They claim that the legitimacy o f an outcome in terms of acceptabhity to the pubhc and the suitabihty of that decision to the local situation, can be compromised if the process is not seen as representative of ah stakeholders, and if relevant information and knowledge is overlooked. Nevertheless, for practical reasons such as time and resources, the principles of dehberation and inclusion are often traded off against each other in process design.

In document El entramado de las opiniones una secuencia didáctica, de enfoque discursivo interactivo, para la producción de textos argumentativos, género artículo de opinión, con estudiantes de grado décimo (página 41-53)