Cook, Brian R. (Author)
Kesby, Mike (Author)
Fazey, Ioan (Author)
Spray, Chris (Author)
Presented as a panacea for the problems of environmental management, ‘participation’ conceals competing frames of meaning. ‘Ladders of participation’ explain insufficiently why public engagement is often limited to consultation, even within so-called higher level partnerships. To explain how participation is shaped to produce more or less symmetric exchanges in processes of deliberation, this article distinguishes between (1) discourses/practices, (2) frames and (3) power effects. This article’s empirical focus is the experience of participatory catchment organisations and their central but under-researched role in integrated catchment management. In addition to an analysis of policy statements and other relevant documents, this article draws on qualitative interview and participant-observation data gathered in an international participatory knowledge exchange that we facilitated among four participatory catchment organisations (and various other agencies). Results suggest that while statements about legislation promise symmetric engagements, the mechanics of legislation frame participation as asymmetric consultation. In their own arenas, participatory catchment organisations deploy participation within a framework of grassroots democracy, but when they engage in partnership with government, participation is reshaped by at least four competing frames: (1) representative democracy, which admits, yet captures, the public’s voice; (2) professionalisation, which can exclude framings that facilitate more symmetric engagement; (3) statutory requirements, which hybridise participatory catchment organisations to deliver government agendas and (4) evidence-based decision-making, which tends to maintain knowledge hierarchies. Nevertheless, participatory catchment organisations proved capable of reflecting on their capture. We thus conclude that the co-production of science and society, and the power effects of framing, must become explicit topics of discussion in processes of environmental policy deliberation for participation to result in more symmetric forms of public engagement.
...More
Article
Allain J. Barnett;
Melanie G. Wiber;
(2019)
What Scientists Say about the Changing Risk Calculation in the Marine Environment under the Harper Government of Canada (2006-2015)
(/isis/citation/CBB359628559/)
Article
Carmen McLeod;
Sarah Hartley;
(July 2018)
Responsibility and Laboratory Animal Research Governance
(/isis/citation/CBB564349730/)
Article
Kristoffer Whitney;
(2019)
It’s about Time: Adaptive Resource Management, Environmental Governance, and Science Studies
(/isis/citation/CBB335286233/)
Article
Allison Loconto;
Scott Prudham;
Steven Wolf;
(2024)
Environmental governance through metrics: guest introduction
(/isis/citation/CBB894684908/)
Article
Jenny Andersson;
Erik Westholm;
(2019)
Closing the Future: Environmental Research and the Management of Conflicting Future Value Orders
(/isis/citation/CBB589179620/)
Article
María Elena Giraldo;
Eliana Arancibia Gutiérrez;
(2023)
Governance in socio-environmental research: an analysis of multi-stakeholder cooperation mechanisms in two research laboratories in Yucatan, Mexico
(/isis/citation/CBB497620424/)
Article
Zora Kovacic;
(November 2018)
Conceptualizing Numbers at the Science–Policy Interface
(/isis/citation/CBB992633742/)
Article
Ashlyn Jaeger;
(2019)
(Re)Producing Cyborgs: Biomedicalizing Abortion through the Congressional Debate over Fetal Pain
(/isis/citation/CBB770211028/)
Article
Akos Kokai;
Alastair Iles;
Christine Meisner Rosen;
(November 2021)
Green Design Tools: Building Values and Politics into Material Choices
(/isis/citation/CBB745455255/)
Article
Colleen Lanier-Christensen;
(September 2021)
Creating Regulatory Harmony: The Participatory Politics of OECD Chemical Testing Standards in the Making
(/isis/citation/CBB606231580/)
Article
Emmanuel Henry;
(September 2021)
Governing Occupational Exposure Using Thresholds: A Policy Biased Toward Industry
(/isis/citation/CBB676852860/)
Article
Kris Hartley;
(November 2021)
Public Trust and Political Legitimacy in the Smart City: A Reckoning for Technocracy
(/isis/citation/CBB172268665/)
Article
Leonie Dendler;
Gaby-Fleur Böl;
(July 2021)
Increasing Engagement in Regulatory Science: Reflections from the Field of Risk Assessment
(/isis/citation/CBB423909656/)
Article
Alexander Rushforth;
Thomas Franssen;
Sarah de Rijcke;
(2019)
Portfolios of Worth: Capitalizing on Basic and Clinical Problems in Biomedical Research Groups
(/isis/citation/CBB805796865/)
Article
Mattia Andreoletti;
David Teira;
(2019)
Rules versus Standards: What Are the Costs of Epistemic Norms in Drug Regulation?
(/isis/citation/CBB881753075/)
Article
Natasha D. Schüll;
(March 2022)
Afterword: Shifting the Terms of the Debate
(/isis/citation/CBB889022961/)
Article
Emmanuel Henry;
Valentin Thomas;
Sara Angeli Aguiton;
Marc-Olivier Déplaude;
Nathalie Jas;
(September 2021)
Introduction: Beyond the Production of Ignorance: The Pervasiveness of Industry Influence through the Tools of Chemical Regulation
(/isis/citation/CBB736985993/)
Article
Beth Greenhough;
Emma Roe;
(July 2018)
Exploring the Role of Animal Technologists in Implementing the 3Rs: An Ethnographic Investigation of the UK University Sector
(/isis/citation/CBB661318783/)
Article
Brian Salter;
(January 2022)
Markets, Cultures, and the Politics of Value: The Case of Assisted Reproductive Technology
(/isis/citation/CBB380652953/)
Article
David Moats;
Liz McFall;
(2019)
In Search of a Problem: Mapping Controversies over NHS (England) Patient Data with Digital Tools
(/isis/citation/CBB339833803/)
Be the first to comment!