Article ID: CBB350967664

The persistence of ‘normal’ catchment management despite the participatory turn: Exploring the power effects of competing frames of reference (October 2013)

unapi

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
Citation URI
https://data.isiscb.org/isis/citation/CBB350967664/

Similar Citations

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 Zora Kovacic; (November 2018)
Conceptualizing Numbers at the Science–Policy Interface (/isis/citation/CBB992633742/)

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 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/)

Authors & Contributors
Henry, Emmanuel
Colleen Lanier-Christensen
Prudham, Scott
Rijcke, Sarah de
Kris Hartley
Greenhough, Beth
Concepts
Technoscience; science and technology studies
Governance
Power (social sciences)
Science and politics
Expertise
Participation
Time Periods
21st century
20th century
Places
Hong Kong
Sweden
Germany
Europe
China
Canada
Institutions
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
Comments

Be the first to comment!

{{ comment.created_by.username }} on {{ comment.created_on | date:'medium' }}

Log in or register to comment