Article: What's the difference between Participation and Inclusion?

Quick, Kathryn S. and Martha S. Feldman. 2011. "Distinguishing Participation and Inclusion." Journal of Planning Education and Research. 31 (1): 272-290.


I found this article after reading Dr. Kathryn Quick's biography on the Carlson School of Management's website. Although she studies public policy, she has been conducting research on the emerald ash borer problem in the Twin Cities. So far, I gather that she is studying the ways residents and policy makers interact when creating policies to manage the bug. 


I wanted to read more of her work. I found this article in a journal I've never heard of before, which is actually a positive thing, because I want to take a turn with my research. After speaking with my professor today, I realized that I need to let the research guide me. The research will lead me to areas that need to be studied more in-depth.


This turn in research guides me into the vast realm of study on public policy. I recognize the importance of this field. When agencies such as the Department of Agriculture need to engage the public, they face a daunting task. How can they get people to care? How can they get their attention? Ultimately, how can they get people to take ownership of the problem?


By defining two terms, authors Quick and Feldman use language to draw the public and the agencies into more meaningful dialogue. The two public policy terms and the definitions Quick and Feldman give are as follows: 

• participation "public input oriented primarily to the content of programs and policies"
• inclusion "continuously creating a community involved in coproducing processes, policies, and programs for defining and addressing public issues" (272).

The authors build off of the idea that "engagement practices are not merely techniques to be acquired in order to organize meetings effectively, but highly consequential choices that shape the inherently political process of planning and policy making" (273). The author want government agencies to "make use of community capacities to improve planning and policy outcomes in part by building community itself as a resource for decision making" (273). In other words, they want the government agencies to collaborate with communities.

To narrow the scope of the literature review, the authors focus on the topic of public engagement. The authors describe two concepts of public engagement. In the first concept, the public must force their way into the process. They call this adversarial. In the second concept, the public and the government collaborate to create policy. The authors advocate for this second concept, stating their wish to "push [the approach] further" (273).


Here's the brief synopsis. This is a case study with four cases, each representing a different amount of inclusion and participation. All the case studies took place in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The author's methodology included interviews and observation of meetings. Their data was longitudinal, or taking place over a long period of time. It was also from several perspectives and it provided an insider view of the situations.


The authors show how inclusion builds community. And the community practice increases ownership of policy. 


In one case, an advisory committee of several critical residents succeeded in a task to distribute a shrinking budget. The advisors opened a narrow discussion into a broader one by asking "What do we want for our city?" instead of "What should we cut today?" This created temporal openness, leaving the door open for future decisions. They "reframed the mission of their group from overseeing public engagement to being the venue for public engagement" by firing a city-appointed overseer. They then co-authored budget decisions in tandem with the city officials (instead of just suggesting options) (281).


It surprised me that the officials took their suggestions to heart. It even meant firing one of the higher-up administrators. But their will to enact the citizen advisor's suggestion gave the committee actual power. 


The authors state the following about the powerful idea of inclusion in public policy making: 

Inclusive practices involve creating community through sharing practices, bringing together what in other contexts might be different "cores"—such as different sectors or types of expertise—and creating together a moving, changing combination of them. (286)

But just because the advisory committee worked in one situation, the authors caution against using it in every circumstance. What worked in one situation may not work in another. They attempt to restrain people from creating a systematic approach to public policy, instead favoring an assessment of each scenario to find what works best (285).