INSTRUMENTO DE RECOLECCIÓN DE DATOS – FOCUS GROUP Pregunta Entrevist

Through the analysis I have pursued two research questions:

• Which basic notions of power are embedded in participatory planning?

• To what extent are these notions enabling reflective practice?

The analysis of communicative planning theory provides part of the answer to these two questions. The research tasks to analyse Swedish planning policy (Chapter 6) and practice (Chapter 7) will provide additional findings and enable a full answer to the questions (Chapter 8).

In the analysis of communicative planning theory, I researched the first question by identifying process frames pertaining to power in participatory planning and identity frames pertaining to planners’ roles in power relations.

Concerning power in participatory planning, the analysis showed variety in the three scholars’ framings over the years. Yet, in spite of the differences, my conclusion is that they draw on similar notions of power, originating from the same frame, which I conceptualise as the consensus frame.

The consensus frame diagnoses power as domination. Thereby, it draws attention to the family member illegitimate power over. The action bias flowing from this diagnosis is towards “network power”, “empowerment” and “authentic dialogue”, which in the family of power concepts is explicated as power with. I will explain how I have arrived at this finding by summarising the analysis of the three scholars’ work.

Forester’s framing of power shifted over the years. In his earlier work he relied on Habermas to diagnose how power distorted authentic communication, and suggested that discourse ethics should be applied to minimise these

distortions in and through participatory planning. Whereas in his later work he leaned more heavily on American pragmatism to diagnose how the misuse of power creates situated problems that ought to be addressed incrementally through participatory planning. In spite of supplying two distinct generic narratives about power in participatory planning, Foresters’ work takes shape through the same basic consensus frame. His interest lies in finding out when

“power is vulnerable” and he sees planning as the organisation of hope for empowerment, which is, in the analytical language of this thesis, a hope for power with.

Healey’s framing is similar yet distinctively different. She also makes use of Habermas’ work to critique how power relations result in the exclusion of people and issues. Yet her move to draw on structuration theory (Giddens, 1984) provides the seeds for theorising power beyond distortions, which is largely lacking in Forester’s work. Still, she is, as Forester is, mainly concerned with how planning can lead to more consensual power relations. To Healey, the hope is for agency in the micro practices of planning to transform planning cultures from illegitimate power over into power with.

Finally, Innes’ framing of power relies on Habermas’ and Castells’ work, combined with her practical experiences of participatory practices. The analysis showed how this combination leads her to critique power distortions and “old forms” of power, and suggest that participatory planning can and ought to replace these with “network power” or “authentic communication”. Innes’

approach to power thereby differs from Forester’s and Healey’s, yet it originates from the same basic frame. Her core preference is also to turn illegitimate power over into power with. The process frame identified through the analysis of the three scholars’ work is summarised in Table 8.

Table 8. The consensus frame

Consensus Diagnosis Power over is illegitimate.

Action bias Participatory planning ought to transform illegitimate power over into power with.

The analysis revealed a broader repertoire in the scholars’ framing of planners’

roles in power relations. I argue that the analysis shows that their notions of this topic can be conceptualised as three distinct identity frames: the facilitator, the critical pragmatist and the reflexive planner.

The facilitator frame guides all three scholars’ framing of planners, though Innes has relied most consistently and heavily on this frame. In her work, the idea of the facilitator is ever-present. The generic narrative is about skilful practitioners who, through mastering process design and facilitation, are capable

of turning illegitimate power over outside planning processes into power with inside of the processes.

Forester’s framing of planners shares the preference for power with, but is much more situated. His narratives are about planners who, through practical judgement and critical ethos, act to make a difference for those who are left outside the process and subject to repressive powers. Through the analysis of Foresters’ work I have identified the critical pragmatist frame, which suggests that planners ought to work incrementally to shift the power balance to the advantage of those who lack power.

Healey has, as her fellow scholars, seen planners as change makers, towards more inclusive planning cultures of power with. Yet, her framing of planners is different since she supplies what Forester and Innes are missing: a theorised account of planners’ roles in power relations. Her framing is informed by, what I call, the reflexive planner frame, originating from structuration theory. This frame leads to an understanding of how social structures carry past power relations into the present and how planners are shaped by these structures and yet capable of reflexivity and agency.

The three identity frames are summarised in Table 9.

Table 9. Identity frames in communicative planning theory

Facilitator Critical pragmatist Reflexive planner Diagnosis Planners are working in contexts

of illegitimate power over.

Action bias Planners ought to use their skills to design and facilitate

Let us turn to the findings pertaining to the second question. To what extent are the notions of power in communicative planning theory enabling reflective practice? This question will be responded to with a short and somewhat theoretical answer, which I will return to elaborate and illustrate more concretely through an analysis of Swedish planning practice (Chapters 7 and 8).

The findings show that the communicative planning scholars’ core notion is that illegitimate power over ought to be criticised and turned into power with through participatory planning. Conflictual power is largely defined as illegitimate and consensual power seen as desirable. The constitutive and productive notion of power, power to in my family, is largely missing. Regarding

the planners’ roles in power relations, the theory provides three basic alternatives: the facilitator, the critical pragmatist and the reflexive planner.

Thereby, communicative planning theory provides planners with a vocabulary, which usefully turns the gaze towards how planning actors, including planners’

themselves, might misuse their power to get it their way. It also provides a vision, power with, for how things could be different.

The most obvious constraint with this way of framing power is that it reduces power over to domination, to an evil. This way of thinking leads to, by definition, excluding the legitimate power over, which will be frequently needed to achieve both the communicative planning vision of power with and for settling contested planning issues. The second constraint is that more elaborated tools for understanding how power to is derived from social order are largely missing.

These gaps in the conceptualisation of power are what might cause an attempt to escape from power altogether in participatory planning, even if such an escape does not exist (cf. Haugaard, 2010a).

The two following chapters complement this engagement with scholars’

meaning-making by contextualising the research in Swedish planning policy and practice. First, in Chapter 6, I present the analysis of notions of power in planning policy and then in Chapter 7, I provide a look into planning practice and planners’ “dirty hands” experiences with power.

Citizens’ engagement in societal development and participation in planning can vitalise the municipal democracy. Participation can result in curiosity and interest, which can lead to broader engagement in society as well as in politics. […] But the dialogue ought not to invalidate the rules of representative democracy, where elected representatives have the right to make decisions on behalf of citizens. (Boverket, 2018, p. 18)

This chapter presents the findings from analysing notions of power in Swedish participatory planning policy. Two research questions are pursued: which basic notions of power are embedded in participatory planning? To what extent are these notions enabling reflective practice? Chapter 5 addressed the same questions and presented findings pertaining to the domain of theory. This chapter supplements those findings by explicating the notions of power in Swedish participatory planning policy.

In the first section the research is contextualised in Swedish planning policy.

The second section presents the analysis. Participatory planning guidance from two influential Swedish planning authorities is analysed. When the findings are summarised in the closing section, it is stressed that power is not explicitly discussed in the guidance. Instead notions of power tacitly inform the advice and directions provided to Swedish planners. Underneath the surface of guidance, the consensus frame, identified already in the analysis of communicative planning theory, informs the guidance alongside a more influential authority frame. The guidance employs two of the identity frames, which were found in the analysis of communicative planning theory: the facilitator and the reflexive planner. Importantly, the analysis also identifies an additional expert frame, which legitimises planners’ use of power over.

6 Notions of power in Swedish planning