Partnership and Participation: Power in Process
| Author | Alison Gilchrist |
| DOI | 10.1177/095207670602100306 |
| Published date | 01 September 2006 |
| Date | 01 September 2006 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
70
Partnership
and
Participation:
Power
in
Process
Alison
Gilchrist
Community
Development
Foundation
Abstract
There
has been
an
increasing
emphasis
on
community
engagement
in
the
design
and
delivery
of
Government
policies
aimed
at
improving
the
conditions
in
Britain’s
most
disadvantaged
areas.
Expecting
communities
to
participate
in
decision-making
and
to
work
in
partnership
with
statutory
and
private
agencies
has
raised
important
issues
regarding
accountability:
to
whom
and
for
what.
This
article
considers
these
questions
from
the
community
perspective,
examining
some
of
the
complexities
of
community
representation
and
power
differentials
that
need
to
be addressed
in
order
to
make
a
reality
of
the
rhetoric.
Evidence
suggests
that
’deprived’
communities
experience
attempts
to
involve
them
as
tokenistic
and
ineffective.
Representative
roles
are
taken
up
by
voluntary
sector
workers
or
the
most
articulate
community
members.
Public
servants
and
other
professionals
find
it
difficult
to
adjust
their
procedures
and
to
make
sense
of
the
range
of views
being
presented.
The
result
is
often
a
maze
of
contested
accountabilities,
frustration
and
cynicism
on
all
sides.
Community
development
is
offered
as
a
means
of
building
the
capacity
of
communities
and
other
partners
to
work
together
to
tackle
social
exclusion
and
improve
public
services.
Introduction
Over
the
last
two
decades,
public
policy
in
the
UK
has
increasingly
acknowledged
that
decision-making
and
service
delivery
can
be
improved
through
partnership-working
across
the
different
sectors
and
by
involving
communities
in
these
arrangements
(either
as
the
intended
beneficiaries,
commissioners
or
contractors
of
services).
This
has
amplified
the
demands
on
a
whole
range
of
occupations
relating
to
public
health,
economic
development,
planning,
housing
management,
community
safety
and
so
on,
but
also
generated
significant
expectations
on
communities
for
them
to
identify
and
support
’active
citizens’
as
representatives
who
are
able
and
willing
to
contribute
to
this
new
form
of
governance,
usually
on
an
unpaid
basis.
As
71
many
of
these
partnerships
are
operating
at
both
strategic
and
operational
levels,
they
have
discretion
as
to
how
resources
are
allocated
and
priorities
set.
This
has
implications
for
how
accountability
is
managed
both
upwards
to
politicians,
and
downwards
to
communities.
Government
guidance
broadly
suggests
how
arrangements
for
stakeholder
representation
might
be
established,
but
says
very
little
about
how
accountability
to
the
relevant
agencies
and
sectors
should
be
maintained.
This
has
hampered
decision-
making
and
compromised
the
position
of
individuals,
especially
where
their
status
is
ambiguous
or
unelected.
If
communities
are
to
play a
proper
and
effective
part
in
regeneration
and
renewal
programmes,
then
there
need
to
be
improvements
in
how
local
authority
officers,
elected
members,
community
representatives
and
professional
advisers
are
accountable
to
each
other
and
the
wider
public.
Traditional
forms
of
accountability
are
no
longer
adequate,
and
changes
are
required
in
the
mechanisms
and
resources
that
are
available
to
enable
people
to
consult
and
report
back
on
decisions
that
they
are
involved
in
making.
As
well
as
developing
infrastructure
organisations
for
this,
new
connections
and
attitudes
are
evolving
to
ensure
better
communication
and
understanding.
Consolidating
the
networks
of
relationships
that
span
sectoral
boundaries
are
crucial
to
building
trust
and
respect
among
diverse
partners
and
players.
The
processes
of
engagement
(interaction,
dialogue,
negotiation,
learning
and
cooperation)
contribute
as
much
to
successful
outcomes
for
partnership-
working
as
the
structures
and
protocols
of formal
governance.
They
also
contribute
to
a
virtuous
spiral
of
effective
accountability,
but
are
rarely
accorded
the attention
they
deserve.
This
paper
considers
issues
of
accountability
from
the
perspectives
of
’the
community’,
focusing
on
power,
difference
and
democracy.
However,
the
term
’community’
is
itself
a
misleading
euphemism,
since
communities
cannot
be
institutionalised
into
one
manageable
homogenised
unity,
with
one
voice
and
one
organising
structure.
The
reality
is
quite
different
as
policy
makers,
partners
and
politicians
have
discovered.
Communities
are
complex
and
dynamic;
rarely
fitting
neatly
into
geographical
boundaries
or
social
categories
(2004a).
Instead
they
sprawl
across
localities,
with
individuals
and
groups
selecting
their
identities
and
allegiances
according
to
shifting
circumstances
and
changing
levels
of
interaction.
Communities
organise
themselves
in
many
ways,
often
using
informal
networks,
but
are
usually
visible
to
outsiders
through
voluntary,
community
and
citizens’
organisations,
collectively
known
as
the
’third
sector’
or
more
generally,
civil
society.
The
main
focus
here
is
on
the
implementation
of
community
engagement
strategies
in
the
English
context,
but
the
approach
taken
in
the other
three
jurisdictions
of
the
UK
is
broadly
similar.
The
article
will
consider
disparities
between
government
rhetoric
and
the
reality
as
experienced
by
communities,
especially
those
most
often
on
the
receiving
end
of
programmes
devised
to
address
their
social
exclusion
and
disaffection
from
the
democratic
process.
Community
engagement
strategies
vary
in their
willingness
to
reach
beyond
To continue reading
Request your trial