Challenging old models of knowledge and learning: new perspectives for participation in environmental management and planning.

Abstract

What one 'knows' is relative to and affected by one's values, assumptions and perspectives; in addition, learning and teaching occur in a social and cultural context. These tenets underpin the idea of relational or contextual knowledge, and challenge the conventional view of 'received knowledge' which involves deference to authority and reliance on 'expertise', a belief in knowledge (especially science) as a set of truths, and a view of education as authoritative explanation of these truths. Drawing on theoretical and conceptual work on ways of knowing and the nature of participation in environment and resource management, this paper explores notions of participation, knowledge and knowledge generation (including research), and expertise. Insights from a study of citizen perspectives on the Walkerton tragedy are used to highlight our shifting understanding of these ideas.

Ce que l'on << sait >> depend de nos valeurs, suppositions et perspectives. De plus, l'apprentissage et l'enseignement se font dans un contexte culturel et social. Cela etaye l'idee d'une connaissance relationnelle ou contextuelle, et remet en cause le point de vue habituel sur la connaissance comme etant une chose que l'on << recoit >> et qui implique une deference pour l'autorite, une confiance aux << experts >>, une croyance dans la connaissance (en particulier scientifique) en tant qu'ensemble de verites, et la perception de l'education comme explication faisant autorite de ces verites. S'inspirant de travaux theoriques et conceptuels sur les modes de connaissances et sur la nature de la participation a la gestion de l'environnement et des ressources, cet article explore les notions de participation, de connaissance et de production de la connaissance (y compris la recherche), et d'expertise. Des elements d'une etude sur le point de vue des citoyens sur la tragedie de Walkerton sont utilises pour mettre en lumiere les modification de notre comprehension de ces idees.

Key words:

Participation, knowledge, ways of knowing, environmental management, Walkerton

Introduction

Not long ago, a planning consultant friend of mine was sharing his reflections on an "open house" he had recently facilitated in a nearby small town. The public forum had been organized to provide community members with an opportunity to review a newly designed pedestrian-oriented trail system plan for the community. A believer in the necessity for "citizen input" into public planning, he lamented the perceptions of current processes and forums, such as the one he had just been involved in, to obtain this input.

The decision makers, the politicians, held up the feedback

they received, and said one of two things: either, 'see, their

(the public's) ideas agree with ours', or 'see, they really

don't understand what's going on ... look at their ludicrous

suggestions'; in either case, the politicians concluded 'so,

why even have the open house? The citizens themselves

also questioned their own participation, asking 'why are you

(the Planner) even consulting us, you went to school for

this, you're the expert' or 'this is all just P.R., it doesn't

matter what we say, the decisions are already made'.

What can I do?

What are we as planners and managers, as academics, and as ordinary citizens to think of these varied and often ambivalent perspectives on the idea and practice of "public participation"? What sense can we make of the oft heard calls to "include local knowledge," to "share in decision making" or to "build consensus" and "collaborate"--especially when these objectives are held in high esteem as fundamental principles of the "new" management and planning paradigm?

Citizen participation, community involvement, local knowledge, collaboration and shared decision-making processes are now prominent themes in both public and academic discussion, part of the democratization of hitherto authoritarian processes (Bates 1994; Cortner 1996; McAvoy 1998; Banks and Mangan 1999; Pierce and Dale 1999; Brick et al 2001). Increased participation is upheld as democracy in action, a goal in and of itself. In addition, participation is seen to play a role in producing more effective, responsive and informed policy on a variety of matters, and has been "applied" across a variety of realms ranging from the creation of social policy, to community and economic development, to sustainability, environmental and resource planning, management and problem solving. It is therefore seen also as a means to substantive ends. Finally, participation is deemed to play an important psychological and educational role in the development of individuals and community.

Skeptics and those of the cynical bent see these conceptual shifts, enacted through involvement and consultation, as a cop-out by political decision-makers shirking their electoral duties in light of the increasingly divergent interests of their constituents, and as attempts by planners and managers to merely appease the ever more vocal "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) factions and fringe radicals. Dismissive critiques such as these, however, can too easily derail our necessary efforts to maintain the shift towards participatory planning and management, so I intend not to discuss these further, only acknowledge their existence. I plan to undertake a more encouraging discussion with the aim of providing constructive critique.

My aim in this paper is not to provide answers to any of the questions I have raised thus far. Rather, I hope to reflect further on the account this paper opened with, and other experiences and events that, I believe, highlight the challenges of the new models and principles for planning and management, and that encourage us to continue to pose questions, especially at the nexus of our understandings of participation, knowledge, and expertise. I emphasize too, that I am not proposing we abandon existing, dominant expert-as-vessel-of-legitimate-knowledge and knowledge-as-facts standpoints; rather I contend that we augment these partial views with richer perspectives, since I do not wish to replace one monolithic way of knowing with another. In short, we need to accept a broad understanding of knowledge and knowledge generation and to reflect this understanding in the practical domain of participatory planning and management, and to continue to debate and critique in the academic realm. We need to recognize and acknowledge the co-existence of multiple, contextual knowledges, and the individual and collective processes that lead to these. And, we need to appreciate the temporal and contingent nature, the situational aspects, of expertise. All of this builds on the current and growing dialogue in the literature that links knowledge, power/expertise and legitimacy (cf. Foucault 1977, 1984), but that is only modestly dealt with in environmental management and planning as part of the emerging paradigmatic direction.

When we invite people to participate publicly in planning and management in their neighbourhoods, cities and rural areas, to 'share their local knowledge' in order to help solve local environmental problems or shed light on a longstanding resource issue, what do we actually mean? Is the intention anything more than to use an alternate method of data collection to provide additional information? What does sharing local knowledge mean to the people who participate in these processes? Do they think it is just "PR," or a "cop out" on the part of presumed experts, as suggested in the anecdote that introduced this paper? And, what does this shift reveal about our perspectives on the nature of knowledge, learning, and truth and what are the implications for how we understand and use these concepts? We don't ordinarily ponder these questions, but as Belenky et al note, we need to.

We do not think of the ordinary person as preoccupied with

such difficult and profound questions as: what is truth?

What is authority? To whom do I listen? What counts for

me as evidence? How do I know what I know? Yet, to ask

ourselves these questions and to reflect on our answers is

more than an intellectual exercise, for our basic

assumptions about the nature of truth and reality and the

origins of knowledge shape the way we see the world and

ourselves as participants in it. They affect our definitions of

ourselves, the way we interact with others, our public and

private personae, our sense of control over life events, our

views of teaching and learning and our conceptions of

morality (Belenky et al 1997: 3).