Abstract
In Discourse Dynamics in Participatory Planning, Diana MacCallum presents a detailed and compelling critical analysis of the internal dynamics of two local Australian advisory committees. The first deals with a marine reserve proposal and addresses tensions between biodiversity protection, and commercial and recreational fishing interests. The second deals with a harbor rezoning plan and tensions between port interests and the need for light industrial zoning allowing residential uses.
The purpose of this ethnographic work is to shed light on the cross-cultural dimensions of participatory planning – focusing on the contrast between the cultures of public sector planners and of ‘strangers’ to the planning bureaucracy. It reveals deep cultural divides between these actors’ self-positioning, expectations, norms and discursive practices. MacCallum shows how these divergences play out and how committees develop ad hoc discursive metaprocesses to facilitate decision-making in the face of difference.
The context for this research is the Australian shift towards local governance. In this paradigm, bureaucracies open their practices to the public, boundaries between the state and civil society become blurred, and participation shifts from consultation to deliberative strategic participatory planning. In practice, however, participatory processes are laden with tensions and frustrations, highlighting the need to better understand the impacts of cross-cultural differences in participants’ ways of being, doing and communicating. While Australian practice may be unique, the trend toward governance is generalizing in Western nations, and observations from these case studies will ring true to planners around the world.
MacCallum presents strategically selected transcriptions of dialogues chronologically throughout the book. Each excerpt is followed by interpretation and analysis. This is a very effective format which lets the reader follow the case studies as substantive discussions, relationships and arguments unfold over time. The strength of the book is the thoroughness of MacCallum’s critical analysis of these discussions. Her close-ups on communicative action and thick descriptions of cultural barriers show how participants’ cultures and dialogical action (discourse, deliberations, negotiations) simultaneously shape each other and shape decision-making procedures and outcomes.
The analysis reveals significant findings about the cross-cultural dimension of discursive practice, but also about the democratic models used, the actualization of imbalances of power and the impact of participation on outcomes (or lack thereof). First, MacCallum shows in fascinating detail how bureaucratic and lay cultures differ. While bureaucrats explicitly embrace public participation and open and discursive democracy, it appears that, at least unconsciously, they still adhere to traditional rational-linear processes and to formal hierarchical rules. In the case studies, tensions between lay citizens and planners arose early on, due to misunderstandings of discursive styles and ways of framing issues, processes and goals.
Institutional culture and bureaucratic etiquette emphasize very particular discursive tactics and dialogical styles including the following: phrasing opinions and instructions as offers of service; face-saving tactics (e.g., avoiding personal responsibility, avoiding refusals by ensuring a positive response before making any request); avoiding disagreement and conflict by steering away from negative statements; and depersonalizing utterances by using neutral language (e.g., the passive form, framing opinions as information). Non-bureaucrats can find this style frustrating, and perhaps even a sign of dishonesty.
Bureaucratic culture also emphasizes linear thinking oriented toward plan writing and adoption, and makes a clear separation between objectives, strategy selection and implementation. Strangers to the planning process do not necessarily make these distinctions. In the case studies, planners sought to move committee discussions along the step-by-step rational planning process, starting with adopting goals and objectives. In contrast, committee discussions were not always linear as members often ‘talked in circles.’ Non-planners also understood their role as political and sought to widen consultation and local control over projects rather than vest plan objectives. Reflecting this gap, planners and non-planners had very different understandings of the term ‘objectives.’ For instance, in one case, non-planners’ used the term to encompass implementation strategies because they expected to take part in strategy selection and implementation decisions rather than set objectives and leave implementation to the agency.
Finally, bureaucratic culture, as it is performed in deliberative processes, seeks closure by validating minutes, formally approving drafts and documents, and finalizing fixed positions. This is understandable since higher authorities will only endorse committee decisions if they are couched in rational terms. Yet, the tendency of institutional actors to seek closure clashed with non-professional participants’ preference for keeping deliberations open.
In addition to describing these cross-cultural tensions, MacCallum’s analysis highlights how the selection of a democratic model affects collaborative planning. While both committees emphasized consensus as an ideal, they used different approaches to resolve conflicts. One of the groups adopted majority rules while also formally recording dissenting minority opinions. Although not novel, this procedure allowed this committee to deal with conflict and ‘move on.’ Another feature of democratic models is the definition of participants’ standing and role. Agencies’ (perhaps unreasonably) expected committee members to act as neutral experts rather than as members of interest groups. In one committee, participants rejected this expectation of neutrality and engaged in bargaining and negotiations because this was how they understood their roles. The analysis also shows unambiguously how tensions arise between a rationalist approach to decision-making, whereby the better argument prevails, and a democratic approach based on majority rule. This tension was particularly explicit when one committee sought to take into account community-wide submissions. Questions arose about whether views expressed in submissions should prevail based on their merit or based on the number of submissions, taken as evidence of strong community preferences.
The analysis also highlights the importance of power imbalances (typically in favor of the agency sponsoring the process) for participation. Here I find a strong parallel with my own research on American advisory committees dealing with toxic site cleanups, where some agencies narrowly predefine boards’ mission statements and agenda, and exclude topics of interest to participants (e.g., the reuse of sites post-cleanup, Laurian 2007). In the marine reserve case study, the agency set the agenda and sought to control the scope of discussions, framing the committee as a mechanism to vest pre-existing documents. This frustrated participants and created a context of distrust. MacCallum shows how these participants collectively resisted agency control by ignoring the agenda and instructions set forth by institutional actors. This committee successfully challenged original power imbalances and the practices of bureaucrats.
In both cases, however, the outputs of the committee were subordinated to the resolutions of higher levels of government and none of these cases involved genuine power sharing between agencies and participants. In other settings, power imbalances could be mitigated by assurances that committee decisions will be binding and implemented. This, however, presents risks that agencies, even those willing to engage community participation, seem generally unprepared to take.
The lack of success of both committees is very revealing about the forces that shape the outcomes of participation (or lack thereof). Surprisingly, the imbalance of power between non-planners and bureaucrats was not a dominant factor in the failure of either process. MacCallum finds that both committees largely followed Habermasian principles of deliberative democracy. Yet, processes failed to achieve their goals, and outcomes were unsatisfactory from agencies’ or participants’ perspectives. The marine reserve draft plan that came out of the committee was not accepted by all its members. Some appealed directly to government afterward for additional changes, and members objected to the resulting document. That is, special interests approached politicians outside of the participatory forum and undermined the work of the committee. The harbor industrial rezoning project failed because the port defended its private industrial interest by producing its own planning study to define its buffer and zoning needs. Unsurprisingly, it produced a plan incompatible with the committee plan. Distrust, lack of solidarity and political maneuvering thus undermined the committee work. A city-wide plan later resolved these issues, but the final decisions were not the committee’s.
In both cases, participants were frustrated and had limited direct impacts on the final outcomes. This is not unusual in my observation. Again, my work on US citizen committees similarly shows that they have little clear and direct impact on final decisions and outcomes (Laurian 2005, 2007). This raises the question of the meaningfulness of participation. Is participation meaningful if, even in well-functioning deliberative settings, it has little impact on actual developments? Should it be valued for its own sake and for the mutual learning that occurs? Participants learnt about planning, institutional culture and discourse – and they also learnt that direct political action can be more effective than committee work. Are these learning processes sufficient rationales for the time and efforts invested in these collaborative planning programs, or should we expect more in terms of impacts on final decisions and outcomes?
The lessons learnt from these case studies and the questions they raise, although highly contextual, point to important cross-cultural tensions in participatory planning. These tensions, dealing with bureaucratic discourses, agency culture, power sharing and underlying values, norms and assumptions, shape the success and outcomes of participatory processes everywhere. Academic and professional planners thus have much to gain from MacCallum’s account of these forces, and this book will help the whole profession reflect on often overlooked features of discourse dynamics.
The weak point of this analysis is its lack of attention to political influences exerted outside the committees, which ultimately shaped planning outcomes. I wish that MacCallum had discussed how the broader politics played out in these cases: How did participants communicate with their constituents? Which parties or interests were, voluntarily or involuntarily, excluded from the committees? The author briefly explains the absence of indigenous people from the consultation process, but what is the impact of this absence? And how about other interests not represented at the table? Presumably interested parties selected their ‘best alternative to negotiated agreements,’ in the language of dispute resolution, to further their interests. Who had the greatest influence on the final decisions, and how was this influence exerted?
I also need to point to a few stylistic difficulties that readers may encounter. MacCallum’s writing is theoretical and conceptual and the text is not very approachable for a wide audience, even of planning professionals. For instance, the language of critical discourse analysis often uses terms such as ergogenesis, embodied semiosis, or monoglossic and heteroglossic resemiotization. Although they are explained, these terms may turn off some readers. Another difficulty in reading this text is its extremely frequent use of acronyms. It is impossible to browse or read selected sections because readers cannot make sense of the analysis without a clear understanding and recollection of all acronyms.
To conclude on one of the major implications of this analysis, the case studies reveal that participants learnt to engage with local bureaucracies and suggest that institutional culture may change as they are renegotiated with each participatory event. In the last chapter, MacCallum proposes that cross-cultural tensions ‘can provide an impetus for the evolution of new practices and professional identities … (and that) tensions contribute to making participation a condition of possibility for institutional change’ (p. 174). While she does not describe institutional changes, this possibility opens up avenues for further reflection in planning academia and practice. Which institutional changes are occurring, or could occur, as governance models become increasingly pervasive? How does participatory planning transform (or solidify) professional practices? It will be fascinating to observe whether, how and in which directions these institutional changes take place in practice.