How The Community Makeup Affects Decision Making

Article Navigation

The tree of participation: a new model for inclusive decision-making

Karen Bell,

Section of Geography and Environmental Management, University of the W of England

, Bristol

Address for correspondence: Karen Bong, Section of Geography and Ecology Management, University of the Westward of England, Bristol; electronic mail: karen.bell@uwe.ac.uk

Search for other works past this author on:

Abstract

Community development oft involves organizing participatory controlling processes. The challenge is for this to be meaningful. Participatory decision-making has the potential to increase the transparency, accountability, equity and efficiency with which public assistants serves the least privileged in guild. However, in exercise, it often fails to bring about these outcomes. A number of academics and practitioners take, therefore, theorized how participatory controlling processes can ameliorate empower marginalized groups. By critically reviewing this body of work and empirically grounding the debate in recent practice, we aimed to develop a theoretically rigorous, hands applicable and holistic model of an inclusive participatory decision-making process that can work across a range of contexts. The empirical strand included surveying public appointment practitioners and participants about the participatory events they had organized or attended. These empirical findings were combined with insights from the theoretical literature to devise a new conceptual model of emancipatory, inclusive and empowering participatory determination-making – the 'Tree of Participation'. The model tin can be useful to both organizers of participatory processes, as a bank check for empowering and inclusive practice, and to disadvantaged groups, every bit a prepare of expectations and demands when engaging in public decision-making.

Introduction

The thought that people should exist able to influence the decisions that affect their lives is widely supported from all sides of the political spectrum (see UNECE, 2001; Dean, 2017) and is a key tenet of community development. The challenge is to be able to create spaces for both voice and influence and to help provide the necessary back up (Cornwall, 2008). Citizens are besides sometimes peachy to exist more involved in conclusion-making regarding planning and management on matters that directly bear on them. For example, Extinction Rebellion is currently advocating Citizens' Assemblies equally a form of deliberative democracy to address the challenge of climate change (Extinction Rebellion, 2019). However, participatory decision-making processes are often considered to exist inadequate in practice, with concerns ranging from the manipulation of individuals and tokenistic use of participation to legitimize decisions, to broader critiques that society does not currently equip people with the necessary data or equality required to participate in effective discourse (e.g. Mansbridge, 1990; Young, 1990; Benhabib, 1992; Fraser, 1992; Ocloo and Matthews, 2016).

Accurate and effective participation clearly depends on the quality of the process and there has consequently been significant academic and practitioner attention to this over decades (e.yard. Arnstein, 1969; Dryzek, 1990; Young, 2002; Cornwall, 2008; Eversole, 2012). To improve participatory processes, several theoretical models of participation have been adult, as volition be discussed.

Some analysts accept besides argued that the type of participatory procedure must respond to the context (e.chiliad. Kochskämper et al., 2017; Plummer et al., 2017). Evidence indicates that context will strongly affect on the participatory process, for example, in terms of (i) the objectives of the controlling process, (ii) social-cultural factors, (iii) political-governance factors, (iv) power dynamics, (v) historical context, (six) spatial context and (vii) temporal context. These are points made across the literature (east.thousand. Gurney et al., 2016; Baker and Chapin Three, 2018; Reed, Bryce and Machen, 2018), distilled here into these seven categories and reflected in our 'Tree of Participation' (Top) model. At that place is not the infinite to elaborate on all hither but, for case, demographic factors accept been shown to influence the levels of date from publics and stakeholders forth lines of wealth (due east.g. Agrawal and Gupta, 2005), gender (east.one thousand. Zuhair and Kurian, 2016) and educational activity (e.g. Chen et al., 2013), amongst other factors.

It is important to also consider temporal bug. Contexts alter, often rapidly and unpredictably, and this can accept a pregnant begetting on how participation plays out. Yet, limited attending has been paid to temporal factors and their dynamics in the analysis and pattern of participation.

In view of the plethora of models, their contradictory nature and their tendency to overlook context, as onetime community development workers and participation organizers, the authors were motivated to develop a new participatory decision-making model that is theoretically rigorous, easily applicative and that tin work across a range of contexts. Rooted in an aspiration for inclusion and emancipation, this model builds on the particular strengths of each of the key participation models reviewed below and resolves some tensions between them. The model developed – the ToP – can be used by those who engage in participatory decision-making processes, whether as organizers or every bit stakeholders, in planning, policy development and service blueprint beyond a range of issues. It can be utilized as an organizer's guide to empowering and inclusive practice and as a stakeholder's gear up of expectations and demands. If taken up in this way, it is hoped that this model can reduce the likelihood of tokenistic or manipulative engagement and achieve ameliorate outcomes for the to the lowest degree powerful.

Method

To develop the model, the methodology integrated both theoretical and applied expertise on inclusive public participation in decision-making. A narrative literature review was chosen over systematic methods that tend to focus on more narrowly focused questions. Narrative reviews are scholarly summaries that combine interpretation and critique ( Petticrew et al., 2013; Greenhalgh, Thorne and Malterud, 2018). They crave authentic representation of the underpinning show to the argument and an explanation of how this evidence has been drawn upon and fatigued together to inform conclusions (Greenhalgh, Thorne and Malterud, 2018). This process provided the level of estimation and critique necessary to deepen the understanding of what works in participation.

Sources included the Scopus and Web of Science databases (citation indexes, general searches and subject field specific searches), reference lists, library searches, grey literature and internet search engines (Google, Google Scholar). Papers and texts were included from 1950, assuasive a seventy-year timespan. Primal elements important for empowering participatory decision-making and arcadian models were, thereby, identified within a number of different disciplinary and application contexts.

The relevant factors for inclusive participation that were identified in the narrative review formed the basis of the questions for an online survey. The survey was called 'Participation – What Works?'. It was designed to elicit knowledge from those with feel in engaging with publics and stakeholders. The aim was to identify the factors leading to the empowerment or disempowerment of participants in processes they had direct experience of. The online survey was made available online for two weeks in October 2018. It was announced via the United kingdom National Co-ordinating Centre on Public Date; the training company, Fast Track Impact; and Voscur, a voluntary sector infrastructure organization, using their newsletters and online noticeboards. A full of 70-five individuals completed the survey, most on behalf of the organizations they work or volunteer for. Of these, fifty were answering as organizers of participatory processes and 20-five as participants. All the organizations were based in the United Kingdom.

Those who took up the invitation were asked, via the short survey, well-nigh their experiences in relation to participation. The seventy-five survey respondents were asked to consider a participatory event that they had organized or taken part in. These respondents opted to focus on their engagement with public decision-making events linked to a range of public assistants issues, including health services, development planning, gender, science, democracy, recruitment, refugee services, legal services, state utilise, care services, parks and environmental services.

The survey covered the purpose of the participation process; the timescale; the spatial scale; its perceived level of success; the presence of factors theorized equally important for an effective and inclusive participatory decision-making process; and the extent to which adaptations were fabricated to include marginalized groups. There were ten key questions – about were multiple pick (e.g. type of participation event, timescale and spatial calibration). Some required rating, on a calibration from one to 5, the extent to which specific factors were present in the participatory process they were because, such as 'transparency of process' (see Tabular array 1 for a full list). There were besides open up spaces bachelor to add farther qualitative data. The concepts used were explained or expanded upon in the survey, for example, 'The power to deliberate' was further elaborated as 'i.e. to share perspectives freely with adequate information to do so', as described in Table 1. This table also indicates where each factor may be nearly relevant in the temporal procedure – before, during or after.

Table 1

Theorized factors rated in survey and main phase of process where important

Factor	Phase
A safe space that fosters trust	PRE and DURING
Inclusion of marginalized voices/perspectives
Accessibility to all, systematically identifying and overcoming barriers to appointment, such as price, linguistic communication and cultural barriers
Access to the resources and other means necessary to actively participate
Equal ability for all participants within the procedure	DURING
The power to deliberate, that is, to share perspectives freely with acceptable information to do so	DURING
Accountability, during and postal service-process, ensuring that responsibility is taken for decisions and they are faithfully implemented	DURING and POST
Feedback loops that go on people informed nearly how their knowledge is being used	DURING and POST
Equal recognition of all types of noesis from local, lay, breezy, implicit, contextual 'know-how' to scientific, practiced, formal, explicit, universal 'know-why'	ALL
Authenticity, that is, honest and open communication
Transparency of process, that is, occurring in an open manner without secrets
Liberty (from fearfulness)

Factor	Phase
A safe infinite that fosters trust	PRE and DURING
Inclusion of marginalized voices/perspectives
Accessibility to all, systematically identifying and overcoming barriers to engagement, such as cost, linguistic communication and cultural barriers
Access to the resources and other means necessary to actively participate
Equal ability for all participants within the process	DURING
The power to deliberate, that is, to share perspectives freely with adequate data to do and so	DURING
Accountability, during and post-process, ensuring that responsibility is taken for decisions and they are faithfully implemented	DURING and Mail service
Feedback loops that go on people informed near how their knowledge is existence used	DURING and Mail service
Equal recognition of all types of knowledge from local, lay, breezy, implicit, contextual 'know-how' to scientific, skilful, formal, explicit, universal 'know-why'	ALL
Authenticity, that is, honest and open communication
Transparency of process, that is, occurring in an open up way without secrets
Liberty (from fearfulness)

Table 1

Theorized factors rated in survey and principal phase of process where important

Gene	Phase
A prophylactic infinite that fosters trust	PRE and DURING
Inclusion of marginalized voices/perspectives
Accessibility to all, systematically identifying and overcoming barriers to appointment, such as cost, language and cultural barriers
Access to the resource and other means necessary to actively participate
Equal power for all participants within the process	DURING
The power to deliberate, that is, to share perspectives freely with adequate information to do then	DURING
Accountability, during and post-process, ensuring that responsibility is taken for decisions and they are faithfully implemented	DURING and POST
Feedback loops that continue people informed about how their knowledge is existence used	DURING and POST
Equal recognition of all types of knowledge from local, lay, breezy, implicit, contextual 'know-how' to scientific, expert, formal, explicit, universal 'know-why'	ALL
Actuality, that is, honest and open communication
Transparency of process, that is, occurring in an open way without secrets
Freedom (from fear)

Factor	Phase
A safe space that fosters trust	PRE and DURING
Inclusion of marginalized voices/perspectives
Accessibility to all, systematically identifying and overcoming barriers to engagement, such as cost, language and cultural barriers
Access to the resources and other means necessary to actively participate
Equal power for all participants within the process	DURING
The ability to deliberate, that is, to share perspectives freely with adequate information to practice so	DURING
Accountability, during and mail service-process, ensuring that responsibility is taken for decisions and they are faithfully implemented	DURING and Postal service
Feedback loops that keep people informed about how their knowledge is being used	DURING and Postal service
Equal recognition of all types of knowledge from local, lay, informal, implicit, contextual 'know-how' to scientific, good, formal, explicit, universal 'know-why'	ALL
Authenticity, that is, honest and open communication
Transparency of process, that is, occurring in an open way without secrets
Freedom (from fear)

The online survey participants were besides asked to consider various factors relating to context. For example, they were asked:

'Which, if any, particular groups were targeted for the process? (cull all relevant – Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic; depression-income; women, disabled people, LGBTQIA+ and other marginalized or oppressed groups)'.

The participants were also asked whether they had adapted the process to take into business relationship the different contexts.

The survey was summarized using basic frequency statistics together with grounded theory analysis for the qualitative data (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Charmaz, 2006). The narrative literature review and the online survey material were then integrated to develop the Peak model. This involved identifying central factors required for inclusive engagement from the narrative review and the survey and building into the model. The findings from these two streams of the study volition exist elaborated in the following sections before further discussing the development and application of the ToP model.

Key models of participatory decision-making

The narrative literature review revealed numerous relevant studies and ideas regarding inclusive participatory determination-making. They are broadly represented past the following 8 key theories, presented here in the order of their temporal appearance in the literature. Though there are a number of other theories and models, such as the IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum (IAPP, 2007), the theories below have been selected every bit being the most fundamental and influential over time.

Arnstein'southward ladder

Sherry Arnstein's (1969) model of participation focuses on the manipulations that can be inherent in participatory decision-making processes. Her work is normative and radical, providing a critique that centres on the extent to which power is devolved to participants. She describes a ladder of participation with steps from 'non-participation' aiming to 'educate' or 'cure' participants at the bottom; through 'tokenism' that allows communication but non influence; to increasing degrees of decision-making power up to total managerial command at the top of the ladder. 'Consultation', which often seems to be considered the aureate standard of participation past planners and governments in general is likewise criticized by Arnstein. Consultation offers no assurance that citizen opinions volition be taken into business relationship since powerholders reserve the right to judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice given. At this phase, participation is measured past how many people come to meetings or answer a questionnaire. Higher up the ladder, at the level of partnership, power has been redistributed between citizens and elites and decision-making is shared. However, this requires an organized ability-base in the customs and, ideally, financial resource for the community to pay their ain technicians, lawyers and community organizers. 'Citizen command' is the highest rung and occurs when participants or residents tin be in full charge of the policy, programmes and management which affect their lives. Other participation models have congenital on Arnstein'due south work, such equally Shier'southward (2001) 'Pathways to Participation' for children and youth. Arnstein's model is useful in highlighting all that can be dysfunctional in participatory decision-making and in linking the interpersonal and organizational barriers to participation with customs, resourcing and governance issues. Even so, the model has been critiqued for being value-laden (east.g. Dean, 2017) and conflating the clarification of participation (typology) with explanations about what works (theory) (e.g. Reed et al., 2018).

Citizen assessments

A number of studies take looked at citizens' assessments of legal and other decision-making procedures in terms of their fairness. Thibaut and Walker (1975) found that people considered procedures to be fair to the extent that they perceived they had control over the determination-making process and consequence. Later, Leventhal (1980) found that perceptions of procedural fairness were enhanced past the presence of consistent procedures; lack of bias, self-involvement or prejudice; access to accurate and reliable information; the ability to alter and reverse decisions that comprise errors or oversights; and the extent to which the opinions and values of those affected by the decisions are represented. Pops and Pavlak's (1991) model of off-white controlling processes included equality of admission to the procedure, neutrality, transparency, efficiency and right to appeal. Bies and Moag (1986) focused on interpersonal aspects, such as whether decision makers are truthful, treat people with respect, refrain from improper questions and justify decision outcomes.

Deliberative democracy

In platonic circumstances, 'deliberative democracy', sometimes too known every bit 'discursive democracy', would fit into the superlative rungs of Arnstein's ladder as a form of citizen power. The term refers to collective determination-making based on inclusive public discussions (Dryzek, 1990; Cohen, 1989). Deliberative democracy asserts that commonwealth is realized through the experience of deliberation which furthers agreement and cocky-development. Dryzek (1990) argues that deliberative communication should be complimentary of domination, strategizing and self-deception and that all actors should be fully capable of making and questioning arguments. Similarly, Habermas's (1984) 'ideal speech state of affairs' asserts that, for procedures to be considered fair, in that location should exist no restrictions, either inner (due east.grand. prejudices) or outer (e.1000. ideologies, lack of fourth dimension and insufficient knowledge), determining the outcome of the discourse. Only the force of improve argument would determine the upshot (Habermas, 1984). Therefore, language should be mutually understood and there must be sincerity, freedom and correct of oral communication, a correct to question and requite answers, and accountability.

In that location are ability problems within deliberation that must exist acknowledged. Benhabib (1992) noted, for instance, that the concerns of not-dominant groups, such every bit women, are often deemed inappropriate for public discussion. In this style, '… deliberation can serve as a mask for domination' (Fraser, 1992, p. 119). Especially where there are low levels of participation, participatory models can reinforce the existing inequalities betwixt groups of citizens. Therefore, deliberative commonwealth commonly involves all-encompassing outreach to include marginalized groups. In particular, Young (2002), argues for 'inclusive deliberative democracy' and highlights that 'inclusive' reflects, not just presence, but voice. Other authors have gone beyond the requirement for recognition of 'voice' to recognition of 'knowledge' (e.chiliad. Krumer-Nevo, 2009; Eversole, 2012). For example, Krumer-Nevo (2009), focusing on the extent to which people in poverty tin can influence debates and policy on poverty, argues that their perspectives must be recognized as valid 'knowledge'. It is non simply about having the infinite to say things but also that what is said is taken seriously and considered to exist of high value. There are many examples of deliberative democracy in action, particularly from the Global Due south, such every bit participatory planning in informal settlements in Uganda (Watson and Siame, 2018) and co-produced housing in Thailand (Boonyabancha and Kerr, 2018).

Participatory politics

Participatory politics (parpolity) draws on deliberative republic but has practical ideas well-nigh how decision-making should be organized. Information technology builds on participatory economic science (parecon) and the two are envisioned as running aslope each other (Albert, 2003; Hahnel, 2005; Shalom, 2010). Parecon uses participatory decision-making to guide the production, consumption and allocation of resources equally an culling to either backer or socialist economical structures (run across Albert, 2003; Hahnel, 2005). Parpolity is based on the values of freedom, self-direction, justice, solidarity and tolerance. Its ambition is to permit people to participate in determination-making based on the principle that every person should have a say in a determination proportionate to the caste to which she or he is affected by that conclusion. Parpolity would necessitate liberty without intruding on others desires, equal treatment, defining and creating preferences in a participatory mode, cooperation and diversity, a diverse media, and rotation and sharing of jobs and so that anybody develops their highest level of political efficacy (Shalom, 2005). Parpolity advocates a different democracy than currently tends to exist and needs an equal gild in order to part properly. Fung and Wright'south (2001) 'empowered deliberative republic' identified similar real-world processes in the participatory budgeting of Porto Alegre and the Panchayat reforms in W Bengal, Republic of india.

Bong's procedural justice indicators

Bong's (2014) Procedural Justice Indicator listing suggests that the following should have been met in any participatory process that seeks ecology justice: all parties that were affected by environmental decisions were invited to contribute to the controlling process, were treated with equal respect and value and would have access to sufficient textile resources to enable them to participate on an equal footing. The ecology decision-making process would be open up to all questions and alternatives and all environmental decisions would be made publicly. Furthermore, all affected would have an equal right and an equal chance to express their point of view and the relevant rules and procedures would be practical consistently. In that location would as well be accurate and accessible information; authentic, accessible and honest advice and a lack of external compulsion. All those affected would be included in all stages of decision-making. The national context would include freedom of association, the right to peaceful protest and free access to legal redress. Finally, none of these would be achieved past undermining the needs and rights of other species, people or future generations. Bell'southward indicator list incorporates some aspects of context, such as political freedoms, but has petty to say virtually how these indicators might be accomplished in different contexts.

The wheel of participation

Recent theory adult past Reed et al. (2018) suggests that the negative outcomes from public and stakeholder engagement may be explained by an inappropriate option of appointment blazon for a given purpose or context, and a range of process pattern and external contextual factors ( Reed et al., 2018). Reed et al. (2018) suggest that their 'wheel of participation' is a more appropriate metaphor than Arnstein's ladder of participation because information technology removes value judgments about unlike types of appointment. They contend that summit-downwardly engagement may exist just as advisable and effective every bit bottom-upward approaches for some contexts and purposes. Notwithstanding, this fails to take into account the power dynamics Arnstein sought to overturn in her piece of work. The normative goal of empowering publics and stakeholders still remains unmet in many engagement processes, and new thinking on participation needs to explain how information technology facilitates and subverts power relations betwixt participants.

All the same, the key contribution of Reed et al. (2018) remains – its contention that the variation in outcomes from different types of engagement differs according to four factors (from Reed et al., 2018, p. ane):

Socioeconomic, cultural and institutional contextual factors; for instance, the beingness of a participatory culture, one-time experiences of appointment and available resources.
Process design factors (such as transparent, structured opportunities to engage).
Ability dynamics, the values of participants and their epistemologies; that is, the mode they construct knowledge and which types of knowledge they consider valid.
Temporal scales, such as early engagement and friction match to the temporal and spatial jurisdiction of the decisions and interests of stakeholders.

De Vente et al. (2016), who provided empirical testify to underpin the bicycle of participation, considered the relative importance of contextual versus design factors in determining the environmental and social benefits from participation. They concluded that in that location were more meaning design variables than contextual factors and proposed that, by getting a small number of design variables 'right', it should be possible to achieve beneficial outcomes from participation in almost any context.

Synthesis and gaps in theory

The picture that emerges from these studies is complex. Each model has its strengths and weaknesses, with all having been critiqued on various grounds, sometimes without resolution. Participatory practitioners and those who appoint in participatory decision-making could, therefore, remain understandably confused about the most constructive, inclusive and empowering participatory process pattern. This underlines the importance of developing a clear model that can be implemented.

Each of the preceding theories explain 'what works' to create an ideal participatory process, with varying emphases. Table 2 summarizes the principal emphases and considerations of these theories of inclusive participatory conclusion-making. Information technology also assesses whether important design elements are apparent in the model, that is, whether the model takes into account context and temporality and whether it is holistic and implementable.

Tabular array ii

Theories of inclusive participatory decision-making: main emphases and considerations

	Ladder	Citizen	Deliberative	Parpolity	PJI	Bicycle
Factors emphasized
Safe space	✔		✔		✔	✔
Inclusion	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Accessibility	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Resources	✔			✔	✔
Equal ability	✔		✔	✔	✔
Deliberative	✔		✔	✔	✔
Accountable	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Feedback	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Equal value	✔		✔	✔	✔
Actuality	✔		✔	✔	✔	✔
Transparency	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Liberty	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Considerations
Context				✔	✔	✔
Temporal						✔
Holistic	✔		✔	✔	✔
Implementable	✔	✔			✔	✔

	Ladder	Denizen	Deliberative	Parpolity	PJI	Cycle
Factors emphasized
Safe infinite	✔		✔		✔	✔
Inclusion	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Accessibility	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Resource	✔			✔	✔
Equal power	✔		✔	✔	✔
Deliberative	✔		✔	✔	✔
Accountable	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Feedback	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Equal value	✔		✔	✔	✔
Actuality	✔		✔	✔	✔	✔
Transparency	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Freedom	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Considerations
Context				✔	✔	✔
Temporal						✔
Holistic	✔		✔	✔	✔
Implementable	✔	✔			✔	✔

Tabular array ii

Theories of inclusive participatory decision-making: chief emphases and considerations

	Ladder	Citizen	Deliberative	Parpolity	PJI	Wheel
Factors emphasized
Safe infinite	✔		✔		✔	✔
Inclusion	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Accessibility	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Resource	✔			✔	✔
Equal ability	✔		✔	✔	✔
Deliberative	✔		✔	✔	✔
Accountable	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Feedback	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Equal value	✔		✔	✔	✔
Authenticity	✔		✔	✔	✔	✔
Transparency	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Freedom	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Considerations
Context				✔	✔	✔
Temporal						✔
Holistic	✔		✔	✔	✔
Implementable	✔	✔			✔	✔

	Ladder	Citizen	Deliberative	Parpolity	PJI	Bicycle
Factors emphasized
Safe space	✔		✔		✔	✔
Inclusion	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Accessibility	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Resources	✔			✔	✔
Equal power	✔		✔	✔	✔
Deliberative	✔		✔	✔	✔
Answerable	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Feedback	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Equal value	✔		✔	✔	✔
Authenticity	✔		✔	✔	✔	✔
Transparency	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Freedom	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔	✔
Considerations
Context				✔	✔	✔
Temporal						✔
Holistic	✔		✔	✔	✔
Implementable	✔	✔			✔	✔

Information technology is evident that, while each model makes a potent contribution to our understanding of inclusive participation, they accept some inadequacies in that they either ignore context, overlook temporal issues, are difficult to implement and/or focus just on partial aspects of the process. For case, Arnstein'south ladder focuses on the dysfunctional power dynamics in participatory processes, while denizen assessments are largely concerned with objective and accountable procedures. However, both of these approaches to participation overlook the important role of context in mediating procedures. Deliberative democracy and parpolity also emphasize the role of procedural factors in explaining what works in participation, with a focus on linguistic communication, communication, learning and the power of statement in the former; and additional transparent mechanisms and rights that empower citizens as agile governing agents in the latter. While parpolity puts participation in political context, in both cases, at that place is express consideration of the wider historical, cultural and other contexts in which participation is enacted. Bell'south list considers a range of contextual factors, including admission to resources, skills and information and respect for human rights, though information technology has petty to say most how to ensure that the indicators can exist delivered in dissimilar contexts. The bike of participation stands in counterpoint to many of these frameworks, arguing that the levels of participation should not be associated with normative statements nearly their value. Removing these value judgments makes it possible to employ whatever type of engagement that is nigh appropriate for the given context and purpose. However, who then decides what is appropriate? A set of principles, while normative, tin be adjusted according to the context, equally long as the stop result achieves the principles, taken every bit a whole.

The normative and context critiques of the current models are related, so, in that existence 'too normative' ignores context. Dean (2017) argues that strongly normative typologies of participation are inherently problematic considering different participatory processes have different goals. Hence, the definition of participation should vary co-ordinate to the context. Notwithstanding, although there may exist multiple means of viewing what constitutes skillful do, giving other meanings to the discussion 'participation' could be manipulative, with people existence encouraged to engage in the participatory process with the expectation of having a degree of influence that was non actually available to them. Therefore, a model that is normative, in the sense of setting some standards for ideal participatory do, seems to be important. Normative models of participatory controlling imply that certain universal standards should be met in process design to safeguard the needs of marginalized groups. However, setting such standards does not mean it is necessary to ignore context. What needs to be considered is: (i) how these dissimilar contexts might impact on the ability to achieve the principles and (ii) what (additional) actions should be taken to ensure that the principles can be achieved.

Therefore, to ameliorate include the function of context, an approach is now proposed which takes into business relationship how the contexts in which participation is situated mediate empowerment and other desired outcomes. Specifically, our enquiry sought to show how to organize participation such that normative standards and values tin be reached in different social, cultural and institutional contexts. Information technology also pays attention to the temporal dynamics of the participatory process in which participation takes place. In this fashion, the ToP model recognizes the irresolute importance of unlike factors throughout the participatory process.

This ToP model, therefore, aims to build on the strengths of the prior participation models and to overcome their limitations. Information technology is normative, in being based on the fundamental value that participatory controlling should be inclusive, empowering and emancipatory, particularly for the virtually marginalized and disadvantaged. However, it also enables context to exist taken into account through edifice in flexibility.

Having identified some of the significant aspects of an ideal participatory procedure design through reviewing these prior models, the next section discusses the extent to which organizers and attendees of participatory processes perceive these elements to be present in the processes they have engaged in.

Practices of participation organizers

Those who answered the online survey were asked to rate how successful the participatory process they had engaged with or organized had been. Perceptions of 'success' of the participatory event/process ranged from v percent (i.e. non very successful at all) to 100 percent (i.e. completely successful), with an average assessment of 73 percent successful. Using this percentage score, the cases were divided into 'Loftier Success Processes' (n25), 'Medium Success Processes' (n25) and 'Depression Success Processes' (n25).

A space to write freely was then available to respond to a follow-on question 'Describe what was successful or unsuccessful from your perspective?'. In answers, it was axiomatic that success was seen to be influenced by context, such as the prevailing political economy. For example, ane survey respondent said 'We were seriously affected by the economic crash which acquired big scale redundancies, so nosotros lost participants'. Some of the process pattern factors that were perceived to have built success included acceptable resources and good facilitation. For case, reflecting on the process, ane survey respondent said 'Open-mindedness and meliorate listening, and, as a upshot, better understanding are critical success factors'. On the negative side, ineffective outreach, inadequate chairing and inadequate attention to accessibility were highlighted equally undermining success. This is axiomatic in the following comment, where the survey respondent said of those who had attended the participatory controlling event they had organized, 'They were notwithstanding the "usual suspects". The kinds of people that usually turn upwardly to these kinds of events'. Some other said there was a problem with '…allowing negative influencers to make the procedure more stressful for anybody, every bit a result of not setting articulate enough ground rules at the starting time'. A further comment was that 'Some actually struggled to understand and were unable to take give-and-take further. Also, some project experts presented textile only were unable to excite a lay audience'.

The factors from the theoretical models which seemed to be virtually linked to perceived success were also identified past analyzing the answers to the other questions. The presence of factors laid out in Table 1 were assessed by participants on a calibration of one to five according to how strongly the gene was perceived to be present (i being low and 5 existence high). All of the principles listed seemed to be more present in the participation processes that were rated as 'High Success Processes' (see Figure 1).

Figure one

Factors linked to degree of success (low, medium and high) based on 'Participation: What Works?' survey, 2018

The survey respondents that had organized participatory processes were also asked: 'Which, if whatsoever, particular groups were targeted for inclusion in the process? (choose all relevant – Black, Asian and Minority Indigenous; low-income; women; disabled people; LGBTQIA+ and other marginalized or oppressed groups)'. Since these groups, together, make up the majority of the population of the Great britain, it was assumed that it would be relevant to include them. The next question they were asked was 'To what extent did you accommodate the process to empower these groups?'. Overall, 35 of the 50 organizers said they had adapted the procedure for these groups (70 percent) – 16 were organizers of the 'High Success Processes'; 12 were organizers of the 'Medium Success Processes' and 7 were organizers of the 'Depression Success Processes'. Although these are small numbers, information technology is interesting that the Loftier Success Processes were more likely to have been adjusted to ensure the constructive inclusion of relevant equalities groups. There is evident telescopic for more organizers to do this, given the social justice considerations and that equalities groups are so prevalent in the population. It has been noted that participatory processes can deepen the exclusion of already marginalized groups unless explicit inclusion efforts are fabricated (see, e.g. Guijt and Kaul Shah, 1998). Information technology would also be important to consider 'intersectionality' (Crenshaw, 1989), the multiple oppressions encountered by some. A number of studies provide information on how to exist inclusive beyond equalities groups (e.1000. Coulter and Collins, 2011; Beresford, 2013; Bell, 2021), though there is, in general, much more to work to be done on how to make the elements of ideal participatory controlling a reality for marginalized groups.

Discussion – a situated theory of participatory empowerment

The synthesis of theories to appointment raised a number of questions: Can you lot have a generalizable model of participation? How can it be simple plenty to be useful and circuitous enough to have power? How can a model be adult, which takes into account that which we have no control over, for example, context? The survey evidence suggested that all of the factors theorized as necessary for inclusive participation were more evident in the processes that were considered to be successful. From the quantitative information, some factors seemed to exist particularly associated with success, such equally feedback, accountability, equal power, freedom from fear, accessibility and inclusion (come across Figure one), only the qualitative comments most success betoken that all the factors matter.

The metaphor of a tree is now used to describe a conceptual model which builds on this understanding of the preceding theories and the empirical information to form an integrated theory that derives its explanatory ability from its latitude of coverage. First, information technology organizes each of the theoretical propositions about what works from preceding theories into a process-based framework that emphasizes the office of factors that precede and proceed from a participatory process. Second, it explains how participatory processes can empower participants past adapting to different and changing contexts.

About current thinking about participation is focused on engagement during the participatory process but, for a process to empower participants, there are a number of important additional factors that explain why participation does or does not lead to empowerment. Some of these must exist present prior to engagement, and some must be taken into business relationship long after the appointment process has officially come to an cease.

Based on the literature reviewed and the survey responses, it was theorized that the precursors to participatory empowerment may include: (i) the creation of safe spaces that foster trust; (ii) steps to ensure any procedure is as inclusive as possible of marginalized voices and (iii) systematically identifying and overcoming barriers to engagement, such as price, language and cultural barriers.

Factors that affect empowerment during the engagement process may include: (i) equality between participants that respects and values different knowledges and contributions; (ii) epistemological flexibility to recognize, evaluate and integrate contributions that are drawn from very dissimilar knowledge bases; (iii) authenticity; (iv) transparency; (5) agency, including liberty (from fear), and access to the resources and other ways necessary to actively participate; (half-dozen) representation based on democratic mandate and (seven) the ability to deliberate.

Factors that may keep to build empowerment or disempower participants post-process include: (i) accountability, ensuring that decisions are faithfully implemented and reverberate outcomes from the group procedure, representing complexity and difference and (two) feedback loops that keep people informed about how their knowledge is being used.

In addition to the factors that explain how participation leads to empowerment before, during and after the process, a fundamental feature of participatory empowerment is flexibility. Processes that lead to empowerment are characterized by their ability to adapt to the phase of the process, as contexts alter over time or when they are practical in new and different contexts. Aspects of context that may be dynamic include time; objectives of the participatory process; spatial scales; social-cultural contexts; political-governance contexts; historical contexts; and power dynamics.

All of the above process, contextual and temporal factors are combined in the Height model (encounter Figure ii). The Height model suggests twelve factors for inclusive and effective participatory processes and seven contextual factors that feed that procedure. The model is symbolized and depicted as a tree because a tree tin be used to make either a ladder or a rudimentary wheel (the metaphors used to describe the two most contrasting existing participation frameworks – Arnstein's and Reed's models). A tree requires an adequate environment (the context); can be pruned and trained (as the participatory process can exist designed) and the whole tree (outcomes for marginalized participants) is greater than the sum of its parts (the components of the participatory process). The tree is envisaged as follows: pre-process is represented by the roots; the process itself is represented past the branches; and mail service-process is represented by the leaves. Context surrounds the tree (air, soil, other trees, plants, etc.). All the components, including the context, interrelate. At that place is no proposition of any kind of hierarchy of factors. Each is integrated with the others.

Figure 2

The ToP

The Peak

It would be useful to follow up with interviews to assess in more than detail how people attending participatory processes perceive their effectiveness and whether this model is helpful for them. The model could be further developed as part of an iterative participatory process.

Of course, this model has been congenital through the input of those who organize or attend participatory events. It would also exist important to consider those who do not accept part. A lack of resources would virtually certainly prevent many people on low incomes from taking part in consultation or planning events (come across Bell, 2019), but these restrictions may not be recognized by the people who organize or nourish these events. In fact, this would be an essential follow-upwardly considering, otherwise, it would be making the same mistake that the inquiry seeks to address – not including the least powerful in the decision-making about the model. The model has also built on data from Britain participants, so this may limit its applicability internationally. Farther research would be helpful to exam it in a range of scenarios.

Determination

Whether or non it is useful for community development workers to organize formal participatory controlling processes clearly depends on the quality of the participatory process and its inherent fairness. It is of import to have a theoretically rigorous and easily applicable model which can guide practitioners in this. Information technology is also important for the public to be able to recognize a process worth getting involved in which they tin properly influence. With regard to previous endeavors to develop such a model, all the above participatory theories accept their strengths and weaknesses and, betwixt them, cover all bases. However, the intention was to conceptualize a simple model that included all the necessary elements, incorporating ability, justice and agency. The ToP model seems to practise this. It has force in being a holistic model that could be utilized every bit a 1-end-shop reference. The principles have to be accomplished in a manner which best makes sense of the context, using the about appropriate methods to do this. In particular, where the inclusion of equalities groups is considered, it is necessary to empathise how to empower these groups in the participatory undertaking. We, therefore, propose the Acme as a model which provides a framework from which to design an emancipatory and inclusive participatory decision-making procedure.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Lindsey McEwen, who is a professor of environmental management at the Academy of West of England, and ii anonymous reviewers for their very helpful suggestions regarding how to amend the article. The ToP graphic is past Anna Sutherland, Fast Track Touch on.

Karen Bong is a senior lecturer in ecology management at the Department of Geography and Environmental Management, University of the West of England, Bristol.

Marking S. Reed is a professor of socio-technical innovation at the Thriving Natural Capital Challenge Centre, Department of Rural Economies, Surround & Social club, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), Peter Wilson Building, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh.

References

Agrawal

and

Gupta

Yard.

(

2005

)

Decentralisation and participation: the governance of common puddle resources in Nepal's Terai

Globe Development

1101

–

1114

Albert

(

2003

)

Parecon: Life afterwards Capitalism

Verso

London

Arnstein

S. R.

(

1969

)

A ladder of citizen participation

Journal of the American Planning Association

(

216

–

224

Baker

and

Chapin

F. S.

Iii (

2018

)

Going beyond "it depends:" the function of context in shaping participation in natural resource management

Ecology and Society

(

twenty

Bell

(

2014

)

Achieving Environmental Justice: A Cantankerous National Assay

Policy Printing

Bristol

Bell

Thousand.

(

2019

)

Working-Grade Environmentalism: An Agenda for a Merely and Fair Transition to Sustainability

Palgrave

London

Bell

(ed) (

2021

)

Variety and Inclusion in Environmentalism

Routledge

Abingdon, Oxon

Benhabib

South.

(

1992

) Models of Public Space in, in

Calhoun

ed,

Habermas and the Public Sphere

MIT Press

Cambridge Mass

, pp.

–

Beresford

(

2013

)

Beyond the Usual Suspects

Shaping Our Lives

London

Bies

R. J.

and

Moag

J. S.

(

1986

)

Interactional justice: communications criteria of fairness

Research on Negotiation in Organizations

–

Boonyabancha

and

Kerr

(

2018

)

Lessons from CODI on co-production

Environment and Urbanization

(

444

–

460

Charmaz

Yard.

(

2006

)

Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis

Sage Publications

London

Chen

Zhu

Krott

et al. (

2013

)

Customs forestry management and livelihood development in Northwest China: integration of governance, project design, and community participation

Regional Ecology Change

(

–

Cohen

(

1989

) Deliberative Commonwealth and Autonomous Legitimacy, in

Hamlin

Pettit

eds,

eds

The Good Polity

Blackwell

Oxford

, pp.

–

Cornwall

(

2008

)

Unpacking 'participation': models, meanings and practices

Community Development Journal

(

269

–

283

Coulter

and

Collins

(

2011

)

Making Shared Decision-Making a Reality. No Conclusion about Me, without Me

The King'southward Fund

London

Crenshaw

(

1989

)

Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics

University of Chicago Legal Forum

fourteen

538

–

554

Dean

R. J.

(

2017

)

Across radicalism and resignation: the competing logics for public participation in policy decisions

Policy and Politics

(

two

213

–

230

Vente

Reed

M. S.

Stringer

Fifty. C.

et al. (

2016

)

How does the context and pattern of participatory decision-making processes affect their outcomes? Evidence from sustainable land management in global drylands

Environmental and Society

(

two

Dryzek

(

1990

)

Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy and Political Sciences

Cambridge University Printing

Cambridge

Eversole

(

2012

)

Remaking participation: challenges for community development practice

Community Development Journal

(

–

Extinction Rebellion

(

2019

)

The Extinction Rebellion guide to citizens assemblies

Fraser

Northward.

(

1992

) Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy, in

Calhoun

ed,

Habermas and the Public Sphere

MIT press

Cambridge Mass

, pp.

109

–

142

Fung

and

Wright

E. O.

(

2001

)

Deepening democracy: innovations in empowered participatory governance

Politics and Society

(

–

Glaser

B. G.

and

Strauss

A. L.

(

1967

)

The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research

Aldine Pub. Company

Chicago, IL

Greenhalgh

Thorne

Southward.

Malterud

(

2018

)

Time to challenge the spurious bureaucracy of systematic over narrative reviews?

European Journal of Clinical Investigation

(

six

e12931

Guijt

and

Kaul Shah

(

1998

)

The Myth of Community

Intermediate Technology Publications

London

Gurney

Thou. K.

Cinner

J. E.

Sartin

et al. (

2016

)

Participation in devolved commons management

Science and Policy

212

–

220

Habermas

(

1984

)

The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1, Reason and the Rationalization of Society

Beacon Printing

Boston, MA

Hahnel

(

2005

)

Economical Justice and Republic: From Competition to Cooperation

Routledge

Abingdon, Oxon

IAPP

(

2007

)

'Spectrum of Public Participation' International Clan for Public Participation. IAP2 core values of public participation

Krumer-Nevo

(

2009

)

From vocalism to knowledge: participatory action research, inclusive argue and feminism

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Instruction

(

279

–

295

Leventhal

G. South.

(

1980

) What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness, in

Thousand.

Gergen

Greenberg

Willis

eds,

eds

Social Relationships. Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research

Plenum

New York

, pp.

–

Mansbridge

(

1990

)

Beyond Adversary Republic

Basic Books

New York

Kochskämper

Due east.

Challies

Jager

N. W.

et al. eds (

2017

)

Participation for Effective Environmental Governance: Show from European Water Framework Directive Implementation

Routledge

London

(eds)

Ocloo

and

Matthews

(

2016

)

From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement

BMJ Quality and Prophylactic

626

–

632

Petticrew

Rehfuess

Eastward.

Noyes

et al. (

2013

)

Synthesizing bear witness on complex interventions: how meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

1230

–

1243

Plummer

Dzyundzyak

Baird

et al. (

2017

)

How do environmental governance processes shape evaluation of outcomes past stakeholders? A causal pathways arroyo

PLoS 1

(

), e0185375.

Pops

G. Thousand.

and

Pavlak

T. J.

(

1991

)

The Instance for Justice: Strengthening Decision-Making and Policy in Public Administration

Jossey-Bass

San Francisco, CA

Reed

Chiliad. Due south.

Bryce

Machen

(

2018

)

Pathways to policy touch on: a new approach for planning and evidencing research impact

Show and Policy

fourteen

431

–

458

Reed

Thousand. Due south.

Vella

Challies

East.

et al. (

2018

)

A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder and public date in environmental management work?

Restoration Environmental

–

S17

Shier

(

2001

)

Pathways to participation openings, opportunities and obligations

Children and Society

107

–

111

Thibaut

and

Walker

Fifty.

(

1975

)

Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis

Lawrence Erlbaum

Hillsdale, NJ

Watson

and

Siame

(

2018

) Alternative participatory planning practices in the global s: learning from co-product processes in informal communities, in

Due south.

Knierbien

Viderman

eds,

eds

Public Space Unbound: Urban Emancipation and the Post-Political Condition

Routledge

London

UNECE

(

2001

)

Convention on Access to Data, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention)

Un Economic Commission for Europe, Geneva

Young

I. K.

(

1990

)

Justice and the Politics of Difference

Princeton University Press

Princeton, NJ

Young

I. M.

(

2002

)

Inclusion and Democracy

Oxford University Press

Oxford

Zuhair

M. H.

and

Kurian

P. A.

(

2016

)

Socio-economic and political barriers to public participation in EIA: implications for sustainable development in the Maldives

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal

(

two

129

–

142

This is an Open Access commodity distributed under the terms of the Artistic Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/past/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.