However, for an article promoting community engagement, within an accessibility framework, I found the article to be a wordy and heavy going read. Can anyone tell me what "vocabulary of instrumental rationality" actually means?
Planning is a well established and respected field of social science. Writing to obtain intellectual credibility with fellow academics does not lend towards accessibility. Including as many archaic and seldom used English words in an article as possible should not be seen as an accomplishment, rather as creating a barrier to a wider audience of otherwise interested people.
Thankfully Gus and Rachelle did all the heavy lifting and presented the topic in a clear (and accessible!) way. I recommend Gus' post on the planning digest. If you missed the seminar and had trouble wadding through the article, I recommend Brad's post on his Planning Theory and Process blog, which gives an excellent summary.
What I got from the presentation is as follows:
Spatial strategy formulation arises from institutional situations, with cracks in established power formations able to give rise to opportunities for change. To move the strategic process forward, the first step is to map the stakeholders. "Institutions" is not just the government, but also powerful lobby groups, big business, community councils and other mobilised stakeholders groups comprising of associations and alliances of intelligent, informed and articulate individuals, usually with a shared agenda and unified purpose. These groups can be very vocal, and know how to manipulate the system to achieve desired outcomes. This can result in one group, not representative of the community as a whole, having a disproportionate amount of power and influence over the strategic planning landscape.
Effective strategic community communication has to take place in an environment of ethical inclusion, with the style and scope of the discussion using an inclusionary approach. Language should be accessible and not discriminate. There should be respect for all participants, with all interested people in the community given an equal opportunity to participate.
How is that done? Careful thought about where the discussion should take place, how will people get there, is it a neutral environment? Other things to consider is how the discussion is begun, the way people can express issues, and how the discussion is recorded, concluded and reviewed. Arguments should be rationalised with the participants different cultures, backgrounds and understanding considered.
Effective consultation also requires an open mind, and the capacity to reach agreement across differences. Not everyone is going to be happy with the outcome, but the chosen strategy should be best for the most amount of people. Those not happy should be kept engaged. They have the right to criticise, confront decision-makers and be kept in review.
Special guest Lindal who works within an agricultural and ecological management field, and previously for the Murry Darling Basin Authority, where she was involved in the very difficult task of engaging with a community which, due to previous inept engagement by the authority, was firmly set against the proposed scheme. This is a classic example regarding the tension between environment protection and industrial/agricultural production.
Lindal provided a lens of the reasons for engagement, including the ownership of solutions, buy-in and acceptance, and the ability to achieve better solutions through pluralism/different perspectives. Lindal had a lot to say that was relevant to the topic, but one of the things that I really got out of it was the disparity between stakeholders. Stakeholders can be defined as the Public Space and the Empowered Space. The Empowered Space are informed, and have high levels of technical knowledge around the subject. They can easily dominate in the public forums leaving other community participants behind. Conversely, the Public Space may not be as well informed regarding the technical issues, but they bring their own knowledge and experience, and are important too. A good facilitator will establish links and assist with the transmission of information between the two groups. This requires reciprocity to connect the two groups with a common language, and a shared understanding of the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment