The article comes from the International Journal of Public Participation.
Full Citation: Glock-Grueneich, N. & Ross, S. N. (2008). Growing the field: The institutional, theoretical, and conceptual maturation of “public participation,” part 1: Public participation. International Journal of Public Participation, 2(1), 1-32,Here is a piece of the introduction to the first section:
If the field of public participation is to benefit the world as it aspires to, it must “mature” practice, a profession and a discipline. Contributing to that maturation is the fundamental - purpose of this Journal. We do so by publishing a worldwide exchange of reflective and rigorous thought among those who practice in this field, think about it, teach it, and make use of it.That should help give you a sense of why I wanted to share this - important work they are doing.
On every continent, this field is expanding, evolving and intertwining with related fields and practices as the need for public participation increases, as new methods proliferate, and as awareness of their potential benefit spreads. It is a period of passion, effort and growth, at once budding social movement, a new profession, and a potential discipline. New proto-professional associations, new centers associated with universities and colleges, new interdisciplinary journals conferences, are springing up and sorting out their particular niches. The beginnings of certification programs and the early stages of institutionalization can be seen, as some office protocols and regulatory processes start mandating not only public “input” but “stakeholder engagement,” and some training of public administrators begins to include exposure to these new social technologies.
The demand converging upon the field from all these quarters is that it “mature”, and quickly. That is, that public participation as a field become “credible”, coherent, theoretically grounded, able to match method to need with greater precision, and yield outcome on investment with sufficient reliability. And that practitioners from its far-flung domains create a language that is sufficiently shared that they can begin to discern the key patterns within the diversity, and well structured enough to support empirical research and evolve into sound theory.IJP2
The International Journal of Public Participation (IJP2) exists to support this effort. As we swap stories about events we are involved in, or try to distill what we have learned from much practice into something usable in the future—something replicable, testable, teachable, and accountable—we begin to grapple with these challenges of maturation. For we know that we cannot “improve” the field if we cannot talk about it. Even less can we institutionalize its purposes and processes, if we cannot both articulate and agree sufficiently upon the practices that constitute it. We cannot insist upon its professionalization, nor fund it, if we cannot say what “it” is, and how it differs from other things, and why it increases the likelihood of the outcomes that people care about.
In this Journal, we seek an outlet not only for practitioners to share with others the patterns they see emerging in their work, but to agree on the words to use in labeling them, and to stretch what they are learning to connect with the growing literature so that we can accumulate knowledge together. Similarly, we are asking theoreticians to spell out the practical implications of their concepts, and to work with practitioners to test the soundness of these ideas not only anecdotally but systematically, teasing apart what works with a high degree of reliability and what does not—and why. We are asking both to build into their work more measurement—but measurements that are unobtrusive and actually fit the need of participants—action research, that allows participants to learn, and teach, as processes unfold. IJP2 is also a place where officials and decision-makers can make their needs known, and get their needs met, and where they can explain the constraints and share the triumphs of collaborating with citizens—or with customers, or employees, or clients, etc.Movement
Before we look at what we are calling maturation, in the rest of this editorial, and its contribution to institutional transformation, we need to step back and stress that this is all occurring in a much larger context, as part of what Paul Hawken (2007) has called “the movement without a name”. With over a million initiatives already identified by Hawken, this movement is a self-organizing global response to the desperation—and the promise—of these times. If we are to survive, we must invent new ways of doing things, both technological and social, including how we communicate with each other and how we govern ourselves. Viewed from this perspective, the “field of public participation” is but the more formal manifestation of a newly emerging idea of democracy made possible—and necessary—by a new kind of world.
Thus, even as we argue for the greater formalization of public participation, in some ways, if it is to play a significant role in reshaping political institutions and public behaviors, we must not lose sight of this truth. The passions driving the field and the vision stimulating its ingenuity come from the heart of a great social movement already well underway. And if, in our efforts to gain credibility with what is, we should lose the vision of what could be, and shut out the originators and teachers of this work, the ancient traditions, local leaders, and movement builders, we will have lost the soul of what we are about. A professional certification, for example, that would bar the elder whose own guidance had helped bring to a halt gang wars in her neighborhood, would not be a step forward; but, to position her to teach others how she did it and to build that into the understanding of good practice, would.
Finally, and in this same vein, we want to clarify that pursuing a science of public participation, i.e., that part of it that can be systematized, taught, and required, is not to deny its art, nor indeed its magic. It is in the talented improvisation of the experienced facilitator, or the unexpected breakthrough of people struggling with a chaotic situation, that the potential of this work is most evident. The effort of this Journal then, and the field as a whole, to increase our credibility, replicability, and institutional usefulness must not be taken to deny that our success, and indeed our aspiration, is rooted in something deeper.
Growing the Field: The Institutional,Theoretical, and Conceptual Maturation of “Public Participation"
Part 1: Public Participation
Part 2: Institutional Maturation
Part 3: Theoretical Maturation
Part 4: Conceptual Maturation
Part 5: Implications for IJP2 Serving the Field
Growing the Field: The Institutional, Theoretical, and Conceptual Maturation of “Public Participation”
Part 1: Public Participation
Nancy Glock-Grueneich and Sara Nora RossAbstract: This editorial is motivated by the desire to further a conversation about what it means for a “field” of social practice to “mature”. We approach the question from three perspectives: the institutional, the theoretical, and the conceptual. In the parts that follow, we explain these perspectives and their interactions and some implications of these for this Journal. In this first part on Public Participation, we discuss the term itself, along with some related terms. We argue for a wider scope to the field, and, in that connection, for the significance of a general theory of intentional social process for any eventual discipline of public participation.
Keywords: Definitions, developmental, discipline, field, general theory of intentional social process, maturation, stages, scope
Citation: Glock-Grueneich, N. & Ross, S. N. (2008). Growing the field: The institutional, theoretical, and conceptual maturation of “public participation,” part 1: Public participation. International Journal of Public Participation, 2(1), 1-9.
Public Participation: Growing the Field
Part 2: Institutional MaturationNancy Glock-Grueneich and Sara Nora Ross
Abstract: Reflection on and assessment of where the field of public participation is, and where it might yet go from an institutional perspective are assisted by identifying components of public participation efforts. Levels of institutional maturation that are generally familiar in common parlance are described in stipulative terms to suggest an order of increasing credibility and reliability, and hence of increasing value for use as a basis for changing the institutional norms and practices of self-governance.
Keywords: Discipline, field, institutionalization, interdisciplinary, multi-disciplinary, profession, sub-field
Citation: Glock-Grueneich, N. & Ross, S. N. (2008). Growing the field: The institutional, theoretical, and conceptual maturation of “public participation,” part 2: Institutional maturation. International Journal of Public Participation, 2(1), 10-13.
Public Participation: Growing the Field
Part 3: Theoretical MaturationSara Nora Ross and Nancy Glock-Grueneich
Abstract: Developmental stages and patterns appear in many fields of sustained endeavor. When development is used as a lens to consider past, present, and future activity, it supports efforts to increase the maturity of a field. The developmental approach to theoretical maturation used here enables a crosscutting integration. We give simultaneous attention to four dimensions of public participation—the field, the phenomena studied, the methods used to identify and study phenomena, and the people who do theory, research, and practice. The discussion is framed using four theory-based stages of development that convey patterns of increases in comprehensiveness and complexity. The distinct tasks of each stage, along with the contributions they make to the field, are introduced in theoretical, methodological, and practical terms.
Keywords: Complexity, crosscutting, developmental stages, field, maturation, methods, patterns, practice, phenomena, theory
Citation: Ross, S. N. & Glock-Grueneich, N. (2008). Growing the field: The institutional, theoretical, and conceptual maturation of “public participation,” part 3: Theoretical maturation. International Journal of Public Participation, 2(1), 14-25.
Public Participation: Growing the Field
Part 4: Conceptual MaturationNancy Glock-Grueneich and Sara Nora Ross
Abstract: When considering the maturation of a field, the role of terminology in developing shared knowledge that can be systematized cannot be overemphasized. To support that emphasis, three different purposes for definitions of concepts are introduced: stipulative, descriptive, and programmatic or normative. Clarity about our purposes in supplying conceptual definitions reduces confusion and increases precision. Transparency about our purposes in defining concepts used strengthens communications. Adopted, such practices will help the field of public participation to build and share coherently systematized knowledge rather than misunderstandings.
Keywords: Definitional purposes, descriptive, normative, programmatic, stipulative, systematized knowledge, terminology
Citation: Glock-Grueneich, N. & Ross, S. N. (2008). Growing the field: The institutional, theoretical, and conceptual maturation of “public participation,” part 4: Conceptual maturation. International Journal of Public Participation, 2(1), 26-29.
Public Participation: Growing the Field
Part 5: Implications for IJP2 Serving the FieldSara Nora Ross and Nancy Glock-Grueneich
Abstract: High quality practice and research can result in more high quality authorship when both have the support of an active, collaborating network of practitioners and researchers with activities and services tailored to support the development of publishable articles. A range of specific supports suggested by this five-part editorial as a whole is itemized. An ongoing, enlarging reservoir of written work suitable for sharing with peers is essential to grow the field, and even more so if there is to be developed a general theory of intentional social process that could establish public participation as a discipline.
Keywords: Authorship, discipline, general theory of intentional social process, network, practitioners, researchers
Citation: Ross, S. N. & Glock-Grueneich, N. (2008). Growing the field: The institutional, theoretical, and conceptual maturation of “public participation,” part 5: Implications for IJP2 serving the field. International Journal of Public Participation, 2(1), 30-32.
Download Part 5
No comments:
Post a Comment