Abstract
Public participation in governance is regarded as a key element in enhancing urban sustainability. While there is a wealth of participation efforts in Indian cities, there are inadequate processes for regular, inclusive, egalitarian, informed and well-structured democratic participation that provide a real say to citizens in public decision-making. ‘Deliberative democracy’ has emerged as one way to improve effective public participation in decision-making, though it is mostly prevalent in developed countries. An action research initiative was implemented over several years in Pune, India. It used mixed methods to introduce and assess the applicability to the Indian urban context of high-quality public deliberations. This article presents a case study of a deliberative democracy initiative, framing the transformative public involvement needed to address sustainability problems. It also shows how the integration of the mixed methods approach in the action research to design and facilitate deliberative participation processes, helped to broaden and deepen understanding, and enhanced the transformative capacity of the research design.
Keywords
Introduction
Public participation in governance is key to enhancing urban sustainability, as the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly 16.7, emphasise: ‘Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels’. However, effective public participation processes to resolve equity and sustainability problems in Indian cities are rare, inadequate and particularly challenging, as in other developing countries. In India, these include socio-cultural diversity, structural inequities, inadequate and inaccessible information, and weak governance. Furthermore, Indian cities do not have public participation provisions like the gram sabha in Indian villages, which enables local self-government through assemblies of adult voters. For India to improve urban governance and sustainability, new methods of public participation must be trialled and evaluated.
This article describes an action research (AR) initiative, integrated with mixed methods, conducted over 2013 to 2017 in Pune, India. It shows how ‘high-quality public deliberation’, successfully implemented in western cities, was also transformative for urban sustainability problems in an Indian city. The urban problem to be addressed was the lack of intentional street design to meet current needs in a city with high private transport usage, inadequate road safety and streets used as public spaces with multiple, often conflicting social and economic activities.
This was achieved together with a non-profit organisation, the Centre for Environment Education (CEE), which the first author is associated with. CEE facilitates a range of public engagement initiatives, including participatory processes and consultations on sustainability at local, state and national levels. The first author and colleagues at CEE wanted to enhance their theoretical understanding about high-quality public deliberations as well as initiate such processes in Pune. The second author has been theorising and implementing high-quality public deliberations in Australia and elsewhere, and agreed to guide the work in Pune.
An AR project resulted, involving the implementation of several public deliberation processes, one of which is described in this article. The deliberation in this case focused on street usage, design and mobility issues in the Aundh neighbourhood in Pune, and brought together diverse individuals in an egalitarian environment, facilitated by an independent third party.
This study integrated AR with mixed methods research (MMR). This was deemed appropriate since both approaches are based on similar principles of inquiry and reflective practice, involving a transformative, advocacy lens, utilising quantitative and qualitative information (N. V. Ivankova, 2015). AR was at the core of the public deliberation processes conducted with citizens. Interviews, quantitative surveys and a collaborative, reflective learning process, improved the AR, contributing to its transformative nature and capacity to address the urban sustainability problems raised in the case study.
As a contribution to the literature on the intersection between AR and MMR, this research addressed the following challenge: How can the integration of action research and mixed methods improve the transformative capacity of public deliberations to resolve urban sustainability problems? The context was the unsustainability of urban India and the need for transformative public involvement to effect change.
Conceptual framework
This research is inspired by two literature strands. One is deliberative democracy – which frames the transformative public involvement needed to address sustainability problems. The second is research methodology – which integrates AR to design and facilitate deliberative participation processes, with MMR, to broaden and deepen understanding, so enhancing the transformative capacity of the research design.
Deliberative democracy
Deliberative democracy is grounded in an ideal in which people come together, on the basis of equal status and mutual respect, to discuss the political issues they face and, on the basis of those discussions, decide on the polices that will then affect their lives. (Bächtiger et al., 2018, p. 2)
Globally, deliberative democracy initiatives range from 100% participatory budgeting in Australia (Christensen & Grant, 2017; Weymouth & Hartz-Karp, 2019), to constitutional reform in Ireland (Carolan, 2015) and Turkey (Baburoglu & Goker, 2014); and the recent Citizens Assemblies on climate change in Europe and the UK. 1 In some countries, deliberative democracy initiatives have been institutionalised in legislation, for example, the Citizens Initiative Review in the USA 2 and an ongoing randomly selected Citizens Council in East Belgium 3 (Chwalisz, n.d.).
Most practical and theoretical research on deliberative democracy has been carried out in the western world (Bächtiger et al., 2018; Dryzek, 2000; Gutmann & Thompson, 2004), in different political contexts (Tang, 2014), and only occasionally in developing countries, mostly China (Fishkin et al., 2017).
On the intersection between AR and mixed methods
Reason and Bradbury (2008) described AR as an orientation to, or ‘family of practices of living inquiry … that seeks to create participative communities of inquiry in which qualities of engagement, curiosity and question posing are brought to bear on significant practical issues’.
MMR is described as an approach that integrates qualitative and quantitative elements in research questions, designs, methods, data analysis and results (Hong & Pluye, 2018), and with the intentional integration of data yield inferences beyond what either approach alone may yield (Guetterman et al., 2017). Ivankova and Wingo (2018) noted that the MMR approach is closely aligned to AR, and multi-dimensional insights from MMR can inform action plans, implementation, evaluation and monitoring, helping to address complex practical problems and produce more scientifically sound and transferable results.
In an overview of the evolution and future directions of MMR (Mertens et al., 2016), the authors identified the need for further work on MMR designs to support the potential for transformative change. Using a social justice worldview, Mertens developed frameworks for transformative MMR designs (Mertens, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013). Mertens (2011) also highlighted the need for further work on how MMR designs contribute to knowing what is real, especially to understand contextual complexity using both quantitative and qualitative data, providing dialogic opportunities to plan research steps, and effect social change in culturally appropriate ways. Martí (2015) suggested a typology of how quantitative (QUAN) methods may be integrated with action approaches (PART). The typology includes sequential designs: QUAN → PART in which quantitative data informs the participatory phase such as in participant selection or identifying topics for discussion, and PART → QUAN in which the quantitative phase can be used, for example, to monitor or measure outputs or outcomes from the participatory phase. Another design is embedded integration: PART(quan) and QUAN(part) in which the quantitative tools and participatory tools are dependent and nested within the same method. Martí also highlighted the relative dearth of contributions that address MMR designs in AR, and especially how quantitative methods can help to improve participatory knowledge production. Earlier, Teddlie and Tashakkori (2010) highlighted that the majority of MMR literature is from the global North; and in terms of disciplines, MMR has been used primarily in health, medicine and education.
This research addresses a number of those gaps. Its area is different, that of urban sustainability, and it takes place in a developing country, India. The AR applies deliberative democracy, rarely implemented in developing countries, and the MMR involves varied, sometimes unconventional techniques. As such, it adds to the diversity of the MMR and AR literature. Additionally, it contributes to the research design literature by deepening and broadening how participation can contribute to knowledge production. Finally, it seeks ways to integrate quantitative and qualitative methods in ways that can enhance the transformative potential of the research.
Methodological approach
The MMR design adopted for this AR was initially exploratory (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011), followed by an action learning cycle. It ended with a convergent synthesis drawing upon the findings from the earlier stages.
The approach included: expert interviews; quantitative surveys; collaborative inquiry and implementation of public deliberations as a performative component in action learning cycles, designed and implemented by the authors with the facilitators; and assessment and comparison of the participants’ experience with the baseline established through the quantitative survey (see Table 1). Quantitative techniques were also used within the deliberative processes, in for example, ranking of options produced through deliberations.
Mixed methods action research plan.
Interviews and surveys gave the researchers a broad understanding of the participation context, including public perceptions and aspirations about participation in governance, as well as the topic under discussion – urban street design. Together with collaborative enquiry and praxis, they enhanced the researchers’ preparedness to initiate and facilitate quality public deliberations.
The planned process was adapted when significant efforts to encourage local authority involvement were ultimately unsuccessful, leading to both challenges and opportunities.
The primary researcher carried out this work together with a core inquiry team of four CEE staff and four volunteers who responded to a call for involvement in the research. Additionally, other CEE colleagues and members of three other local organisations took key roles in the public deliberations, including facilitation. Two academic and research experts were requested to be Expert Observers to provide structured feedback. Table 2 outlines the roles taken. The public perception surveys were carried out by independent teams, guided by the first author.
Roles of the action research team members.
Case study: Urban participation in Pune
Context
Pune, a city of over 3.1 million population in western India, has a democratically elected government, supported by a municipal administration. Although democracy is understood to be the preferred form of government to enhance sustainability (Soderbaum, 2014), there is increasing discontent about the performance of democratic systems (Dahlberg et al., 2014; Reybrouck, 2017). In Pune too, voter turnout and trust in electoral democracy are declining (Parchure et al., 2017). Although there are co-existing public participation mechanisms – civic advocacy groups and some government led consultation – in Indian cities, they have done little to bolster good governance. Pune urban dwellers have little opportunity for genuine involvement in public decision-making. Democratic, inclusive, informed public participation and even well-structured participation with clear intent and aligned processes is absent.
This research introduced a methodology for participation featuring these attributes of good democratic governance, i.e. deliberative democracy.
Description of the case study: Exploring Indian public participation through AR and mixed methods
Stage 1: Peer group
After a literature review about the nature of participation in India, and deliberative democracy efforts in different countries and contexts, the first step of primary research in Pune was to gather insights about how participatory governance in India was understood and experienced by interviewing a peer group of seven diverse experts in Pune: a political science academic, an academic practitioner of adult education and the urban informal sector, a leader of a rural community-based health movement, a slum-housing planning architect, a proponent of radical ecological democracy (RED) and two bureaucrats.
The experts interviewed are actors who have helped shape participatory initiatives and/or helped shape discourse and views in Pune and larger spheres. The interviews provided insights into the broad socio-political context, current state of public participation efforts and desirable public engagement. They yielded an understanding of the interviewees’ convictions, information about notional and meaningful deliberative spaces in India, equitable and inclusive processes, countervailing power, barriers to participation and the need to transform urban participation.
Substantively, the experts’ insights included: (a) there is a great need for deepening democratic processes; (b) by forming coalitions, civil society organisations could influence the formalisation of deep democratic structures and processes (which led to further focused conversations on developing such a coalition or movement); and (c) localised potential criteria for effective participation.
By illuminating the nature of the sector in India, these interviews helped shape the enquiry at the exploratory stage of the mixed methods research. They also provided normative and strategic directions for study and action. Importantly, they strengthened the conviction that this AR was worthwhile.
For example, the urban planner, had the view that: (The municipal) (B)udget is one where participatory planning should be increased and encouraged at ward, zone and city level; and (A coalition to improve democratic processes) is a good thought. We do believe in this and would be happy if it is strengthened. … you may have to have alliances and linkages across multiple levels. In Pune, given the fact that there is such a diversity of social groups, organisations, and if one can have that kind of alliance … then it starts becoming more of a political issue. My apprehension is if it remains completely localised then it will not gather that larger social momentum. Participatory Planning will flourish in a conducive socio-political environment, and it is our job to try and create that… Somebody has to take the lead in it. It needs a group or people somebody who feels it is important to engage with people on these issues. Actually, I am saying it means going back to the people on these things. So, if there is a group interested in participatory methods, call all these organisations together. Say this is what we want to do. And if you have your groups and contacts, then let’s do it together.
Stage 2: Surveys of public perceptions about participation
The next step was to understand through street surveys in Pune, how people viewed current civic governance, their opportunities for participation and their interest in and ability to participate.
The surveys were carried out in September–October 2014 and in June 2017. The sample size was 500 in 2014 and 600 in 2017, with an age distribution similar to that of the city population (adults), drawn from more than 30 localities well-spread across the city, including a mix of residential, commercial, up market and poorer areas.
Perceptions about the current and desired level of participation were explored, based on Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation (Arnstein, 1969). Arnstein described citizen involvement in planning processes in the United States, using eight steps from high to low to assess people’s current and desired participation levels. Weymouth and Hartz-Karp (2019) customised the Ladder by including brief explanations of each step, and making slight changes to the nomenclature for clarity. This same tool was adopted for the study in Pune, to enable cross comparisons (See Figure 1). Although this tool was included in both the 2014 and 2017 survey, only the responses from the 2017 survey were used to prepare a baseline. Due to inadequate orientation of the survey team and errors in the Marathi translation, a large number of responses from the 2014 survey had to be discarded.
The 2017 survey showed a gap between the experienced reality of participation and expectations. The experience is mainly ‘informing’ (residents are told about the decisions made) or ‘placation’ (residents are given some role in decision making, but have no real way of contributing), with a mean score of 3.6, while the preferred level of participation is ‘partnership’ (agreed sharing of decision making between the local government and residents) and ‘delegated power’ (residents make final decisions in some important areas), with a mean score of 5.5. The mean was calculated by ascribing the value of the rung from 1 to 8, from the bottom to the top. Overall, there is a desire for higher levels of participation (see Figure 2). This preference for ‘partnership’ mirrored the research results in Geraldton, Australia.
Arnstein’s Ladder and customization, from Weymouth and Hartz-Karp (2019).
Citizens’ perceptions about participation in public decision-making, 2017.
Following the MMR design, the results of the first survey and the learnings from the collaborative inquiry (described next) fed into the evolution of the second survey design. Although the second survey was similar to the first, it had a few additional questions, generated by the collaborative inquiry team. These explored respondents’ awareness about public participation processes, as well as preferred options and measures to improve citizens’ participation in public decision-making. Responses showed that awareness of participatory budgeting was almost non-existent. From options for participatory processes at the neighbourhood level with and without elected corporators, the preference was for meetings with elected representatives (73%), and a report card on the performance of elected representatives (82.7%) – echoing the desire for partnership (see Figure 3).
Preferences for how to improve citizens’ participation in decision-making, Pune 2017.
The quantitative survey clearly showed the need for the transformation of civic participatory processes, mirroring a clear understanding about the type of participation desired. This prepared the ground for the AR. It became clear that the transformation the AR should aim to achieve was high quality, inclusive public deliberations that arrived at a tangible outcome which had the potential to influence the decision-making of the elected and municipal officials. This enabled the researchers to more clearly define the scope and desired outcomes of the project actions to be designed in the AR.
Stage 3: Preparing for the AR involving public deliberations
An important step was to prepare a team of facilitators to conduct public deliberations. A team of eight, including both CEE staff and volunteers was set up as a Collaborative Inquiry Team. The team went through an experiential, inquiry-based orientation, with regular opportunities for discussion. They helped plan and conduct, and later reflected on the public deliberation events. The joint sharing of experiences helped the entire team develop their understanding about participation, in particular inclusion and deliberation, in an egalitarian environment.
The team orientation started with individual reflections on personal experiences and expectations about participatory governance, group discussions about forms of participation in Pune and elsewhere, and an introduction to facilitation. Next, the team conducted a collaborative inquiry through interactions with municipal staff, elected representatives and residents’ groups. The questions explored included: What are some of the current participation efforts in Pune? What really happens in discussions about civic issues? Who attends such initiatives, what is discussed, and with what results? What are some attitudes and perceptions of elected representatives, municipal officials, community leaders and active citizens?
Through multiple interactions with diverse stakeholders in different locations, the inquiry group was able to rapidly advance its collective understanding about public participation. Several observations of the group were similar to those of the experts interviewed. For example, an excerpt from a facilitator’s notes highlighted class differences in access to information, knowledge about civic matters and voice in public meetings: I attended a meeting of community group (female-led welfare group). I found all were women working [there] for … more than 20 years. Though many of them think the system is very corrupt, yet they never gave up work … Later I also attended Mohalla samitee (neighbourhood group) meeting. There, old activists were in command of situations, whereas new groups from…slums…were struggling to get their voice heard. It looked clearly that class mattered and also knowledge about function/working of the (municipal) system.
This inquiry group mirrored the intent and process of cooperative inquiry. It involved cycles of action and reflection (Bray et al., 2000) by which a ‘group of peers strives to answer a question of importance to them’ (in Yorks et al., 2008). It became a method for ‘conducting participatory research and facilitating adult learning through experience’. It involved research ‘with people’, rather than ‘on people’, with the inquiry group as co-researchers rather than the subjects of research (Yorks et al., 2008).
There were challenges to this collaborative inquiry and action learning. Not having clear answers about whether and what type of participation was to be advocated was frustrating to some. For example: It was nice to co-build it, and necessary. Working with completely newcomers, it's nice to have the democracy. But at the same time, because of the democracy … (we) couldn’t understand what we wanted to do, where were we going. For the next people who come, we should have a protocol ready.
The mixed methods applied improved the preparation for the AR – the steps became much clearer and more detailed.
Stage 4: AR in public deliberations for street design
The key component of our AR was conducting public deliberations in Pune. Since 2013, several initiatives were undertaken in Pune, though only one is described here.
This deliberation focused on chronic mobility problems in Aundh, Pune, when public dissatisfaction was exacerbated by the municipal government’s introduction of a street improvement project. This issue was selected because of the considerable public interest it had inspired – a useful participatory opportunity. Traffic and transportation issues were among the topmost concerns in Pune as per citizens’ surveys conducted by the local government (Pune Municipal Corporation, 2015) as well as our survey in 2017. The use of streets as public space, road safety and mobility were concerns that engendered much public interest, cut across class and cultural segmentation, and invoked a range of views – an opportunity for diverse, inclusive public deliberation.
Additionally, mobility planning and street design have been areas of civic advocacy in Pune, focused on strengthening local policy, project formulation and technical capacity of the local government (Kamath et al., 2018). Although public engagement has emerged as an essential element to achieve transformation, this has often been constrained by the lack of well-structured processes. This was evidenced in Aundh by rising tensions after street design projects had been implemented without participation, resulting in protests from residents’ associations and road users as well as anxiety expressed by vulnerable groups. This context became the motivation for the 2017 neighbourhood street design deliberation. The AR process that resulted involved three important steps.
Introducing an independent third party
As a local NGO interested in furthering participatory governance, CEE approached the government entity responsible for the street design project to arrange for structured deliberations to address the issues. CEE offered to play the role of an independent third party that could provide input materials, the deliberation design and facilitation support for a deliberative process, anchored by the local government.
The role of an independent third party has been described as assisting ‘in designing and managing a process that pursues a variety of goals beneficial to the stakeholders and decision-maker(s)’ (Stephens & Berner, 2011). In this instance, the goal was implementing a fair, inclusive deliberation process about street design and mobility planning.
Although the local government had initially agreed to the research team’s detailed, structured, public engagement process, they later withdrew from this commitment, though not formally. They did implement a very popular tactical urbanism intervention of street design, followed by minimalist public engagement event – a large community meeting, at which a few unilateral views were expressed, primarily by businessmen. As it became apparent to the research team that government support for a well-structured public deliberation waned, it was decided to go ahead even as the street design work got underway. The deliberative process could still be carried out, and could potentially have public influence, even if not direct government support. Adapting the process, CEE needed to anchor the deliberation. Additionally, the deliberation topic needed to be changed from a street design process, to developing a citizens’ manifesto on street design.
Preparing and conducting the deliberation
The following criteria explain how the research implemented a fair, inclusive and well-informed process.
Comprehensive information gathering: As prior preparation, information was collated about mobility policies, projects and plans relevant to the locality. CEE facilitated studies by public policy Masters’ students
4
collecting the views of around 50 people including street users, shopkeepers, street vendors, waste collectors, residents, senior citizens, community leaders, political leaders and representatives. The student analyses confirmed and added to the understanding about street use contestations, and helped the researchers frame the deliberation. A student’s report
5
is illustrative of such contestations: While the design established the ‘Streets for All’ concept in consonance with central policy, it failed at the implementation stage, due to the conflicts between the residents and the street vendors. The inability of the institutions that surround them to bring them onto the same platform meant that only the voice of the powerful was heard … In the absence of formal, open fora for the voicing of issues…by the people, the stakeholders…have precipitated into pressure groups – each with its own agenda and more importantly, no equal platform to communicate with the other pressure groups. Thus, the alliances made are tenuous at best, and the conflicts remain unresolved.
Deliberative quality: An open agenda was prepared, with the charge: ‘How do we the people representing all those who live and work on or nearby our streets and travel through them, want our streets to be used, designed, developed and maintained to make our streets places that are productive, safe to enhance the well-being for ALL in our community?’ To enable quality deliberation, small facilitated groups developed ideas, while plenaries determined the way forward. The basic phases of deliberation were implemented – learning about current policies and plans, determining participant values relating to street space, creating desired ideas for change and then collectively deciding on priorities and action plans.
Evaluating the public deliberation
The quality of the deliberation was assessed through the substantive outputs and outcomes as well as feedback from participants and facilitators. Additionally, two senior social sector professionals were requested to be ‘observers’, focusing on deliberative quality. The observers provided a detailed report on the inclusivity, power balance, design and conduct of the deliberation, deliberation quality, quality of facilitation and suggestions for improvements. Key results of the overall evaluation process are described below.
Deliberation quality: Quantitative participant feedback showed high levels of satisfaction with the representativeness of the forum, the deliberation quality, the opportunities to express ones’ views and hear others’ views, and on the deliberation output.
Verbal feedback noted that these public deliberations served as a demonstration of democracy, exemplified by the following comment to the plenary: Today I felt I am a citizen of India Observing contesting participants voicing the need for competing interests, the deliberation process was almost like a civilised parliament where all citizens had a common goal, despite differing means. The power dynamics in the group at times hampered participation … e.g. members of hawker-vendor association with local representatives on the same table would always agree with the local representative.
Influence: The output was presented to the local authorities, who had previously indicated they would consider this in future decisions. However, their consideration was not apparent. This was a concern for participants, for example: My main concern – interestingly of others in the group too – is how effective is this, if the government attitude is to be deaf, or know-all?
Desirability of an independent third party: The participant feedback survey showed that about 69% felt it was very important and 11% felt it was somewhat important that such processes be coordinated by an independent third party.
Qualitative feedback from the participants, facilitators and observers indicated that well-structured events can produce carefully considered, useful outputs and that good techniques and facilitation by an independent third-party are necessary. Ideally, they suggested, the government needed to play an integral role if there was to be continuity and impact.
Observer feedback also suggested the need for repeated or iterative deliberations, since while this particular event produced a well-reasoned and well-informed output, it is only after many such exercises with progressively less ‘safe’ participants that we can begin to take the outcomes and formulate a citizens’ agenda with some rigour.
Discussion
The following discussion focuses firstly on the transformative nature of the AR in Pune and secondly on the contribution of MMR.
Transformation through enhanced participatory processes
This research explored the question of whether high-quality deliberations could better resolve urban sustainability problems in Pune by bridging gaps in conventional participation mechanisms.
Tough barriers to high-quality deliberations were discovered including the general reluctance of the government to involve constituents in ways that could add value not only to resolving urban challenges but also to democratic governance; endemic, cultural and social power differentials and civic advocacy groups’ inability or unwillingness to involve people not like them/not agreeing with their point of view
Although government unwillingness to be involved in the case study was disappointing, it was encouraging that inclusive public deliberations could be conducted without government assistance, and could produce useful outcomes which could be promoted via civic advocacy groups, while positively influencing those involved.
For those involved in the AR – members of the public, NGOs, the university faculty and students, and the team of facilitators, observers and researchers – it transformed this diverse group’s understanding about how the public could be engaged in civic planning. Given the embedded stratification of Indian society, the importance of creating an egalitarian environment, intentionally breaking down barriers between highly diverse participants, was challenging but also transformative in and of itself. Participants gained insights into the multiple perspectives around street design, and ascertained common values. They overcame cultural hierarchies, extreme diversity and self-interest, deliberating with respect to arrive at, agreed outcomes – a ‘transformative’ experience for many, as noted in previously described participant feedback.
Some NGO participants became ‘champions’ of public deliberation. This was exemplified by one participant suggesting: Keep doing a lot of deliberations, … where you can start to build people’s confidence or faith that if I participate in these types of decisions, I can get an outcome that I can see, whereby encouraging me to participate in another kind of deliberative process. Talk to organisations to see if they want to incorporate participatory methods in what they already do … somebody will have to keep pushing these efforts. Document what happens better when you do these processes compared to when you don’t; which methods work better, and why; how do I evaluate participatory methods: Is it on the basis of inclusivity, how people felt after they had participated, or the quickness with which a project got implemented? Is it the general satisfaction with the outcome, even among the people who didn’t take part in the process, if they were told about the process adopted? We should establish a programme of embedding DD into our own projects … other NGOs conduct direct advocacy. (Our) work can be public engagement. Education and public engagement are complementary, there is an educational value of engagements, it helps in evolution of solutions, develops critical thinking ability and collaborative learning. Colleagues who have not experienced public deliberation may feel that it’s risky. Even after colleagues experience a public deliberation event, they need some theoretical grounding, because the culture of top-down decision-making is so ingrained. We should present the outcome-orientedness of deliberative processes to government.
The contribution of MMR to AR
The importance of integrating MMR with AR was intensified given the situational complexity, including the uncertainty and the need for adaptability, the challenge of implementing innovative public deliberation events to address the inadequacy of street design and the need to demonstrate the value of such processes.
The interviews had provided insights into the heterogeneity and complexity of the community. For example, the community health activist highlighted the need to be aware of diversity and representation within the deliberative forum: Communities, sub-communities, small groups, small interest groups have to be genuinely reached out to and represented … You go to a slum and you will find that even within one slum there are so many sub groups, small groups, some have come from Andhra, some from Marathwada, there are micro communities, the message should reach them and their issues should emerge. Then we can say that … participatory deliberation is happening.
An insight from several expert interviewees helped shape crucial steps in the AR – that improving public participation would require considerable collaborative effort, especially with other NGOs and academic institutions. Additionally, at the deliberative forum, the presence of NGOs and the university as ‘critical friends’, resulted in their witnessing the process, offering useful assessments of the process, and becoming advocates of this form of participatory process.
The interviews and the quantitative survey highlighted a gap between the current and desired levels of civic participation. These survey results provided a baseline of citizens’ views enabling a comparison of the success of the participatory action steps taken. The feedback about the deliberation process conducted in the AR showed high satisfaction with the inclusivity and deliberative quality as well as satisfaction with the outcome of the process. As noted, the Arnstein Ladder results were not able to be utilised for feedback on the AR deliberation. However, the baseline survey is now available for future AR in this domain, especially in Pune and other Indian cities.
The surveys also revealed social attitudes, perceptions about political attitudes and civic and sustainability concerns in Pune. These findings helped in the drafting of questions to be asked during the deliberation, and in the preparation of participant information materials and the training of facilitators – all critical elements of this AR. The research design incorporated two types of integration between the quantitative and participatory elements (Martí, 2015), that is the sequential QUAN → PART, since the survey results helped shape the participatory deliberations step, as well as the PART(quan), since within the deliberation, participants used quantitative tools to rank options, and later, the researchers used a participant survey to assess the deliberation quality, among other feedback tools.
The collaborative inquiry with the facilitators, with their prior exposure to participation processes, their understanding of typical gaps and facilitation experiences provided an important preparatory step, creating a firm foundation for conducting the deliberation process.
The AR led to changes in the perceptions of facilitators and some of the NGO actors. Such deep-felt support could not have been gained without a mixed methods approach that enabled both self-learning and an exploratory approach to the dilemmas faced. Thus, the mixed methods steps helped shape the action, provided strategic and practical guidance, presented a reference point for assessment of the action and helped prepare the team to carry out the AR.
The mixed methods research was able to enhance transformative change in attitudes and behaviours regarding public participation because both those carrying out the research and research subjects had the opportunity to think through their views, delve into their taken-for-granted interpretations about the world in which they live and empathetically understand the stance of diverse others. This promoted both self-learning and willingness to devise different ways forward.
Conclusions and way forward
This initiative demonstrated how mixed methods enhanced the transformative potential of the AR. The research had an exploratory and sequential design of QUAL-QUAN and performative steps. The performative step itself integrated quantitative participant feedback surveys and qualitative reflections to further learning about the conduct of public deliberations. The mixed methods provided detailed insights into the context, prepared a team to take up the action, provided a reference framework for assessment of the action and helped build broader support for the desired transformation. The deliberative processes in themselves had substantive and influential outcomes for those involved.
Considering the key characteristics of deliberative democracy outlined earlier, high-quality public deliberations facilitated by an independent third party could well be a potential solution for improving public participation in civic decision-making. However, for public deliberations to have influence in government decision-making, these would need government commitment and involvement. Regardless, this research highlighted that high-quality deliberations can bridge gaps left by conventional participation, i.e. efforts by advocacy groups and government consultation.
Achieving an ongoing impact would require iterative deliberations leading to a culture of deliberation, working in tandem with civic advocacy initiatives. For this, champions in both the government and civil society would be key – working within an ecosystem of cyclic and transformative research, practice and reflective learning. Especially in the Indian urban context, this will not be easy, given their entrenched social, political and administrative power structures. However, the first steps have been taken, indicating that deliberative democracy can be applied in developing countries. Hopefully, our experience can help other researchers to devise ways to bolster democratic practice and more effectively plan for and use mixed methods integrated with cycles of AR for the desired transformations. ‘It is not the task of the action researcher to describe the world as it is, but to realize visions of what the world can become’ (Gergen & Gergen, 2008, p. 167).
Footnotes
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of the Facilitators team, colleagues at CEE, observers, and partners.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by AusAID Public Sector Linkages Program Project 65080, Australia-India Council Grant Number June14105 and the Centre for Environment Education.
