Building 'participation' upon critique: The Loweswater Care Project, Cumbria, UK

Building 'participation' upon critique: The Loweswater Care Project, Cumbria, UK
复制标题

DOI:
10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.01.018
复制
发表时间:
2012-10-01
影响因子:
4.9
通讯作者:
Waterton, Claire
Waterton, Claire
中科院分区:
环境科学与生态学2区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Tsouvalis, Judith;Waterton, Claire

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

本文认为外行参与建模是一个更大趋势的一部分,即在传统上是具有专业知识的人的环境决策领域纳入非专家公众。这组作者指出,在自然科学和管理科学中,参与性实践和将非专家公众纳入环境等“专家”政策领域往往被描绘得相当乐观,特别是如果它们被视为有可能导致更好的决策。另一方面,在社会和政治科学中,这种参与性做法往往被描述为强烈的幻灭。本文探讨了这些不同的参与评价的原因。它特别报告了在社会科学中进行的研究,这些研究分析和批评了最近的参与性趋势,旨在使这些批评在建模界进行公开辩论。文章的后半部分记录了一个新论坛的创建,即Loweswater Care Project (LCP),该论坛利用这些批评来指导其接近参与实践的方式。因此,本文提供了一个实证案例研究,展示了基于批判社会科学理论的参与实践可能获得的成果。(C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd.版权所有。
This article considers lay participation in modelling as part of a much larger trend the inclusion of nonexpert publics in areas of environmental decision-making that have traditionally been the domain of those with specialist expertise. The authors note that in the natural and managerial sciences, participatory practices and the inclusion of non-expert publics in 'expert' policy domains such as the environment are often portrayed with considerable optimism, especially if they are viewed as potentially able to lead to better decision-making. In the social and political sciences, on the other hand, such participatory practices have often been characterised as intensely disillusioning. The article explores the reasons for these different appraisals of participation. It reports, in particular, upon studies carried out in the social sciences that have analysed and critiqued recent participatory trends, aiming to make these critiques open for debate within the modelling community. The second half of the article documents the creation of a new forum, the Loweswater Care Project (LCP), which has used such critiques to guide its ways of approaching the practice of participation. The paper thus provides an empirical case study, showing what might be gained by basing the practice of participation upon critical social science theory. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.