Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
participatory approaches have the potential to 'close-down'
and
'open-up' wider
environmental policy discourses (Stirling, 2005). This includes the possible 'tech-
nocracy of participation' (Chilvers, 2008), as well as the potential for technical
appraisals to enhance learning and refl exivity (Owens et al., 2004). Given the pre-
dominance of consensual participatory theories and practices in late modernity,
there remains a pressing need to open them up to difference, otherness and indeter-
minacy. These deliberations over the theoretical and conceptual basis of environ-
mental participation impinge in different ways on the three main streams of empirical
research in participatory environmental geography, to which we now turn.
Developing Deliberative and Participatory Practices
Research developing participatory practices and innovative deliberative methodolo-
gies has received the most active and sustained attention from participatory envi-
ronmental geographers. While critics see this stream of inquiry as little more than
'methodological revisionism' and the uncritical promotion of participation (Cooke
and Kothari, 2001), it has brought considerable advances and remains a fundamen-
tal research frontier. Key questions include: what are the aims and purposes of
participation? Who participates and on what basis are they selected? How should
deliberation be designed, structured, and integrated with quantitative or analytic
approaches? How can issues of representation and scale be addressed? Is it possible
to fi t methods to specifi c contexts?
Participatory practices are very much shaped by their purpose(s), whether that
is to undertake research or formulate policy, explore environmental values or co-
produce knowledge, build consensus or map out difference, or some combination
thereof. The action-orientation of participatory work tends to blur conventional
distinctions between science, policy and the public. Central to any deliberative or
participatory approach is the
facilitator
, most often a human geographer or other
social scientist, who designs the process, moderates discussion, and attempts to
ensure that all voices are heard. Participants can be defi ned as
publics
,
stakeholders
or
specialists
based on their different epistemic (knowledge) and ethical (value)
claims to participation (Pellizzoni, 2003; Burgess and Chilvers, 2006). These forms
of representation serve as a basis in table 24.1 for differentiating between different
deliberative approaches which involve participants in various forms of 'talk', and
hybrid 'analytic-deliberative' approaches that fuse participatory deliberation with
forms of scientifi c analysis and calculation (Stern and Fineberg, 1996).
Qualitative social science methods for bringing various
publics
together in delib-
eration have been extensively used to explore underlying environmental understand-
ings and behaviours of participants (e.g., Harrison et al., 1996; Macnaghten and
Jacobs, 1997). Here the most common approach is the focus group, a core method
in human geography that involves 6-10 individuals in group discussion for one to
two hours (Cameron, 2000). Such one-off events are hardly empowering, and some
question whether the extractive nature of standard focus groups counts as 'partici-
pation'. Burgess et al., (1988) developed the method of in-depth groups to address
these concerns by convening a series of meetings over time to build mutual under-
standings and foster collective group learning.
Emerging approaches for engaging publics in environmental analysis or data
collection are located to the top right of table 24.1. An important advance here is
the rise of participatory monitoring of environmental change, often where environ-
mental science lacks capacity or coverage (see, e.g., Dougill et al., 2002; Ellis and
