Research That Matters (January 17 - 20, 2008)

Purpose: Community participation is a central feature of contemporary policy practice. Although participation has great appeal to community and government alike, it is commonly experienced by citizens as pointless, leading to little, if any policy change. Given growing community needs and participation's potential to advance responsive policies, it is important to improve participatory policymaking, especially in terms of its authenticity which in turn influences its responsiveness (Pratchett, 1998). Authentic participation involves the genuine inclusion of non-state actors' knowledge in the policy process, including the potential that their viewpoints will be enacted (King et al., 1998; Smith, et al., 2000). Many have studied meaningless participation, however little is known about initiatives involving genuine participation (Cornwall, 2002). This research examined participatory policymaking and asked: what qualities and conditions are associated with authentic participation?

Methods: A collective case study (Stake, 1995) was conducted of three participatory policy initiatives: a community-government workgroup on welfare services to victims of violence; a citizens' advisory board on social development; and a community-government committee on violence prevention. Cases were purposively selected based on pre-determined criteria, including a focus on policy issues affecting marginalized groups. Data collection included document analysis (n=31); in-depth key informant interviews with senior public servants (n=10) and community members (n=8); and non-participant observation of a consultation session on welfare services to victims of violence, and of a public service training seminar on managing effective public consultations. Data were analyzed with N-Vivo using grounded theory procedures (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Converging and diverging perspectives and dimensions to the concepts were uncovered via the constant comparative method. Data collection triangulation, member checking, and the creation of theoretical and methodological memos were used to promote rigor (Padgett, 1998).

Findings: Based on participants' experiences, only two of the cases were determined to be examples of authentic participation. Comparing and contrasting the three cases, inductive analysis identified six core factors contributing to authentic participation: (1) bureaucratic will and support; (2) direct or indirect involvement of policy officials; (3) access to information; (4) deliberations characterized by trust and respect; (5) making progress on issues; and (6) utilizing a skilled facilitator. Of greatest consequence is the enabling condition of bureaucratic will and support, which entails those responsible for leading and implementing the participatory initiative trusting the process and engaging in risk-taking. Without this condition, all other qualities would either not develop or would be ineffective.

Implications: As community needs grow, social workers continue to advocate for responsive policy decisions, which authentic participation can help to develop. This study's results are instructive in efforts to strengthen participation, especially when decision-making authority remains with the state. Given that many of the findings explicitly apply to public administrators, it is important to ensure these strategic actors possess competencies needed for authentic participation and that government systems be transformed to support risk taking and innovation. The findings also suggest that genuine participation requires policy bureaucrats be involved and share their knowledge. This challenges existing participatory models placing these actors as observers at best.