The Professionalization of Public Participation

Laurence Bherer, Mario Gauthier, Louis Simard, Laurence Bherer, Mario Gauthier, Louis Simard

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317269663
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The Professionalization of Public Participation is an edited collection of essays by leading and emerging scholars examining the emerging profession of public participation professionals.

Public participation professionals are persons working in the public, private, or third sectors that are paid to design, implement, and/or facilitate participatory forums. The rapid growth and proliferation of participatory arrangements call for expertise in the organizing of public participation. The contributors analyze the professionalization of this practice in different countries (United States, France, Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom) to see how their actions challenge the development of participatory arrangements. Designing such processes is a delicate activity, since it may affect not only the quality of the processes and their legitimacy, but also their capacity to influence decision-making.

1

Introduction

The Public Participation Professional: An Invisible but Pivotal Actor in Participatory Processes

Laurence Bherer, Mario Gauthier, and Louis Simard

Introduction

Participatory processes are generally viewed as a meeting between the sponsor of a participatory forum and citizens. In this equation, the sponsor is the one who initiates the participatory process and invites citizens to come and give their opinions on a specific issue that the sponsor has carefully defined. These citizens are individuals or groups that have shown their interest in the issue and that may have been selected through a variety of representation mechanisms (voluntary participation, random selection, a particular interest or involvement in an issue, etc.). Depending on the type of participatory setting, experts of various kinds (scientists, professionals, civil society groups, etc.) may also intervene to inform citizens about a particular aspect of the issue under examination so that they can give an enlightened opinion.

In this equation, there is also another actor who remains relatively invisible but who nonetheless plays an essential part in the conducting of participatory processes: this is the public participation professional (PPP), that is, an individual working in the public or private sector who is paid to design, implement, and/or facilitate participatory forums (Chilvers, 2013; Lee, 2015; Moore, 2012). Public participation professionals may have acquired their training in very different areas, but their professional trajectories and experiences have led them to become experts in the organizing of public participation. PPPs can be found not only in public administrations but also in NGOs and private firms.

In the last 20 years, many studies have been published on the growing use of public participation tools at every political level and in a variety of policy domains. Most focus on micro-sociological issues, that is, on the internal or immediate context of the participation mechanisms. This very prolific work has allowed us to map out a series of participation practices. But it has only given us a partial picture of public participation, as studies from this perspective have generally concentrated on a single participation mechanism or have compared isolated participatory arrangements. Public participation is, however, not limited to a series of isolated practices but is organized through a variety of networks of organizations and actors. We have only to think about the advent of specialized firms working in the field of public participation (Hendriks & Carson, 2008), about the creation of public agencies devoted to public participation—like the CNDP, or public debate commission, in France (Revel, Blatrix, Blondiaux, Fourniau, Hériard Dubreuil & Lefebvre, 2007) or the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE) in Quebec (Gauthier & Simard, 2011), and, of course, about the proliferation of participation mechanisms. This trend can be summarized in the notion of a participation movement, which refers to the growing number of participation mechanisms, some of which are very interesting from a democratic viewpoint, and includes other less sophisticated mechanisms which are nonetheless still part of the call for citizens to participate (Bherer, 2010). From this point of view, research on public participation must now investigate the interactions between participation mechanisms so as to understand the conditions involved in the production of participation as a whole and to better explain the factors that hinder or encourage public participation. In order to do so, this book proposes to analyze the role of the public participation professional, a public participation actor that, surprisingly, has until now been little scrutinized (see the pioneering studies by Chilvers, 2008a; Hendriks & Carson, 2008; Nonjon, 2005).

PPPs in fact interact with all the actors involved in participatory spaces (elected officials, civil servants, citizens, NGOs, public or private sponsors) in order to negotiate how the public participation will be carried out. Over time, and as public participation has become recognized, these professionals have developed a unique and rare expertise that they can now sell to clients or to potential employers. This pivotal role in the design of participation mechanisms also means that PPPs act as bridges between the different arenas in which public participation operates. In sum, participation professionals are well placed to play an important role in the implementation of public participation (Hendriks & Carson, 2008). They are at the heart of the supply of participation approaches and have to negotiate the design of participation mechanisms with public authorities. They thus reveal the nature of the field of public participation, and they are well aware of the tensions that shape this practice in a given political system.

What are the effects of this professionalization of public participation? Does it compromise or support the democratic aims associated with public participation? How does the approach that PPPs take affect their abilities to design effective public participation mechanisms? While the contributions in this book cannot fully answer all the questions raised by the professionalization of public participation, taken together, they provide a clearer profile of these actors in different contexts and help to explain the reasons for the rapid development of this profession, the role of PPPs in the dissemination of public participation practices, and the main day-to-day challenges that public participation professionals face in the pursuit of this new “craft.” Because PPPs are invisible actors, they are not easy to “capture,” methodologically speaking. The analyses gathered here are based on some of the first research programs in several areas (political science, sociology, management and leadership, urban planning, environmental studies) devoted to this new actor. In this brief introduction, we outline who the PPPs are, identify the main issues related to professionalization trends in this field, and present the various chapters of the book.

Who Are Public Participation Professionals?

Researchers use a variety of terms to designate public participation professionals—a fact that clearly reflects the wide range of activities performed by PPPs and the different approaches that they employ to do their work. To cite only some examples, PPPs have been called scribes (Escobar, 2014), facilitators (Moore, 2012), participatory process experts (Chilvers, 2008b), public engagement practitioners (Lee, 2014), professional participation practitioners (Cooper & Smith, 2012), participatory engineers (Bonaccorsi & Nonjon, 2012), deliberative organizers (Hendriks & Carson, 2008), or reflective practitioners (Albrechts, 2002). Forester is certainly the most imaginative author in finding several original names for this new profession, as he has also used “deliberative practitioners,” “mediators,” “facilitative leaders,” “self-styled community builders,” “coalition builders,” and even “de facto peacemakers” (Forester, 1999, 2009). In this introduction and in several chapters of this book,¹ we have deliberately chosen to use the term public participation professional because it does not emphasize any single aspect of the PPPs’ work. “Public participation” is used here as a term that encompasses many different approaches and forms of dialogue and collaboration.

The issue of the terminology and definitions used shows that there are all sizes and shapes of levels and forms of action, from the scribe who merely takes notes or facilitates communications to a limited extent to the expert who designs, regulates, and evaluates. This also indicates that this practice is characterized by a significant division of labour and a process of sub-specialization. Chilvers (2013, pp. 288–289) is the author who has gone the furthest in classifying PPP activities, using what he calls a mapping technique to generate PPP profiles in the UK science and technology sector. He identifies four areas of expertise: (1) orchestrating: commissioning, sponsoring, and guiding participatory arrangements; (2) practicing: designing, facilitating, reporting on dialogue processes; (3) coordinating: networking, capacity building, and professionalizing; and (4) studying: researching, theorizing, evaluating, and reflecting. We will now examine each of these four areas in turn in order to present an initial overview of the field of public participation, the variety of roles that PPPs play, and the different types of organizations in which they work.

First, we can find PPPs in organizations orchestrating participatory arrangements. These are the ones that initiate and sponsor such participatory arrangements. The most important sponsors are public organizations that initiate participation processes, such as government departments, public agencies, municipalities, and so on. Even if the majority subcontract the development of one-off participatory spaces to private firms, public organizations need some individuals on their staff who can design and evaluate participatory arrangements and also supervise consultants. Sometimes, they choose to hire civil servants that are completely dedicated to this task (Gourgues, 2012; Mazeaud, 2012). However, certain private proponents of development projects, community and non-profit groups, unions, industry trade associations, etc. are also increasingly becoming involved in orchestrating participatory arrangements (Lee & Romano, 2013). These one-shot sponsors usually outsource this expertise: they ask participatory consultants to implement a one-off participatory process. As such participatory arrangements increase, we can hypothesize that, as some public organizations are already doing, some of these other types of organizations that have very often dealt with participatory settings may sometimes, in the near future, choose to hire one or two professionals who can perform or monitor the work of participatory consultants.

Practicing includes the practitioners that we think of spontaneously when we talk about PPPs, because they are the most “visible” PPPs. “Practicing” PPPs are those who put the participatory arrangements directly in place by performing typical services related to the design and implementation of public participation processes: the production of informational materials, stakeholder outreach and process marketing, selection of process methods, design of the topical scope and coverage, recruitment of participants and small group facilitators, overall facilitation and “master of ceremonies” duties, event logistics, ongoing communication with participants, and evaluation of process efficacy (Lee, McNulty & Shaffer, 2013, p. 85). These kinds of PPPs do not initiate participatory processes (or only do so very exceptionally). They usually act as consultants in private firms or as freelancers (Hendriks & Carson, 2008) and sell their services to organizations that sponsor participatory arrangements. Some NGOs or think tanks that sell their participatory services as private firms also have hired PPPs.

The “coordinating” and “studying” sides of the profession are less well known. Coordination refers to emerging organizations helping to organize and professionalize the field, such as professional associations or organizations that disseminate best practices. There has been no systematic analysis of this kind of organization, but the best known of them are the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) (which is organized on the basis of various regional area or country associations) (Mazeaud, Nonjon & Parizet, 2016), the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD) in the United States, the “Public Participation” section of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA), the Institut de la Concertation in France, etc. These associations organize annual conferences and training workshops, produce guides and toolboxes, and generally promote public participation.

“Studying” is certainly the most ambiguous area of expertise from the point of view of the PPPs interviewed by Chilvers, because it involves academics who help to develop and legitimize the field by creating participatory spaces but at the same time take a critical stance (Chilvers, 2010, pp. 20–21). Lee & Romano refer to them as “pracademics” (2013, p. 744). Here we can think of such internationally known academics as James Fishkin, but there is also a myriad of academics involved in participatory arrangements at their community level or at a higher political level. Some “pracademics” are also true “stars” in specific domains but are not very well known in the sphere of democratic innovations, such as Lawrence Susskind, Professor of Urban and Environmental Planning at MIT. “Studying” also includes academic research centres, which are too numerous to list here (Carcasson, 2014). These research centres usually play an active role in publicizing and advocating for participatory arrangements, through the direct implementation of participatory settings, the evaluation of these settings, or the conducting of extensive experimental research. In tracing the history of research on participation and the development of participation mechanisms in France since the 1970s, Blatrix (2012) highlights several types of contributions from academics: (1) researchers help to give credence to the concept of a social demand for participation and the need for participation mechanisms, for which they become the main advocates; (2) they foster the dissemination of participation mechanisms by giving priority to specific mechanisms; and (3) they contribute to the development of a doctrine of participatory democracy by formulating rules and principles of use. While the professional activities of academics warrant more systematic study, it should nonetheless be noted that they are engaged in a “passive” type of consulting: they do not solicit clients directly but often wait for clients to come to them, and they are also freer than other types of consultants to decline invitations and requests (Hendriks & Carson, 2008). However, it is important to acknowledge that the “studying” role can also be performed by NGOs or think tanks, as the number of guidelines on public participation published by these actors shows.

These four areas of expertise are not mutually exclusive (Chilvers, 2013, p. 290). The boundaries between the various categories are considered very porous, and movement between them is seen as commonplace. As Chilvers and others among the few scholars who are interested in this new profession have said, the situation is clearly very complex (2013, p. 289). PPPs in fact form a strategic action field (Lee, 2011). A strategic action field is a system of actors and organizations in which the actors consider other members in carrying out their actions (Fligstein & McAdam, 2012). This concept implies that society is characterized by sectors of action that develop after the creation of organizations that mutually recognize that they share the same sphere of activities and interact among themselves in different ways (collaboration, conflict, domination, etc.). These interactions do not automatically involve collaborative relationships. On the contrary, strategic fields include conflict and domination. This is the case in the public participation field, which is far from being homogeneous. Not only are PPPs hired by several types of organizations that perform the four different roles that we discussed in the previous paragraphs, but they also do not share the same understanding of the aims of public participation, of the way to concretely put it into practice, or of their own role in this practice. Some have a very minimalist understanding of their role, whereas others develop an interventionist style of facilitation (Smith, 2009, p. 198).

In the past 10 years, a small group of pioneering scholars have begun to be interested in PPPs, in the organizations that hire them, and in what this reveals about the practice of public participation: that is, they are attempting to understand the strategic field of public participation. Several of these scholars are included in this book, which, for the first time, brings together analyses on the development of this new profession in different countries and on the issues raised by professionalization in the pursuit of participatory democracy. The following section looks at some of the risks associated with the professionalization of politics and how this can be applied to PPPs.

What the Professionalization of Public Participation Means

Public participation professionals can be understood as forming part of the new political professions that have been created in the last 20 years and that have assumed a growing importance in activities of political mobilization and influence, such as election campaign organizers, public affairs consultants, lobbyists, or public relations specialists (Medvic, 2006; Svallfors, 2016; Walker, 2014). All of these new professions reflect the professionalization of politics and, more specifically, the professionalization of advocacy. They all share the general objective of developing and putting in place methods to reach and mobilize political actors and citizens in order to achieve the aims of the organizations that hire them (Walker, 2014). However, among these new types of professionals, public participation professionals are certainly the ones with the most ambiguous role.

Campaign organizers want to get their candidates elected. Public relations specialists manage communications and messaging by targeting the general public or specific groups of actors and citizens in order to improve the image of their clients. Public affairs consultants (also called grassroots lobbyists) also strategically manage their client’s political and social environment but employ grassroots mobilization techniques to target and recruit activists for their client’s cause (Walker, 2014). They all work on behalf of their clients to help them to obtain what they want, on a political level. For them, politics is often a zero-sum game where someone wins (hopefully, their clients), and someone loses. Their work is also controversial: they are often seen as puppet masters who seek to manipulate people to achieve their clients’ ends (Medvic, 2006).

In contrast, the aims of the PPPs’ work are not only broader, but also clearly more abstract and more demanding. The professional activities performed by PPPs are supposed to reinvigorate democracy by increasing citizen engagement in decision-making processes...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgments
• 1 Introduction: The Public Participation Professional: An Invisible but Pivotal Actor in Participatory Processes
• Section I Specific Context
• Section II Actors and Networks
• Contributors
• Index