Cluster 1: Tensions Involving Voice

The first cluster provides a vocabulary for addressing the tensions associated with the incorporation of multiple voices in dialogue, the relationship of these voices, and the role of powerful and less powerful voices.

Silence and Expression. One way to con­ceptualize the tensions associated with voice is through the duality of silence and expres­sion or the degree to which voices are kept quiet or given opportunity for full expres­sion. Senecah (2004) defines voices as hav­ing a trinity of characteristics: (1) access, (2) standing, and (3) influence. Building on Senecah’s (2004) work, Heath (2007) distin­guishes between “having a say” and “having a voice.” “Having a say” is when individuals have a ccess to the process but do not neces­sarily have influence, whereas “having a voice” occurs when individuals have s tand- ing and influence that enables them to create new meaning that affect outcomes. In her study about collaboration in early education, Heath (2007) contends that the process of inviting stakeholder groups ultimately led to homogeneity because the funding sources for the project mandated the inclusion of par­ticular groups that were really quite similar. This resulted in permitting expression based on “what” a person or group could bring to the table rather than “who” that person or group is.

Consensus and Dissensus. The duality of con­sensus and dissensus moves us to consider whether participatory processes are character­ized by centralizing forces or decentralizing forces (Bakhtin, 1981). For example, Zoller’s (2000) study of the Healthy Communities project notes the tension between representing diversity and developing consensus. Trainers for Healthy Communities sought participants who would speak for the community “as a whole,” and this practice demonstrated a pref­erence for consensus. However, the partici­pants were more concerned about the direct representation of their constituencies. To par­ticipate in a dialogue of discovery was a “risk” for them because their constituency’s interests may get lost in the consensus processes lead­ing them to prefer diverse voices. Similarly, Harter (2004) observes that participants in a farm collective felt pressures of efficiency that contributed to centralizing tendencies.

Formal and Informal Relationships. The con­ceptualization of the duality about formal and informal stakeholder relationships draws attention to the question of legitimacy in participatory processes. Lee (2007) notes that even though formal deliberation is considered more legitimate, because it is public and trans­parent, pressures for consensus and profession­alism may constrain authentic expression. In particular, representatives from environmental groups may feel pressure from national-level organizations to hold certain positions and not deliberate or negotiate. Additionally, some public officials believe that formal processes look like public relations efforts to promote self-interest.

Equitable and Hierarchical Relationships. The duality of equitability and hierarchy allows us to consider the degree to which participants relate to each other on an equitable basis or in a hierarchical relationship. For example, Zoller (2000) observes that trainers of the Healthy Communities project greatly valued the dialogic process and their neutral role. They wanted to have equitable relationships with the other volunteers to remove any sense that they were in control over the community’s decisions. However, their attitude of neutrality made them seem detached in the eyes of the volun­teers. This case helps us understand that “forc­ing” equality into naturally unequal power structures can have unintentional consequences of distancing planners and participants.

Inclusion and Exclusion. The inclusion­exclusion duality centers on who is invited to participate in dialogue and their level of motivation. Many participatory processes tend to privilege expressions of certain groups through practices that privilege consensual voices—usually the voices that come from already powerful groups.

There are several reasons why citizens voluntarily exclude themselves from partici­patory processes and pursue protest activ­ism (McComas, 2003b). McComas (2003a) reports that, in general, citizens had low expectations about the quality of public meet­ings, and this predicted their low satisfac­tion with public meetings. Higher quality of relational and informational communication could increase satisfaction with public meet­ings, but this could not overcome the overall low levels of satisfaction (McComas, 2003a).

One reason for such low expectations and sat­isfaction with meetings is the belief that par­ticipation at public meetings does not make a difference (McComas, 2003b). However, there are also reasons why citizens voluntarily include themselves in participatory processes: (a) to get formal information from agency, (b) to hear informal views of other participants, (c) to offer support to friends and family who feel strongly about an issue, (d) to gain some “psychological relief” by doing something about the issue as a “civic duty,” (e) to help them gain some small sense of control, and (f) to perform a civic ritual (McComas, 2003b).