Transcript
  • 8/12/2019 Prieto-Martn (2014) Participation Schemas - A Tool to Characterize Collaborative Participation

    1/14

    To be presented at:PDD2014, Contemporarty difficulties and future prospects for Participatory and Deliberative Democracy, NewCastle, 9-11 July 2014

    Participation Schemas: a tool to characterize collaborative participation

    Pedro Prieto-Martn

    Universidad de Alcal, Computer Science Department, [email protected]

    AbstractThis paper delves into the concept of Open Government, analysing and characterising its participatory andcollaborative dimensions. It presents the Participation Schemas, a conceptual tool that facilitates the analysisand standardized representation of the most important dimensions of participation. Participation Schemasprovide both a categorization model that deepens our critical understanding of participation and a powerfuland flexible tool for the evaluation, design and communication of diverse kinds of participatory initiatives.

    Introduction: Open Government and the ineffable participation1.

    The term Open Governmenthas been used since the 70s to refer to the effort to reduce bureaucratic opaci-ty and open up governments to public scrutiny. Current notions of Open Government are thus the result ofmore than four decades of endeavours to increase the transparency of government actions. These efforts ma-terialized mainly in the enactment of legislation on access to information, privacy, data protection and ad-ministrative procedures, and by creating ombudsman offices and supreme audit institutions (OECD 2009). Inrecent years a new vision of Open Government has spread, that understand it as a new linchpin in efforts toimprove government capacity and modernize public administration based on the principles of transparency[...],participation and collaboration (Ramrez-Alujas 2011). It was, in fact, Barack Obama who popularizedthese three principles in early 2009 when, on his first day as president, issued a Memorandum on Transpar-ency and Open Governmentwhich stated: My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedentedlevel of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system oftransparency, public participation, and collaboration. [] Government should be transparent. [] Gov-ernment should be participatory. [] Government should be collaborative. [](Obama 2009).

    Obama placed Open Government in the center of his executive agenda and, leading by example, transmit-ted his enthusiasm for openness to governments and organizations all around the world, which are currentlydeveloping a myriad of OG initiatives. Of particular significance is the Open Government Partnership that,launched by eight countries in September 2011, is integrated today by 64 countries. All of them have pledgedto increase governmental openness and have established its own action plan detailing specific commitments(CLD 2012).

    However, Obamas memorandum had also negative consequences: it contributed to extend a superficialand inaccurate understanding of OG, as something consisting of three successive pillars transparency, par-ticipation and collaborationwith a growing complexity and importance (Obama 2009, Noveck 2011, Yu &

    Robinson 2012). The first limitation of this Open Governments conceptualization is that it presents as dif-ferent two concepts which, in fact, cannot be conceived separately: participation is collaboration, collabora-tion is participation, or they are nothing. Attempts to draw a clear boundary between the two are fairly arbi-trary and artificial. So much so that many Open Government experts and promoters are unable to clearlyexplain the differences between the two, or the reasons why participation should precede collaboration. It isalso remarkable the lack of agreement on what tools or activities constitute each of them, eg: the use of so-cial networks strengthens the participatory or the collaborative dimension of an Open Government strategy?The answer depends entirely on the resource consulted.

    Most of the studies and research on Open Government developed so far have assumed this conceptual tri-ad to a greater or lesser degree (Lathrop & Ruma 2010, Concha & Naser 2012, Unsworth & Townes 2012,Hofmann et al 2013, XIP 2013). The same is true regarding benchmarking models (Lrinz et al 2011, Coro-nel 2012), deployment models (Lee & Kwak 2011, Krabina et al 2012) and even the very Open Government

    initiatives and strategies (Zubero 2012, Marquez Fernandez et al 2013). Typically, these resources only pro-vide detailed guidance for the subject of Open Data which is often equated with the level of "transparen-

  • 8/12/2019 Prieto-Martn (2014) Participation Schemas - A Tool to Characterize Collaborative Participation

    2/14

  • 8/12/2019 Prieto-Martn (2014) Participation Schemas - A Tool to Characterize Collaborative Participation

    3/14

    3

    meaningful analytical insights, or they are too complex and specialized, making it difficult their widespreadapplication. As a result, most projects and studies end up relying on the scales proposed by the OECD (2001)and by the International Association for Public Participation (IAPP 2000), which basically simplify Arn-steins eight rungs in three and five levels, respectively. In the case of the OECD these are: 1. Information, 2.Consultation and 3. Active Participation, while IAPPs "Spectrum of participation" includes: 1. Inform, 2.Consult, 3. Involve, 4. Collaborate and 5. Empower. Both models ignore Arnsteins criticism around the is-sue of 'power' and fail to reflect, especially in the higher levels, the wealth of nuances that participation en-

    tails (Prieto-Martn 2010: p. 41-44). They also do not consider essential dimensions that characterize partici-pation, such as its degrees of autonomy, inclusion, deliberation, institutionalization or its impact (Cunill Grau2008).

    Participation Schemas aim to provide a consistent framework for the analysis, design and comparison ofparticipatory cases and methods. Within the wide variety of models proposed so far to analyse participation,the Participation Schemas represent a pragmatic compromise between complexity, utility and versatility. Par-ticipation Schemas make possible to identify the most important dimensions of a participatory initiative, pol-icy or situation, standardizing their graphic representation to facilitate the analysis. Participation Schemasthus allow theorists and researchers, as well as practitioners and activists to quickly apprehend, describe andcompare participatory experiences and situations, paying attention to their fundamental characteristics. Par-ticipation Schemas support the critical and comparative evaluation of participatory projects and initiatives byraising awareness about their strengths and weakneses; something which is much needed to establish reposi-tories of good and bad practices, or to create benchmarking metrics and models.

    We refer to them as schemas, in plural, because this model inteds to stay in a flexible continuous beta:what we present now is just a first proposal which can be further improved. Moreover: different contexts oranalytical intentions may demand, as we shall discuss below, that the proposed categories of analysis are re-fined, simplified or supplemented. The different adaptations of the participation schemas will nonethelesskeep a reasonable consistency with each other, as long as they respect the general framework that inspiresthe model.

    The model has been especially developed for public participation initiatives happening at the local levelbut it can also be applied to higher levels. The basic model presented in this article focuses on analyzing theparticipation that happens in the context of public decision- and policy-making processes. However, it couldbe applied to processes initiated by all kinds of institutions be them private, semi-public or civil actors

    which have a certain capacity to make decisions and are willing to share this capacity with other affected orinterested stakeholders. For example, a commercial company could want to cooperate with its customers toimprove its services. Participation Schemas allow analizing and communicating cases of "administrative par-ticipation" the ones sponsored and generally organized by a public institution, as well as autonomousforms of participation, which emerge from the independent action of civil society actors.

    Next sections will present the five key dimensions that characterize Participation Schemas, which basical-ly respond to the what, who, where, how and when of participation, and thus expose and relate their degreesof collaboration, inclusion, institutionalization, deliberation and transparency, as well as the moments andphases in which participation occurs.

    2.1.Dimension WHAT - Intensity of collaboration

    This first dimension is based on Arnsteins ladder (1969) and describes the various levels of collaborativeintensity exercised in a participatory process. It runs from the levels of Manipulation and Information,through Consultation and Advice, up to the levels of Collaboration, Delegated power and Delegated control.We have grouped these levels within the categories of Non-Participation, Consultativeor innocuousPar-ticipation and Collaborative Participation, also adding a category of Conflict underneath.

    Before explaining these categories we have to highlight something important: the use of ParticipationSchemas demands a critical and penetrant attitude to evaluate participatory processes. The statements and theintentions of the promoters of a participation initiative cannot simply be assumed as valid. A cautious analy-sis needs to be conduted to expose in the Participation Schema not just the ideal that was aimed for but ra-ther its actual practical realization. We must thus assess the extent to which participatory institutions reallywork and to what extent they fulfill their attributions. One participatory institution that, in practice, does notwork should be considered as Non-participation or as one of the Innocuous participation types, regardless

    of the characteristics attributed to them on paper or in official speeches.Since participation processes are complex phenomena, it is often not possible to comprise them within a

  • 8/12/2019 Prieto-Martn (2014) Participation Schemas - A Tool to Characterize Collaborative Participation

    4/14

    4

    single level of collaborative intensity. The Participation Schemas indicate the maximum and minimum inten-sity levels that encompass the various collaborative intensities that are present in the participatory process.

    Fig 2. Participation SchemasIntensity of collaboration

    2.1.1.Category Non-Participation

    This class aggregates in a single level, named Manipulation, two of the levels of Arnsteinsmodel: Ma-nipulation, which corresponds to the gross deception of the public, and Therapy, which represents a typemanipulation that seeks to soothe participants and adjust their attitudes.

    This level is characterized by the manipulative intent of the participatory activities, which aim to keeppeople calm, docile and give them the impression that they are being heard when in fact there is no inten-tion to take their proposals seriously, except where it fits within the plans of the decision maker. With differ-

    ent levels of sophistication, many administrative participation spaces are designed by decision makers in away that gives them control over the space, as a way to promote their own political agenda (Kadlec &Friedman 2007; Stewart 2007). These spaces are thus used to ratify decisions that have been already taken,meet legal requirements, etc. Unfortunately, much of the political participation taking place nowadays is ofthis type.

    2.1.2.Category Conflict

    Under the 'Non-Participation' category there is a category named Conflict. The inclusion of this categorycontributes to overcome one of the most important limitations of Arnsteinsmodel, namely that it only con-siders Administrativeparticipation, the participation spaces organized by the government or, more general-ly, by the decision maker. By considering conflict levels, the Participation Schemas can encompass more

    easily the so-called 'Autonomous participation', which is spontaneously initiated by those affected or inter-ested in a decision or problem. This way, Participation Schemas integrate perspectives coming from thecommunity organization field (Kubisch et al 2010) and establish a model that covers both invited, top-

  • 8/12/2019 Prieto-Martn (2014) Participation Schemas - A Tool to Characterize Collaborative Participation

    5/14

    5

    down organized participation spaces, along with the bottom-up invented participatory spaces (Cornwall2008, Escobar 2011).

    The Conflict category represents negative levels of collaboration, characterized by mutual oppositionand pressures. We are not talking here about the usual small conflicts and differences of interests that are partof any collaboration process and provide the basis and stimulus for finding agreements. We refer rather to in-teractions genuinely characterized by the opposition and the desire, usually by the decision maker, to ignoredemands from other participants.

    The category is divided into two levels: the highest is called Legitimate Coercionand refers to thosecases in which, without fundamentally violating the established legal frameworks, citizens use every meansat their disposal to force the recognition of their demands. These actions run from the friendliest persuasionup to real adversarial coercion, passing through various levels of pressure(Mayne & Coe 2010). The ac-tions are carried out through different strategies such as demonstrations, lobbying of all kinds, boycotts, non-violent civic resistance and even civil disobedience. In many cases these strategies are the only recourseavailable to civil society or specific minorities within itto claim for their rights, especially when govern-ments fail to offer channels of communication, dialogue and collaboration that allow an institutional channel-ing of the conflicts. Citizens become aware that existing participatory venues are not satisfactory and decideto show their discontent through the most diverse ways. Examples of these dynamics are provided by citizenmovements as Occupy o the 15Mmovement in Spain.

    The lowest level is namedIllegal Duressand refers to a much harsher situation. These are cases wherethe conflict escalates and strongly violate fundamental rights. They correspond to the cases of non-peacefuldemonstrations, violent sabotage, kidnappings and even armed resistance. At first glance it may seem strangethat this level is introduced as part of a scale that measures the intensity of collaboration of participatory ac-tivities. However, it is even more surprising that the literature on participation has generally ignored 'conflict'as part of its field of study, because the ultimate reason to create participatory mechanisms is precisely toprevent and avoid violent confrontations.

    The most extreme cases of Illegal Duressrefer to those situations where the inability to establish viablenegotiation channels degenerates into violent or even bloody conflict. As the the preamble to the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights states: Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse,as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by therule of law. Accordingly, when there are no real channels of expression, communication and participation

    which allow canalizing conflicts by other means, and instead tyranny and oppression reign, citizens are enti-tled to recourse to rebellion.Unfortunately, situations like those described may cause an escalation of mu-tual aggressions that finally leads to a real armed conflict, a scene of violence that exceeds the analytical ca-pacity of our model.

    2.1.3.Category Consultative or Innoquous Participation

    This category includes the levels of Information, Consultation and Advice and reflects the traditionalparticipation levels by which a decision-maker convenes people to communicate and eventually improve hisdecisions. The category broadly corresponds to what Cunill Grau (2008) calls administrative participation,and to the levels proposed by the OECD (2001) to characterize public participation, although they refer tothe highest level with the ambiguous term Active participation(Prieto-Martn 2010: p. 41-44).

    It also corresponds, finally, to what Arnstein named, somewhat pejoratively, Token Participation. Thisname is consistent with Arnsteins strong normative bias, which led her to suggest that the higher the levelthe higher the rung in the stairthe better the participation would also be. According to this view, it seemsthat citizen control should ideally be applied in all cases, that participation is optimal when administrationsstep back and confer the decision-making powers upon the citizens. This approach is clearly wrong be-cause public authorities can not abandom their role as guarantor of the general interest and the rights of mi-norities. In fact, what determines which level of Collaborative Intensity is the most suitable in each case arethe particular circumstances in which the participatory experience is developed (eg: the type of issue beingdecided, the characteristics of citizens involved, the political situation, etc.). There are times when a consul-tation, if done correctly and ethically, is the most appropriate participatory approach, and others cases whenappropriate advisory linkages or even delegation of power are needed.

    This is why Participation Schemas refer to this category as Consultative or innoquous participation, a

    term that describes much better and in a more substantive way what kind of participation is involved: pre-cisely that in which the decision-maker requests information, opinions, visions from affected and interestedstakeholders, but retains the ability to finally make the decision he considers appropriate. In a way it is a:

  • 8/12/2019 Prieto-Martn (2014) Participation Schemas - A Tool to Characterize Collaborative Participation

    6/14

    6

    First you give me your opinion and I willl decide afterwards, with all the good and bad subsequent effects.How much consideration is given to the visions and opinions expressed through participatory mechanismsdepends entirely on the will of the decision maker, being this arbitrariness the reason why Arnstein named ittoken participation.

    As noted before, this category consists of three different levels. The Informationlevel refers to the casewhere the government or decision maker provides citizens with some -or even a lot of- information aboutwhat they are doing or plan to do. Note that this level is already a significant improvement over the previous

    level, Manipulation. The level of Consultation, meanwhile, refers to the case where communicationchannels such as surveys, focus groups, etc. are created, which allow decision makers to receive some kindof feedback from the public about the public policies or decisions. Finally, the level of Advicegoes a littlefurther and allows citizens, their associations and other groups to present their concerns and/or suggestionsas part of a conversation.

    2.1.4.Category Collaborative Participation

    At the upper end of this dimension lies the category Collaborative Participation which corresponds to Arn-steins somewhat ambiguous categoryCitizen Power. Our new name provides more descriptive value be-cause this category essentially refers to a type of participation which is based on trust and collaboration. Itslevels are Collaboration, Delegated powerand Delegated control, with increasing degrees of collabora-

    tion.Arnstein named the highest level of this category Citizen Control. It referred to cases in which the au-thorities leave in the hands of citizens a majority of the votes for final decision-making. However, equatingvotes to control is, however, somewhat naive: participatory institutions rarely make decisions by using vot-ing processes that can be considered reliable and, in any case, citizens are not a homogeneous group that iswilling or able to defends citizens interestsagainst other competing ones. In fact, it is normal that citizensthat show up in participatory institution have links with political parties and governmental bodies and aretherefore very much influenced by them (Gurza Lavalle et al 2005). It may thus be that even in cases where,theoretically, all votes are given to citizen representatives public authorities still wield a firm and effectivecontrol of the participatory mechanism and the decisions made in it, as is frequently the case of ParticipatoryBudgeting initiatives. Therefore, it makes little sense to talk of citizen control except in autonomouspartic-ipatory initiatives, which are initiated and driven by citizens themselves.

    In Participatory Schemas the Delegate Controllevel refers to cases where a participatory institution hasbeen granted control over decision-making for a certain area or subject. The decision-maker maintains theresponsibility of monitoring those decisions and could take the control back when, exceptionally, it would berequired to safeguard the public interest. In general, however, the decision-maker would accept the agree-ments and resuls of collaborative participation. Such participation does not imply that public authorities ig-nore their responsibility to orientate policies, but rather that they choose to develop them through collabora-tion with other stakeholders. It should be noted that decision-makers are normally involved in theparticipatory institution and play a leading role in it, so they can convey their perspectives and defend boththeir interests and the general interest.

    The next level is called Delegated Powerand applies to collaborative scenarios with lower levels of del-egation and autonomy. It refers to those cases where the participatory institution is attributed just a limitedand restricted set of powers. This way, it is possible to specify with more precission its responsibilities andcapacities, and to introduce safeguard mechanisms, as the possibility of veto, review of decisions, etc.

    Finally, the lowest level in this category is called Collaboration. In this case, while there is no explicitdelegation of powers on the collaborative institution, the decision-making capacity is implicitly or explicitlyshared according to principles and practices of honest cooperationamong participants, assuming that all ofthem work together to find and develop the best solutions. It is thus understood that the agreements and out-comes resulting from this cooperation should necessarily influence, in a meaningful way, the final decisionsof the decision maker, as well as the actions of other participants.

    2.2.Dimension WHEN - Moments and stages of participation

    In most cases, a participatory initiative consists of a series of differentiated activities, phases and participa-tory moments, which serve different purposes and typically involve different sets of participants. In order to

    get a deeper and comprehensive understanding of participatory experiences, Participation Schemas allowidentifying the most relevant phases and analysing them separately. This way, it is possible to compare the

  • 8/12/2019 Prieto-Martn (2014) Participation Schemas - A Tool to Characterize Collaborative Participation

    7/14

    7

    essential characteristics of participation in each stage of the participatory initiave.

    Fig 3. Participation SchemasMoments and stages of participation, two examples

    When the Participation Schema is used to evaluate participation in a certain public policy area, or to ana-lyse the collaborative opportunities offered by a particular government or public institution, it is espectiallyinteresting to consider the five phases of the traditional public policy cycle, namely: 1. Agenda setting, 2.Policy formulation, 3. Decision making, 4. Policy implementation, and 5. Monitoring and evaluation.

    2.3.Dimension WHERE - Institutionalization level

    Participatory Schemas third dimension considers the level of institutionalization of the participatory pro-

    cesses, ie: the type of institutional and procedural framework that characterizes the initiative. The loweststages of this dimension refer to participation experiences with a minimal institutionalization level: thoseone-off participatory processes that are carried out with an exceptional or Sporadiccharacter. It continuesthrough the levels of Episodic, Periodic and Continuous participation processes. Finally, the highestlevels are those were explicit Functionalor Organicinstitutions are in place (Ibez Macas 2007).

    In general, the higher the institutionalization level, the lower the arbitrariness and discretion margin avail-able to the promoters of the initiatives and the decision-makers, both in relation to their control of the mo-ments when the processes are carried out and in relation to their capacity to influence its operation and, even-tually, disregard the results of the participatory process. Actually, at the highest levels there are laws aimedto regulate and safeguard the functioning of the participatory mechanisms.

    Functional Institutionalization refers to cases where channels and legal procedures have been estab-lished which allow citizens to initiate some form of participatory interaction with authorities and trigger a se-

    ries of regulated administrative responses. Examples of this participation form are citizen legislative initia-tives, the right to petition, the public consultation procedures required as part of urban planning action,neighbors attendance to town meetings, etc.

    Organic Institutionalization, meanwhile, involves the creation of participatory bodies or institutions thathave a permanent or semi-permanent character. These participatory bodies frequently have advisory, over-sight and/or decision-making powers for the development and/or implemention of public policies in a certaingeographic or thematic area. They include representatives from different stakeholders (individuals, associa-tions, public entities, etc.) and allow citizens and citizen groups to get involved in the issues and projects theinstitution handles.

    This dimension is essential to understand participatory mechanisms, but has been neglected in most partic-ipatory models and typologies proposed so far. As a result, most publicly funded participatory projects areconceived as ephemeral experiments, which fail to consider their own temporal, institutional and financial

    sustainability and thus enormously reduce their impact.

  • 8/12/2019 Prieto-Martn (2014) Participation Schemas - A Tool to Characterize Collaborative Participation

    8/14

    8

    Fig 4. Participation SchemasInstitutionalization level

    2.4.Dimension HOW - Transparency and deliberative intensity

    In this dimension, which enquires about the howof participation, we have included two elements that havea major importance: transparency and deliberation. Transparency does not constitute, as such, a form of par-ticipation but rather a prerequisite for genuine collaborative participation. To have real cooperation all partic-ipants should have access to all the relevant information that is available. This is why the maximum trans-parency in government action is considered as one of the essential components in Open Government models.Data should be available online, in machine readable format that adheres to open standards, so that anybodyinterested can create applications that reuse and combine the data in all possible ways. By having public in-formation available for its inspection, citizens and citizen groups can work both proactively -e.g. developingprojects and proposals for the government- or in a reactive way, after an incident occurs -e.g. to identify inef-

    ficiencies or even corruption within the administration.In this sense, a participatory process is considered transparent according to the extent that the decision-makerand, in general, all participantsshare all information available to them, to enable the rest of partici-pants to act on it. High quality participation requires high levels of institutional information transparencywhich provide accurate and sufficient information to participants and inform them on the background andinstitutional context in which the decision has to be inserted, the alternatives available, the major interests atstake, etc. (Mart2008). The participatory process should also enable and facilitate external scrutiny, andmake sure that interested non-participants can follow its evolution and outcomes.

    Opacity and lack of transparency promote arbitrariness, privilege, incompetence and corruption in themanagement of public affairs. This is why an increase in transparency levels does not necessarily increase,immediately, the trust of citizens in political representatives. In fact, it might have the opposite effect, affect-ing negatively the citizens perception of politiciansand public administration (Grimmelikhuijsen 2010). If

    no substantial changes are improve institutional structures and countervail the existing power relations withinpublic administrations (Donovan 2012), transparency serves to evidence the gap between the public expecta-tion of decisions being taken rationally and the reality of current decision-making processes, much morechaotic and arbitrary (Grimmelikhuijsen 2010).

    Transparency has thus a significant capacity to frame the behavioural incentives within public institutions.When an elected official or a public worker know that all their actions are visible and can be inspected at anytime, present or future, they are more motivated to avoid any wrongdoing. In participatory processes, trans-parency makes more difficult to conceal the interests and private agendas of the actors and institutions in-volved in the process. As a result, the decision-making process may be more deliberative and more based onevidence and arguments, and participants are more motivated to pursue real 'best solutions' and win-winagreements. It is important to notice that, as illustrated by the Transparency Cliffincluded in Fig. 2, in or-der to move from the consultative levels towards a truly collaborative participation a substantial degree of

    transparency is needed.The second component included in this dimension of the Participation Schemas is the deliberative intensi-

  • 8/12/2019 Prieto-Martn (2014) Participation Schemas - A Tool to Characterize Collaborative Participation

    9/14

    9

    ty or deliberativiness (Cunill Grau 2008). It reflects the extent to which the communicative interactions thathappen as part of the participatory process allow an intense and worthy deliberation. Deliberation is a specialform of reasoning and dialogue that weighes carefully the costs and consequences of the different policy op-tions, taking into account the views of all concerned parties. According to Gutmann and Thompson (2004) adeliberative space must meet the following criteria: (1) it is a place where reasons and arguments are ex-changed, (2) all voices are represented in it and, therefore, constitutes an open, diverse and inclusive space,(3) communication and information are provided in an accessible and understandable, (4) it generates an

    economy of moral disagreement, prioritizing areas of agreement and cooperation and minimizing differ-ences, and (5) is tied to a specific decision.

    Depending on how the participatory process is configured, it will exhibit different deliberative characteris-tics, which in turn will determine the type of results and impacts that can be obtained. The quality and inten-sity of deliberation in a participation space will, additionally, depend on the participantsbehavioral patterns.For a good discussion to happen, participants and promoters must be willing to listen to each other, respectthe different views and positions, empathize with the rest of participants and prioritize the search for agree-ments and cooperation (Brugu & Pars 2012).

    As illustrated in Figure 6, in this first formulation of Participation Schemas both transparency and deliber-ation are characterized with generic levels: 'high', 'medium', 'low'and non-existent'. It remains pending forfurther work to establish specific indicators to accurately attribute these levels to concrete experiences of par-ticipation.

    2.5.Dimension WHO - Affected and involved actors

    Participation Schemas fifth dimension refers to the relevant Actors, the stakeholders: the people, groups,organizations and institutions that are affected and/or are involved in the participatory process. This is an ex-tremely important dimension but also an elusive one: depending on the characteristics of the participatoryprocess, its context and the type of analysis intended, different sets of actors would need to be considered,which would then be evaluated according to different sets of characteristics and grouped into specific actorcategories.

    For the general case it is convenient to differentiate firstly between political actors -as public administra-tions, government or a legislative body-, the corporativeactors -as business groups, unions, mass media,international organizations, etc.-, civil societyactors -including associations, NGOs and other civic groups-

    and finally the citizenry, citizens participating as individuals, not as representives of an organization. Addi-tional categories, or a category others, could be used to accomodate exceptional actors which do not fitwell in the previous categories.

    To characterize participatory mechanisms and evaluate their potential and capabilities it is essential toidentify all actors involved in the process -both participants and absentees- as well as understand the rolesplayed in the process by the different participants and their relationships. It is thus convenient to use socio-grams (CIMAS 2009) and/or stakeholder analysistechniques (Mitchell et al 1997) to assess aspects suchas power, relevance, positioning, urgency and legitimacy of the actors in relation to the topics of the partici-patory process.

    For each actors categorya detailed analysis needs to be performed to identify all actors affected by theparticipatory process or by the issues it addresses and determine whether or not they are interested and/or in-volved in the participatory process, as well as their relevance and levels of influence over it. The processparticipatory quality, inclusiveness and empowering capacity depend strongly on its capacity to attract andinvolve all relevant stakeholders. It is therefore important to consider the mechanisms and criteria used to se-lect participants. For example, participant could be self-selected volunteers, experts, organization representa-tives, be selected randomly, chosen by ballot, etc. (Karlsson 2012; Barrutia et al 2009: p. 43). Finally, actorsthat have special roles in the participatory process need to be identified, including: 1. Decision makers, 2.Sponsors, 3. Facilitators and,where applicable, any other special roles that are relevant to the process.

    Due to the inherent complexity of this dimension, the representation shown in Figure 5 can only be re-garded as a first proposal, which must be refined in later works. For all affected and/or participating actors anassessment of their relevance (REL) and their influence on the process (INFL) is required. This assessmentwill be a value between 0 and 1, which thus assings a weight to each actor. Each fraction of the graph is as-signed for the analysis of one relevant actors category and displays information on: (1) number of actors af-

    fectedby the issue of the participatory process and/or participating in it, weighted by their relevance regard-ing the process and its thematic, (2) number of actors that participate in the process, again weighted by

  • 8/12/2019 Prieto-Martn (2014) Participation Schemas - A Tool to Characterize Collaborative Participation

    10/14

    10

    their relevance, and (3) actors involved in the participatory process, but this time weighted both by their rele-vance and also by their level of influence in the process. Together, these three measures provide anbroad rep-resentation of the inclusivity, representativeness and the power relations within the process. The pattern fillscovering the graphs indicate, meanwhile, the different mechanisms used to select participants. Finally, theinclusion of small icons allows situating actors that play special roles in the process, like the decision-makeror facilitor.

    Fig 5. Participation SchemasStakeholders involvement and influence

    By including this dimension Participation Schemas can be used to analyze both the administrative and the

    more autonomous forms of participation. For example, it would be easy to represent an autonomous partici-pation initiative in which the affected, the promoters and the participants were the residents of aneighborhood which decide to organize themselves spontaneously (or with the support of an NGO) to pro-pose some kind of action to the mayor, which would occupy the role of the decision maker. However, ifthe process would not be to request anything from the mayor, but just to promote self-organized communityactions, the Participation Schema would not include any 'decision maker' or would consider that the decisionmakers are the very members of the community. Of course, the rest of dimensions of Participation Schemaswould complement the analysis: depending on the type of activities included in the process -from running anopinion survey among neighbors to the organization of recurring community assemblies- we would refer todifferent levels of institutionalization, intensity of collaboration, transparency and deliberation.

    Examples of Participation Schemas3.

    To conclude our discussion of the Participation Schemas we will make some remarks on the model and pre-sent two examples of Participation Schemas that display graphically the five dimensions corresponding to aParticipatory Budgeting experience and to the public hearings from a local government.

    The example shown in figure 6 refers to an experience of participatory budgeting and its purpose is main-ly illustrative. The graphical representation of a Participation Schema is composed of two main elements.The first is a star-shaped diagram, with so many arms as phases has been identified as relevant in the dimen-sion when. Our example shows the general case, which considers the five phases of the traditional policymaking cycle. For each of these phases the star exposes the information corresponding to the dimensionswhat, how and where. Each arm shows the maximum and minimum levels of collaborative intensitycharacterizing the phase. For example, the 'policy formulation'phase runs from the levels ManipulationtoAdvice. The transparency and deliberativeness levels of each phase are reflected by means of the shadingand the pattern of the corresponding areas. Finally, each phases institutionalization level is displayed with a

  • 8/12/2019 Prieto-Martn (2014) Participation Schemas - A Tool to Characterize Collaborative Participation

    11/14

    11

    symbol at the end of the arms.

    Fig 6. Example of a Participation SchemaParticipatory Budgeting

    The second component of a Participation Schemas representation is the graphs of actors, which containthe information about the dimension who: the actors affected and/or involved in the participatory process.Figure 6 includes only a graph, corresponding to the phase of 'Policy formulation', but a Participation Sche-ma would normally include an actors graph for each phase.

    Fig 7. Example of a Participation SchemaMunicipal Public Hearings

    Strong differences can be observed comparing this schema with the one included in Figure 7, which repre-sents a local government participatory strategy based in arbitrary public hearings.

    As can be seen, Participation Schemas refer to complex contexts and processes that cannot be fully de-scribed within a single graph, no matter how complex it is. Therefore, a Participation Schema must be con-

  • 8/12/2019 Prieto-Martn (2014) Participation Schemas - A Tool to Characterize Collaborative Participation

    12/14

    12

    sidered as formed by two components. On the one hand the graphic representation which aims to character-ize the most important participatory dimensions. On the other hand, all background materials and analysisthat substantiate and justify the values assigned to each of the dimensions. Examples of these materials in-clude: mappings of actors, sociograms, surveys and intervies to participants and all kinds of complementarytools. The author of a Participation Schema should thus explain which assumptions, methods and instrumentssupport her characterization of the collaborative strategy or process. Materials used to identify and character-ize the actors, their roles and their relationships within the process have an extraordinary importance and

    should always be considered part of the Participation Schema and accompany its graphical representation.

    Final Considerations4.

    The aim of this article was to situate citizen participation within the conceptual framework of Open Govern-

    ment, identifying and characterizing its most important dimensions. To do this, we have presented Participa-tion Schemas, a typology that aims to characterize, in some depth, the essential dimensions of participatory

    processes: those that respond to the what, when, where, how and who of participation. Participation Schemasattempt to represent simultaneously elements related to the levels of transparency, inclusivity, representativi-ty, deliberativeness and institutionalization of participatory processes, as well as its collaborative intensitywhich, as we saw in the introduction, the literature on Open Government hardly addresses.

    It should be noted that the purpose of Participation Schemas is eminently descriptive, not normative: notalways more deliberativeness, or higher collaborative intensity, or an extreme level of institutionalizationmeans that the participation is better. Depending on the concrete issue at hand, the type of decisions to betaken and the circumstances in which a participatory process is performed, it may actually happen that partic-ipation forms with lower collaborative intensity or reduced deliberation are more convenient and effective.Our model explicitly recognizes that different situations require different approaches. What really matters isthe quality and consistency of the participation, not the level at which it, supposedly, happens.

    Participation Schemas are a tool that aims to provide a clear basis for the analysis and communication ofthe characteristics of participatory processes. They help project managers, researchers and practitioners todescribe what they are doing or planning to do, taking into account the most fundamental participatory di-mensions and thus making it possible to compare different options and approaches. Participation Schemasare not simple or easy to interpret, because the phenomenon they represent is in itself very complex. They of-fer, however, a pragmatic compromise between complexity, utility and versatility; both the choice of the par-ticipatory dimensions included as the way to represent them have sought to overcome the limitations of ex-isting alternatives (Cornwall 2008, Brodie et al 2009, Karsten 2011).

    Currently it is also not easy to generate a Participation Schema. It would be convenient to create a webservice that generates them from a series of standardized data and thus facilitates their comparison. The in-clusion of Participation Schemas in repositories of participatory experiences, like Participedia (Fung & War-ren 2011), could facilitate the diffusion of this model, as well as the comparative study and evaluation of par-ticipatory experiences.

    As we have already discussed in section 2.5, Participation Schemas should be understood as an open andflexible tool: additions, changes and adjustments are welcome, whenever the circumstances and the partici-patory experiences being analyzed require them. The model we have presented in this paper could thus be

    modified, extended or supplemented with other types of analyses to better meet the needs of its user. Every-thing depends on the dimensions you want to analyze and throw light upon. An addition that, for example,might be interesting would be to also consider the technological tools or methodologies used in participatoryprocesses; or the different government levels (local, regional, state) it affects.

    The basic model we have presented includes some of the most important dimensions required to charac-terize the essence of a participatory experience: the what, who, when, where and how of participation. But itstill leaves unanswered two critical questions which, nonetheless, are difficult to display graphically: thewhy and what for of participation: its motivation and its impact (Cunill Grau 2008). Answering thesequestions is an essential part of any analysis of a participatory process: a critical reflection on these two finaldimensions should therefore always complement the graphic representation provided by a ParticipationSchema.

  • 8/12/2019 Prieto-Martn (2014) Participation Schemas - A Tool to Characterize Collaborative Participation

    13/14

    13

    References

    Arnstein SR (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. American Institute of Planners Journal, 35(4), 216224

    Barrutia A, Bartolom E, et al (2009) Buenas prcticas de participacin ciudadana. Univ. Deusto

    Brodie E, Cowling E, Nissen N (2009) Understanding participation: a literature review. NCVO & Involve

    Brugu J, & Pars M (2012) Entre la deliberacin y la negociacin: el caso de la Mesa de la Montaa en Aragn . Revista de EstudiosPolticos, 158, 75-101

    CLD (2012) Making the OGP Effective: Guidelines for Assessing OGP Action Plans. Halifax: Centre for Law and Democracy

    CIMAS (2009) Metodologas participativas - Manual. Madrid: CIMAS

    Concha G, Naser A (2012) El desafo hacia el gobierno abierto en la hora de la igualdad. CEPAL - UNO, Santiago de Chile

    Cornwall A (2008a) Democratising Engagement: What the UK Can Learn from International Experience. Demos

    Cornwall A (2008b) Unpacking Participation: models, meanings and practices. Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269283

    Coronel SS (2012) Measuring Openness: A survey of transparency ratings and the prospects for a global index. Freedominfo.org

    Cunill Grau, N. (2008) La construccin de ciudadana desde una institucionalidadpblica ampliada. In Mariani, R. (Ed.) (2008), De-mocracia/Estado/Ciudadana. Hacia un Estado de y para la democracia en Amrica Latina . UNDP-UE.

    Donovan K (2012) Seeing Like a Slum: Towards Open, Deliberative Development, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs,13(1), 97104

    Escobar (2011) The work of participation: local deliberative policy making as mediated by public engagement practitioners. 61st

    Conference of the PSA, London.Freeman J (2012) Local eGovernment in the City of Casey: Political Barriers to Citizen Engagement. Proceedings of the ECEG, Bar-

    celona, 2012

    Fung A, Warren M (2011) The Participedia Project: An Introduction.International Public Management Journal, 14(3), 341-362

    Grimmelikhuijsen S (2010) Transparency of Public Decision-Making: Towards Trust in Local Government? Policy & Internet, 2(1),5-35

    Gurza Lavalle A, Acharya A, Houtzager P (2005) Beyond Comparative Anecdotalism: Lessons on Civil Society and Participationfrom Sao Paulo. World Development, 33(6), 951-964

    Gutmann A, Thompson D (2004) Why Deliberative Democracy. Princeton University Press

    Hodge SS (2004) Deliberation in Your Community: How to Convene and Moderate Local Public Forums Using Deliberative Deci-sion-Making. Columbia: University of Missouri

    Hofmann A, Ramrez-Alujas AV, Bojrquez JA (eds) (2013) La promesa del Gobierno Abierto. itaip

    IAPP (2000) Spectrum of Public Participation. International Association for Public ParticipationIbez Macas A (2007) El derecho constitucional a participar y la participacin ciudadana local. Madrid: Difusin Jurdica y Temas

    de Actualidad.

    Kadlec A, Friedman W (2007) Deliberative Democracy and the Problem of Power.Journal of Public Deliberation, 3(1)

    Karlsson M (2012) Democratic legitimacy and recruitment strategies in eParticipation projects. In Charalabidis Y, Koussouris S (eds)Empowering Open and Collaborative Governance: Technologies and Methods for Online Citizen Engagement in Public PolicyMaking. Springer

    Karsten, A (2011) Participation Models. A chase through the maze. Berlin: Nonformality - Demokratie&Dialog

    Krabina B, Prorok T, Lutz B (2012) Open Government Implementation Model. Wien: KVF

    Kubisch AC, Auspos P, Brown P, Dewar T (2010). Voices from the Field III: Lessons and Challenges from Two Decades of Com-munity Change Efforts. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute

    Lathrop D, Ruma L (eds) (2010) Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice. OReilly Media

    Lee G, Kwak YH (2011) An Open Government Implementation Model: Moving to Increased Public Engagement. Washington D.C.:IBM Center for The Business of Government

    Lrinz B, Tinholt D, Van der Linden N, et al (2011) eGovernment Benchmark Pilot on Open Government and Transparency. Euro-pean Commission

    Mrquez Fernndez JM, Vzquez Martnez R, Martnez Lpez M, Roldn Cruz N (2013) Objetivos, estrategias y actuaciones en ma-teria de Gobierno Abierto. ONTSI

    Mart JL (2008) Alguna precisin sobre las nuevas tecnologas y la democracia deliberativa y participativa. IDP - Revista de Internet,Derecho y Poltica, 6

    Mayne R, Coe J (2010) Power and Social Change. London: NCVO

    Mitchell RK, Agle BR, Wood DJ (1997) Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience. Academy of Management Re-view, 22(4), 853886

    Noveck BS (2011) Whats in a Name? Open Gov and Good Gov. Huffington Post

    Obama B (2009) Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government.Federal Register, 74(97), 23901-23902

    OECD (2001) Citizens as Partners: OECD handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making. Paris:OECD

  • 8/12/2019 Prieto-Martn (2014) Participation Schemas - A Tool to Characterize Collaborative Participation

    14/14

    14

    OECD (2009) Government at a Glance 2009. OECD Publishing

    OpenGov Standards (2012) Open Government Standards/Principles

    Parycek P, Schossbck J, Piswanger C-M, Harm R (2012) A Temperature Check on Open Government. Accessing parliamentariansattitude towards democratic concepts. Proceedings of the International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government,Krems, 241253

    Prieto-Martn P (2010) Las alas de Leo: La participacin ciudadana del siglo XX. Bubok

    Prieto-Martn P, de Marcos L, Martnez JJ (2012) The e-(R)evolution will not be funded. European Journal of ePractice, 15, 62-89

    Ramrez-Alujas V (2011) Gobierno Abierto y Modernizacin de la Gestin Pblica: tendencias actuales y el (inevitable) caminoque viene.Revista Enfoques, 9(15), 99-125

    Stewart K (2007) Write the rules and win: Understanding Citizen Participation game dynamics.Public Administration Review, 67(6),10671076

    Swartz A (2010) When is transparency useful? Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice

    Unsworth K, Townes A (2012) Transparency, participation, cooperation: a case study evaluating Twitter as a social media interactiontool in the US open government initiative. Proceedings of the 13th Int. Conf. on Digital Government Research. ACM, New York,9096

    XIP (2013) Open Government - Infographic. Xarxa dInnovaci Pblica

    Yu H, Robinson D (2012) The New Ambiguity of Open Government. UCLA L. Rev. Disc. 59, 178-208

    Zubero I (2012) El modelo vasco de Open Gov: Caracterizacin y evaluacin. CiversityUPV