Control or influence? Conflict or solidarity? Understanding diversity in preferences for public participation in social policy decision making
Control or influence? Conflict or solidarity? Understanding diversity in preferences for public participation in social policy decision making
Participatory policy making is a contested concept that can be understood in multiple ways. So how do those involved with participatory initiatives make sense of contrasting ideas of participation? What purposes and values do they associate with participatory governance? This paper reflects on a Q-method study with a range of actors, from citizen activists to senior civil servants, involved with participatory initiatives in U.K. social policy. Using principal components analysis, supplemented with data from qualitative interviews, it identifies three shared participation preferences: participation as collective decision making, participation as knowledge transfer, and participation as agonism. These preferences demonstrate significant disagreements between the key informants, particularly concerning the objectives of participation, how much power should be afforded to the public, and what motivates people to participate. Their contrasting normative orientations are used to highlight how participatory governance theory and practice frequently fails to take seriously legitimate diversity in procedural preferences. Moreover, it is argued that, despite the diversity of preferences, there is a lack of imagination about how participation can function when social relations are conflictual.
Q-method, citizen engagement, democratic innovation, discursive institutionalism, procedural preferences, public participation
170-187
Dean, Rikki
a830dbdb-7c38-41d3-9d18-02c335d645cb
Dean, Rikki
a830dbdb-7c38-41d3-9d18-02c335d645cb
Dean, Rikki
(2018)
Control or influence? Conflict or solidarity? Understanding diversity in preferences for public participation in social policy decision making.
Social Policy and Administration, 53 (1), .
(doi:10.1111/spol.12445).
Abstract
Participatory policy making is a contested concept that can be understood in multiple ways. So how do those involved with participatory initiatives make sense of contrasting ideas of participation? What purposes and values do they associate with participatory governance? This paper reflects on a Q-method study with a range of actors, from citizen activists to senior civil servants, involved with participatory initiatives in U.K. social policy. Using principal components analysis, supplemented with data from qualitative interviews, it identifies three shared participation preferences: participation as collective decision making, participation as knowledge transfer, and participation as agonism. These preferences demonstrate significant disagreements between the key informants, particularly concerning the objectives of participation, how much power should be afforded to the public, and what motivates people to participate. Their contrasting normative orientations are used to highlight how participatory governance theory and practice frequently fails to take seriously legitimate diversity in procedural preferences. Moreover, it is argued that, despite the diversity of preferences, there is a lack of imagination about how participation can function when social relations are conflictual.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Accepted/In Press date: 9 August 2018
e-pub ahead of print date: 3 October 2018
Keywords:
Q-method, citizen engagement, democratic innovation, discursive institutionalism, procedural preferences, public participation
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 503498
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/503498
ISSN: 0144-5596
PURE UUID: 9d5f748f-e3c9-4a08-991a-f932fba372f7
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 04 Aug 2025 16:46
Last modified: 05 Aug 2025 02:11
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Rikki Dean
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics