Annotated Bibliography for........

O R I G I N A L P A P E R

The Organizational View of Public Participation: A Narrative Analysis

Antonella Maiello

Published online: 4 October 2013 � Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract The following research paper presents results of an ethnographic investigation focused on the participatory process of a public project for urban environmental rehabil-

itation. This public intervention, called Iguaçu Project, is being carried out in the Baixada

Fluminense, in the Rio de Janeiro Metropolitan Region (RJMR). Drawing upon the lit-

erature on social learning from both organizational and environmental management

studies, the research investigates when and why social learning occurs within a partici-

patory arena. The paper presents an analysis of stories told by nine key informants, selected

as representatives of the main social categories involved in the project. The different

meanings the narrators attributed to participation, environment, knowledge and learning in

their stories, are analysed through abductive reasoning, i.e. through a continuous reference

to the literature and confrontation with former narrative analysis in business organizations.

The findings show an interpretative framework based on development of multiple-loop

learning theory, defined as contextual loops. Furthermore, it identifies five explanatory

propositions to answer the research questions. The occurrence of social learning in par-

ticipatory arenas seems to depend upon five organizationally related factors: a systematized

organizational structure; the participants’ commitments and the pluralism of the partici-

patory arena; the process proponents’ reliability, the supporting role of a facilitator.

Keywords Social learning � Participatory processes � Organizational view � Narrative analysis

Introduction

Public participation (PP) is an essential matter in public policies, since it represents a

current issue for democratic governments. It has acquired a special relevance in the last

A. Maiello (&) Post-Graduate Program in Urbanism (PROURB) of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rua Visconde da Graça, 96/102, Jardim Botânico, Rio de Janeiro 22461-010, Brazil e-mail: [email protected]

123

Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522 DOI 10.1007/s11213-013-9292-x

20 years regarding environmental questions (UNECE 1998; UNCED 1992; UNCSD

2012). Even so, it is going to be overshadowed by environmental debate, probably due to

the difficulty in achieving results (Wesselink et al. 2011) or in preserving them. Partici-

pation has not ceased to be a necessity, but the complexity to manage it successfully makes

it urgent to rethink this concept, identify new approaches to its effective implementation,

even more so at a time of public budgetary constraints. Until now, the environmental

scholars have approached PP through three prevailing perspectives (Petts 2006): sub-

stantive (meanings and definitions), normative (working rules and mechanisms), and

instrumental (methods and approaches). Concerned with the need to develop a new view of

participation, this work revises this concept, stressing its learning dimension, while pro-

posing a different perspective: an organizational one.

In doing so, I start by acknowledging that social learning (SL) is one of the main desired

effects of PP. In the domain of environmental policies, the complexity of decision-making

is not only due to the public nature of the decision, but also to the uncertainty related with

risks of environmental phenomena and the sustainability of related strategies. This specific

condition makes room for the idea that environmental policies ought to be based on an

integration among different kinds of knowledge—local, technical, political—(Maiello

et al. 2013b), which is usually generated through SL dynamics (Rist et al. 2006). To

contribute to environmental policy-making process, PP ought to be targeted firstly towards

SL rather than towards other goals, such as communication or consensus-building. Thus, I

have observed the participatory process ethnographically, investigating the underpinning

learning dynamics through the conceptual framework formulated in organizational and

behavioural studies, where the idea of SL was originally conceived.

Following the suggestions of Suddaby for qualitative research in management, this

study deals with two different substantive areas, i.e. a field of practices and related

interpretation, namely theories (Suddaby 2006). My substantive areas are: environmental

management and policies, and organizational studies. Hence, the research adopts an ab-

ductive rationale, that is, the broadening of existing theories by introducing new concepts,

addressed to theory development (Dubois and Gadde 2002), rather than theory generation.

Through an organizational view, I conceive PP not as an abstract value, but as a

complex system, enlivened by several processes. From this perspective, the improvement

of this system is based on understanding the underlying processes, determined by the

interactions among its actors. It entails that learning and knowledge are socially con-

structed, that is produced through social actors’ cognition and interaction. The research aim

is to understand when and why these processes occur (explicative goal), and not how they

ought to work (normative goal). The method used is narrative analysis, widely employed in

organizational studies, applied in the analysis of a specific environmental programme: the

Iguaçu Project (PjI). It is a public intervention for flood control, urban and environmental

restoration in the Baixada Fluminense, a suburban area of RMRJ, under the direction of the

Environmental Department of the Rio de Janeiro State (Instituto Estadual do Ambiente—

INEA). The method is based on a collection of stories told by key informants, selected

from among the actors engaged in the participatory process contemplated by the Project.

Following a protocol of narrative analysis for organizational studies (Pentland 1999),

actors’ representations and meanings of the PjI were analysed, and an explanatory model of

learning dynamics in participatory arenas was proposed. The results offer a systemic

perspective of PP. It provides the academic debate an interpretative framework to rethink

PP as a systemic practice and to observe it with an explanatory purpose. Furthermore, it

attempts to explain why SL occurs in a participatory arena.

500 Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522

123

The structure of the paper is divided into the following sections: first, the concept of SL

in organizational studies, and environmental policies and management literature, is

reviewed, emphasizing its relation with participation; in the second, the selected meth-

odology and methods are presented; in the third, the fabula (Pentland 1999), a synthetic,

objective story of the analysed case, is described; in the fourth, results are presented and

discussed; finally, in the last section, the research conclusions are drawn.

Theoretical and Conceptual Framework

Social Learning: An Organizational Concept

The concept of SL was born in behavioural and organizational sciences (Ginter and White

1982). Bandura (1969) introduced this concept, and suggested that the process of learning

is determined by the interaction of multiple factors, such as personal features, behavioural

attitudes and environmental conditions (Bandura 1977). While behaviourists in general

conceive learning as a result of direct personal experience, SL theorists maintain that it also

occurs by observation (Bandura 1977). Thus, SL differs from general learning because it

entails a process of self-regulation which generates new behaviour (Ginter and White

1982) and, inductively, a new form of knowledge. One of the most important implications

of SL for organizational practices is the idea that learning occurs through actions, and not

only through an unidirectional transfer of explicit knowledge (Brown and Duguid 1991). In

the realm of organizational studies, SL has been developed as a corollary of the concept of

organizational learning (OL), which has been processed according to two different views: a

technical one and a social one (Easterby-Smith and Araujo 1999). From a technical per-

spective, OL is strictly linked with organizational change, entailing that an organization

learns if each component acquires new knowledge that contributes to useful changes.

Argyris and Schön, two main contributors to this view, built a theory of action perspective

(Argyris and Schön 1978), which underpins the idea that organizations learn through

individuals acting as agents. They conceptualized the relationships between people

(agents) and environment (organizations), introducing a learning structure based on two

levels, or loops. On the one hand, the single-loop concerns the instrumental learning, which

comes from the ordinary activities of organizations to pursue their missions, resulting in

absence of feedback. On the other hand, the double loop implies a modification of orga-

nizations’ underlying views and assumptions, bringing into question the current values and

behaviour. In the authors’ view, the double loop enhances effectiveness in decision-making

through acceptance of failures and mistakes. Argyris (1976), introduced the concept of

multiple-loop (triple loop) learning, which met with great interest among environmental

scholars, who borrowed it to design governance models for complex socio-environmental

systems (Pahl-Wostl 2009). The multiple or triple loop is the level of learning where the

organizational change occurs, as it entails the development of new beliefs and behaviour.

To present the conceptual structure based on triple-learning cycles, Pahl-Wostl (2009)

explains that, while single-loop is related with action, and double-loop with awareness of

the limits of organizational assumptions, the triple-loop is related with the absence of

assumptions, with the definition of new ones, and, therefore, with the transformation of the

organizational context.

From the social perspective, the act of learning is situated in society (Gherardi 2013). In

other words, people, as well as organizations, learn by taking part in the social system

(Wenger 2000). In this view, the main concern is not how organizations use their resources

Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522 501

123

to learn, but how they learn by interacting as a social system and with society. Within this

perspective, some authors maintained that knowledge is a social construction and the

learning process is, first of all, an individual cognitive experience. Accordingly, infor-

mation only matters if people understand what it means. People’s understanding of the data

is more relevant than its acquisition. From an empirical perspective, Orr, observing

knowledge exchange among workers with different expertise and levels of specialization,

stresses the relevance of collaborative behaviour (Orr 1990, 1996). More recently, Senge

and Kim (2013), emphasized the importance of knowledge integration, and likewise of

multiple-actor interactions, for OL.

Actually, the social dimension of learning was better theorized outside the OL field.

Lave and Wenger, underpinning a social constructivist perspective, identified the organi-

zation as a community of practice (Lave and Wenger 1991). They argued that learning

depends on participation in the community, and focused more on collective action and

interaction than on individual cognition. The authors introduce the notion of legitimate

peripheral participation (LPP), identifying it as the main driver of the learning process.

Since learning only occurs within the community, in order to acquire new knowledge, the

organization has to engage new-comers. Thus, learning and participation are closely

related (Gherardi 2013). Deepening these concepts towards a more complete theorization,

Wenger defines community of practices as the basic block of a SL system, the virtual place

for the development of the system competences (Wenger 2000). In Wenger’s theory, each

community has flexible boundaries (Wenger 2000), since they can be modified by their

members and opened to new participants. These boundaries may be cultural, social, eco-

nomic or physical, but, according to the author, if they are adequately coordinated, they

can become bridges (Wenger 2000) to expand the community learning process.

Social Learning in Public Participation: A Tool for Environmental Policies

Throughout the last three decades, SL has become a central issue in different areas of

environmental and natural resource management studies. In this field, the resonance of the

sustainability principle, which is a complex and still not well-defined idea, made the

knowledge basis uncertain. SL, as a tool to build new insights and make shared public

decisions, has started to attract environmental scholars’ interest, especially when they are

concerned with public engagement mechanisms. As early as 1995, Webler et al. analysing

the role of PP in environmental assessment procedures, stated that good public decision-

making ought to be based on competence, fairness and SL (Webler et al. 1995). They

evaluate PP through the criteria of SL defined as «… the process by which change in the social condition … and popular awareness … changes how individuals see their private interests linked with the shared interests of their fellow citizens…» . The authors describe two components within the SL processes: cognitive enhancement and moral development

(ibid. p. 446). While the former concerns the individual acquisition of new knowledge, the

latter entails the individual judgment of right and wrong. Analysing the case study of the

Swiss Canton Aargau, Webler et al. identify a range of instrumental factors to promote SL,

and thus effective PP. They identified both methodological and contextual factors.

Methodological factors are: visits, face-to-face small group work, repeated meetings over

several months. Structural factors are: political support for the process, a strong institu-

tional overarching system, expert support during the process, and clear responsibility in

designing the process and ensuring its monitoring. More recently the concept of SL has

been widely used in the field of river basin management (RBM). In this regard, the

European project, HarmanyCOP (Harmonizing Collaborative Planning) developed a

502 Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522

123

framework for SL and tested it in ten case studies around Europe (Tippett et al. 2005).

They provide more empirical evidence of SL, showing that it is linked to integrated

resource management and the local contexts. Nonetheless, the purpose and findings of

Tippet et al. are not so different from those reported by Webler et al. more than ten years

earlier. Indeed, both studies tried to identify a standard procedure for SL within PP.

Building upon the same RBM framework in Europe, also Garmendia and Stagl (2010)

propose a comparative analysis of the learning effects within three different processes of

stakeholders and public engagement. They founded their investigation on a structured

survey and showed where the participatory process generates new factual knowledge,

changes in values and perceptions or social consciousness. They conclude that SL, which

they assume to happen at three levels and on three time-scales, depends on three factors:

process design; process timing and types of participants.

The association between the participatory process and learning effects is also a core

concern for the Transitional Management theory (vanKerkhof and Wieczorek 2005).

Drawing upon a definition of learning based on the concept of change, Transitional

Manager theorists maintain that, even if change in society cannot be totally controlled, it

can be addressed and accelerated (ibid p. 735). Acknowledging the relevance of wide

participation of social categories in local government, they suggest that this policy process

has to be settled within the transitional arena, where different bodies of knowledge are

brokered through the support of an expert facilitator (the transitional manager). This

approach sheds light on the organizational dimension of the participatory process,

emphasizing the need of an independent entity that addresses the different democratic

instances. Similarly, Adaptive Management and Co-Management theorists (Armitage et al.

2008; Olsson and Folke 2004; Olsson et al. 2004) define SL as the highest level of the

participatory process within public resource management. Armitage et al. (2008) distin-

guish three levels of learning: experiential learning (learning by doing, acquiring more

know-how); reflective learning (changing perceptions and consciousness); and SL

(changing ideas and perceptions together with others). Berkes (2009), drawing on orga-

nizational theorists, states that just through participatory approaches multiple-loops

learning dynamics (Argyris 1976) can be activated and form communities of practices

(Wenger 2000). Adaptive Management scholars also take into account human factors, such

as the personal perception of risk, and ethical behaviour at both individual and collective

levels (Armitage et al. 2008). Siebenhuner, from an ecological economic perspective,

argues that the participatory procedure can foster SL. He investigates basic conditions that

allow stakeholders’ engagement practices to be a learning tool (Siebenhüner 2004). Using

methods of involvement as variables to analyse final outcomes of four participatory pro-

grammes, he remarks that groups with a larger composition allow greater exchange of

knowledge, having a greater impact in terms of SL. Nevertheless, he only referred to a

different professional background, without considering different life stories and experi-

ences that affect ways of behaving and perceiving reality.

Different from the latter, Rist et al. use an action research approach, and identify the

reciprocity conditions of interaction between external and local actors as decisive for the

SL effects (Rist et al. 2006). They emphasise the multidimensionality of SL—cognitive,

emotional, relational, competence-related—and show how social capital and emotional

competencies of local people complete the explicit competences of external ones, allowing

the former to transform their tacit insights into explicit knowledge.

The question ‘‘how participation ought to work’’ prevails in the studies reviewed, even

if, as Newig et al. (2008) highlight that participation may not be designed on the method.

Rather, methods should be defined according to the participatory process. Here, I,

Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522 503

123

expanding on Garmendia and Stagle (2010 p. 1714), define SL as a collective dynamic of

understanding, based on the exchange of not only factual, but also substantial and

experiential knowledge, which depends on attitudes to modify personal behaviour and

beliefs in order to find shared meanings and support innovations in policy practices.

Research Design

Research Rationale and Purpose

From the reviewed literature, it emerges that scholars in both environmental policy and

management fields, when analysing SL and participation, are mainly concerned with the

ways to operationalize them (Bos et al. 2013). To stimulate a new view of participation,

this research’s purpose is to investigate the reasons behind the learning dynamics in PP,

that is answer the question why (Van Maanen 2011), rather than how. Starting with the idea

that social learning cannot be forced upon actors, but actors can be positively influenced

by the creation of learning situations (Rist et al. 2006), the research focuses on the

participants and on their experience of the participatory arena, within the context of a

specific public environmental programme. Organizational scholars agree that, if an orga-

nization can understand the cognitive basis of people’s reactions to changes, then it can

enhance its resilience, i.e. its capacity to respond effectively to changes (Gioia 1986;

Pasmore and Fagans 1992; Isaac 2002). In other words, it is relevant for an organization’s

success to understand how their stakeholders—internal (e.g. workers) or external (e.g. civil

society organizations), make sense of the reality. Whereas psychologists and social sci-

entists have emphasized that people communicate their sense-making and meanings of the

realities through stories, narrative analysis became a popular method in social research in

general (Czarniawska-Joerges 2004; Sintonen and Auvinen 2013) and in organizational

studies in particular (Reissner 2005; Brown and Kreps 1993; Ospina and Dodge 2005).

More recently, this approach has been gaining momentum in environmental management

too. Accepting the idea of cognitive psychologists that mental models are simplified

representations of the world, environmental scholars have acknowledged that the public’s

understanding of environmental problems is closely connected to prior experiences of these

problems (Lejano et al. 2013; Lorenzoni and Pidgeon 2006; Kempton 1991). Consistent

with this cognitive insight, the environmental constructive perspective (Berkes and Berkes

2009) also stresses that humans pick up their knowledge while socializing, communicating,

and narrating their experiences. In fact, they learn mostly making sense of what they see,

rather than accumulating information (Kempton 1991).

Building upon this rationale, in this research, I observed the participatory process from

an organizational point of view, while adopting the definition of organization as an open

socio-cultural system, where people engage in symbolic interactions (Argyris and Schön

1996) systematically structured to address exchanged resources for a mission. Then, I

identified a participatory process as a semi-organization, since, even if it is an open system

of involved actors, it is not born of a clear shared mission. Stressing this organizational

view, I investigated PP through the conceptual framework of organizational concepts,

organizational theory, environmental policy and former organizational empirical studies,

while collecting data through a narrative method. The narrative method allowed me to

explore the actor-related and cognitive dimension of PP, and thus observe and understand

the underpinning SL dynamics. To apply this method, first I collected the stories of

selected key actors. Then I analysed these stories through an abductive methodological

504 Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522

123

approach (Dubois and Gadde 2002). It is a theory-driven methodology, which purports to

empirically test theoretical concepts, to widen the interpretation of a certain phenomenon,

through the observation of related facts (Svennevig 2001). 1

Here, I use this approach

according to Dubois and Gadde (2002), who define it as systematic combining, namely a

process of redirection of a theoretical subject made by the researcher’s exercise to go back

and forth from the theory to the field. Thus, in my analysis I go forth in my interpretation of

narrative data related to the Iguaçu Project, while continuously going back to concepts and

conclusions proposed by former authors, in different organizational case studies, inter-

twining theoretical arguments and empirical evidence.

The whole study is addressed by the following research questions: when and why do

participants engaged in a public arena socially learn?

Research Materials: Sampling and Data Collection

As for the method, the results presented in this paper are derived from a study embedded in

a wider ethnographic investigation carried out over a 6-month period, producing field-work

materials based on a triangulation of sources (deSardan 1995b). The ethnographic mate-

rials were: 20 interviews; twelve participatory observations; content analysis of 84 meeting

reports; a selection of local prints, the observation of three local community blogs and one

web-TV. Ethnographers agree that saturation in qualitative approaches does not have to

meet quantitative parameters, but it follows the researcher’s sensitivity (Suddaby 2006;

Ospina and Dodge 2005). It does not mean that the research can be arbitrary, but that the

rigorousness of the research depends on an unstandardized protocol, based on the

researcher’s craft in systematizing his/her materials, communicating the logic underpin-

ning its subsequent choices in the field to be replicable (Onwuegbuzie and Leech 2007;

deSardan 1995a). Following Onwuegbuzie and Leech (2007), I took a subsample of nine

key informants from my sample of 20 interviewees, which is considered an appropriate

sample dimension for field work (Creswell 2002). On the basis of my ethnographic

materials, and on the consequent awareness of the field, I classified the universe of the

actors involved in the Iguaçu Project into four categories: residents, government officials,

civil society stakeholders, process facilitators. Then, for each category, I selected two key

informants, three being for the category of citizens, as it was broader than the others. Each

couple of key informants was formed of individuals with different perspectives and per-

sonal positions in relation to the Project, in order to capture a more complete view of the

participatory process. In this way, both more involved and less involved actors were heard

(see Table 1).

Each interview was recorded and lasted at least 1 h, focusing on just five general issues:

the project’s story; experience of the participatory process; the exchanged knowledge and

that conceived as relevant for the aim of the Project; the perception of local environment,

the experience of the process in terms of learning.

Research Analysis: The Narrative Method

The materials collected were analysed through the narrative method. For a summary of the

overall research design, see Fig. 1. Firstly, I conceived of narrative as not merely a

description or a report of facts, but rather as a discursive construction concerning a suc-

cession of events, integrated by the narrator’s view of the world and expressed through his/

1 For a complete review, the reader can refer to Hintikka (1999).

Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522 505

123

her own language (Lejano et al. 2013). Then, following Pentland (1999), I analysed the

narrative data at two levels: (a) the narrative structure, (b) the narrators’ meanings. The first

level corresponds to what Pentland defines as focal actor/actors, i.e. objects and characters

of the story (e.g. protagonist and antagonist) and the relations among them that determine

the story’s events. The second level coincides with the identifiable narrative voice of

Pentland’s framework, that is, the identification of the narrators’ points of view, and their

meanings and the feelings related with the events narrated. While the former is expressed

by the narrator, the latter is interpreted by the researcher.

The analysis was structured in three parts: (I) plot and structure, (II) semantic field, (III)

theory development.

I. Plot and structure. The nine recorded stories were listened to three or four times, in

order to transcribe them in story-plots, which are the units of analysis. I replayed the

stories in different and distant moments of ethnographic investigation to enrich the

interpretative framework. The main narratology in each story plot was structured,

identifying the following elements: the protagonist, that is the main character; the

antagonist, or rather the main adversary; and the assistant, a character who supports the

protagonist toward his/her goal.

Table 1 Narrators description the table provides a description of each interviewee, identifying the social category, the institution they represent and the role they cover in the project

Category Code Profile

NGO Coordinator Facilitator A1 An NGO historically active in the area. Subcontractor of INEA

Social assistant Facilitator A2 Member of a group of independent professionals contracted by the construction company

INEA Project Coordinator

Government representative

B1 An engineer and public official of INEA, covering the role of General Coordinator of the Project

INEA Social work Co-ordinator

Government representative

B2 A State public official, outgoing Coordinator for the socio-technical works of the Project, at INEA

a Resident C1 A resident who is going to move to the one of new

condominium built through Iguaçu Project, now living in a temporary social housing

a Resident C2 A resident who is going to move in the new

condominium, now living in his house a

Resident C3 A resident of one of the 23 neighbourhoods, outgoing representative in the CLAs, and prime mover of a citizens Commission asking for in- depth changes in the Project and claiming for the unexpected exclusion of its neighborhoods from the project

Neighbourhood Association Director

Stakeholder D1 The Directors of MUB (Movimento União de Bairros), an historical Baixada resindents association

Union of Environmental Association Representative

Stakeholder D2 A representative of Environmental Movements Federations—APEDEMA (Assembléia Permanente de Entidades em Defesa do Meio Ambiente)

Source the author a

The names of residents are not mentioned

506 Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522

123

II. Semantic field. The meanings, which narrators assign to key research concepts, were

classified into the following categories: knowledge—the knowledge transmitted

through the process and the one considered to be relevant for the project;

participation—the idea of PP and the reason for their engagement in the Iguaçu

Project process; environment—the perception and the awareness of local environ-

mental conditions; and learning—the learning process experienced through partici-

pation. The main meanings assigned to these notions were gathered and confronted in

a semantic field (see Fig. 2).

III. Theory development. By developing the analysis of semantic fields, and extending

the theoretical constructs from the OL literature, I propose a descriptive model of

learning processes in the public participatory arena. I introduce the concept of

contextual loops and adapt the concept of communitisation, borrowed from the Indian

governance experience in Nagaland (Spink and Best 2009), but adapted to the

organizational analysis of PP of the Brazilian case study. Thus, I extended existing

theoretical constructions combining organizational theories with empirical results

that have emerged from the investigation.

Case Study: The Fabula

The Baixada Fluminense is an area composed of thirteen municipalities and located

between the city of Rio de Janeiro, to the south, the mountains of Serra dos Órgãos, to the

north, and borders on Guanabara Bay (see Fig. 1). Its current population is over three

million, with an average per capita income of up to two minimum salaries, overwhelmingly

black, young and female. This region suffers flooding, as a consequence of its geographical

location (between the ocean and the mountains), which is seriously compounded by the

deficiency of local environmental sanitation services. The so-called Iguaçu Project is a

programme formally defined as a project for flood control, an urban and environmental

Fig. 1 Overview of the research design

Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522 507

123

rehabilitation of the Iguaçu-Botas-Serapui river basins. It is part of the Growth Acceler-

ation Programme (PAC), 2

the investment plan launched by the Brazilian federal govern-

ment in 2007.

Fig. 2 Iguaçu Project area. The map describes the river basin Iguaçu-Bota-Serapui and location of the municipalities involved in the PjI. Source: Data IBGE processed by Hydrology Lab. COPPE/UFRJ

2 The PAC is co-ordinated by the Presidency of Brazilian Federal Republic through programmes and action

implemented by the relevant Ministries (Ministry of Planning, Ministry of Budget and Management, Ministry of Inland Revenue and Ministry of the Cities), and operationalized by the Caixa Econômico Federal, the main Brazilian public bank created for financing public policy programmes.

508 Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522

123

The Iguaçu Project, which involves 6 of the 13 Baixada Fluminense municipalities and

a single neighbourhood of the Capital city, is intended to prevent recurrence of the factors

of environmental imbalance, leading to floods. In the beginning, the Project’s works and

participatory process were intended to act in 23 neighbourhoods. However, afterwards,

some have been withdrawn. Currently, it is based on three main infrastructural lines of

action: fighting the floods, revitalizing rivers, and resettling population living along the

riverbanks in precarious housing conditions. Since one of the criterion to contract com-

panies for PAC interventions establishes that no less than a 2.5 % of the total cost of

infrastructure has to be designed for socio-technical work, i.e. for activities of the par-

ticipation, mobilization, and education 3

of interested local communities, the PjI provides

specific activities in this context. INEA, which is the public agency responsible for the

project, manages the socio-technical work through external experts. Under this general co-

ordination, the river works and housing construction are directed by different INEA units,

and, likewise, the related socio-technical work, which involves the participatory process,

has different structures and facilitators. The participatory process related to housing

interventions is implemented by a group of social workers, contracted by a construction

company, and is carried out with small groups of residents. On the contrary, the socio-

technical work accompanying river interventions, which affects the majority of the local

population, is implemented by FASE, a contracted NGO. The participatory process

accompanied by FASE is based on a system of five Local Committees (CLAs), each

covering multiple neighbourhoods of the municipalities involved. Each CLA, which is

composed by representatives of civil society, elected at a neighbourhood level, is in turn

represented within the Regional Forum, a larger arena, also involving local governments.

Results and Discussion

Results

Plot and Structure

At this first level of analysis, three kind of findings arise: the narrators’ cognition of the

Project as a whole; the self-representation of their role within the story (protagonist or not);

and the representation of the other actors and their relationships with the antagonist and the

assistant. See Table 2 for a complete report of the analytical framework. The Plot and

structure extracted from each interview are combined in Table 2. See this table for a

complete report on the analytical framework.

The narrators cognition of the Project is determined by the answers to the first question:

‘‘Do you know the history of the Iguaçu Project? Could you please tell me this story?’’ (see

Annex). Comparing answers, it is possible to see that the same subject—the PjI—is repre-

sented in different ways by the narrators. A general feeling of distrust towards public insti-

tutions emerges among the residents, stakeholders and facilitators (A1, B2, C3, D1, D2), who

identify public institutions as antagonists. For these actors, the inadequacy of local govern-

ment to undertake its function is a central issue, also representing a burden on the achievement

of their goals. For others, the political institutional forces, even those affecting the evolution

of the process, are not crucial to the way they experienced it (A2, B1). Three different

3 Ministerio da Cidades, Manual de Instruções Projetos Prioritários de Investimentos—PPI PAC 2007–

2010.

Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522 509

123

narratives of politics emerge, implying three different levels of politicisation: a politicised

narrative, a politically neutral narrative, and a non-politicised one.

The first belongs to actors A1, B1, D1, D2 and C3. These actors are united by political

interpretations of the Project history, even though they use different political rhetoric. The

NGO agrees with the resident association’s director and the representative of the envi-

ronmental movement that there is a problem of political culture, even though the two

stakeholders hold a critical vision of the Government (INEA) and the interventions. For the

Government representative (B2), the political problems are related to local administrations

that do not fulfil their roles. Finally, resident C3 conceives of the Project as ill-administered

because citizens’ rights are disregarded, information passed on to citizens is incomplete

and so decisions are authoritarian.

The second level of politicisation belongs to the actors A2 and B1, as, in these cases, the

stories correspond to their job experience. So, political criticalities are identified, but not

deeply discussed.

Table 2 Narrative structure the table reports the narrative structure of each story, describing for each narrator antagonist and assistant

Narrators Narratology

Protagonist Antagonist Assistant

A1 The participatory process

Public Institutions which are not taking part in the process/the local political culture

INEA/local leaders/ neighbourhood associations/ active citizens

A2 The resettlement process

Intra and inter institutional conflicts and discontinuity in the Project direction

INEA/participating residents/ active citizens

B1 The infrastructural works

Residents who refuse to move Local inhabitants who participate/facilitators/public institutions partners

B2 The project and the participatory process

Insolvent public and private institutions

Active citizens/civil society/ Labour Party (PT)/Federal Government/local leaderships

C1 The narrator and the project

Governmental sector responsible for the reimbursements of temporary housing (INEA Administration)

INEA (Works Director)/social assistants/others residents

C2 The narrator and the project

Housing Department of State Government (CEHAB)

INEA/social assistants/ neighbours

C3 The narrator and the project

State Government and Governmental Department involved in the project

Active citizens

D1 The MUB and the project

Government and public institutions/ Local (Municipal) Governments

(sometimes) Facilitator 2/ (occasionally) technicians (when they are not consultant)

D2 The project and social movement in the Baixada Fluminense

Government/Public institutions Active citizens/social not partisan movements

The protagonist does not always corresponds with the narrator

Source author’s analysis of semi-structured interviews

510 Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522

123

The third level of politicisation regards residents C1 and C2, who are the protagonists of

their own narratives. They answered the first question telling how the PjI affected their

daily lives, rather than talking about the Project itself. The Project has brought deep

changes in their routines and in their future perspectives, albeit in different ways. Thus,

they share a willingness of social reaction, but not a political criticism, still not being fully

aware of the public institutional system. As protagonists of their stories, they have a greater

commitment to the Project, and this commitment enhances their attitude to learning

socially through participation.

Semantic Field

Drawing upon interviewees’ answers to the questions of sections B and C (see Annex), I

classified the meanings that narrators attributed to key conceptual categories: knowledge,

participation, environment and learning. See Table 3.

PP is the central point of the project for each narrator. All residents’ stories start from

the moment that they began participating in the socio-technical works. But, the meanings

assigned to PP are different. For some residents (C1, C2) as well as for the INEA Project

Co-ordinator, PP is an instrument to receive and transfer information, even though

information transferred by the Government does not always match those required by the

residents. On the other hand, resident C3 and the two stakeholders, who criticise the

management of the participatory process, agree with the facilitators and the Government

representative (B2) that PP is more than an instrument of information, it being the place for

collective learning (C1 and C2), and the building of social change. Overall, except for A2

and B2, the other narrators stress that their idea of PP does not correspond to their

experience of the participatory process in the Iguaçu Project, where the public engagement

is aimed at mere information exchange, rather than supporting social change.

The idea of local environment is loosely connected with the participatory process, it

being conceived as an external issue. Narrators mainly attributed to the environment either

a very local meaning (A1, B1, C1, C2) or a very general one (D2). Nobody but the

Government official (B1), allows specific attention to the environmental condition in his/he

story. The riskiness related to the local environmental context is only raised by narrators

D1 and C3, together with the Government Project Co-ordinator. C3 and D1 also identify it

as a political issue. Actually, the nine informants interpret the environmental problems

differently, associating it with different possible causes. For C1, C3 and D1, the causes are

the local administrations and public institution misconduct. For C2, environmental prob-

lems are due to the citizens’ misbehaviour, while, for B1, they are related to a combination

of geographical factors and social behaviour.

At the very centre of the semantic field (see Fig. 3), there is the notion of knowledge.

This is a meta-concept associated with all the others and which associates these with each

other. It is generally conceived by the narrators as a resource to be exchanged through the

participatory process. But, under this shared conception, it is still possible to identify

within the narratives at least three different kinds of knowledge-related rhetoric.

A first prevailing rhetoric identifies knowledge as information (B1, C1, C2, C3, D2).

Residents own the contextual information related to the local territory, as they live there,

while the Government holds technical information on the evolution of the works and

interventions, as well as the consequent territorial planning. According to this meaning of

the knowledge, the participatory arena may be the place to exchange this complementary

information.

Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522 511

123

T a

b le

3 N

a rr

a to

rs m

e a n in

g T

h e

ta b

le re

p o

rt s

th e

e x

c e rp

ts o

f th

e in

te rv

ie w

s w

h ic

h d

e sc

ri b

e th

e m

e a n

in g s

th a t

n a rr

a to

rs a ss

ig n

to k

e y

re se

a rc

h ’s

c o

n c e p

ts

N a rr

a to

rs C

a te

g o

ri e s

o f

m e a n in

g s

P a rt

ic ip

a ti

o n

E n v ir

o n m

e n t

K n o w

le d g e

L e a rn

in g

A 1

T h

e p

a rt

ic ip

a to

ry p

ro c e ss

is w

e ll

d e si

g n

e d

b u

t h

a s

a p

o o

r im

p a c t

o n

p ro

je c t

d e c is

io n

s

In th

e p

a st

th e se

ri sk

y ri

v e rs

w e re

u n

c o

n ta

m in

a te

d a n

d sw

im m

in g

L a y

k n

o w

le d

g e

m a y

b e

im p

o rt

a n

t b

u t

G o

v e rn

m e n

t d

o e s

n o

t ta

k e

it in

c o

n si

d e ra

ti o

n

T e c h

n ic

a l

in fo

rm a ti

o n

a re

p a ss

e d

u n

il a te

ra ll

y b

y IN

E A

te c h

n ic

ia n

s to

p a rt

ic ip

a n ts

A 2

T h

e p

a rt

ic ip

a to

ry p

ro c e ss

im p

ro v

e d

si n c e

d w

e ll

e rs

w e re

a b le

to u

n d

e rs

ta n

d d

y n

a m

ic s

a n d

a d

m in

is tr

a ti

v e

c ri

te ri

a fo

r th

e re

se tt

le m

e n

t

– T

h e

re le

v a n

t k

n o

w le

d g

e a c q

u ir

e d

th ro

u g h

th e

p a rt

ic ip

a ti

o n

is th

e a w

a re

n e ss

o f

c iv

il li

fe ru

le s

P a rt

ic ip

a n

ts le

a rn

t to

w o

rk in

g ro

u p

, c h

a n

g in

g th

e ir

b e h

a v

io u

r (e

.g .

p u

n c tu

a li

ty )

a n

d b

e c o

m in

g a w

a re

o f

c iv

ic ru

le s

B 1

P a rt

ic ip

a ti

o n

is im

p o rt

a n t

fo r

th e

p ro

je c t

im p le

m e n ta

ti o n .

D w

e ll

e rs

h a v e

to fo

ll o w

p ro

je c t

w o

rk s

th ro

u g

h C

L A

s m

e e ti

n g

s

B a ix

a d

a F

lu m

in e n

se h

a s

a c o

m p

le x

g e o

m o

rp h o

lo g

y so

if th

e ri

v e r

b e d

is o

c c u

p ie

d b

y si

lt s

it o

v e rfl

o w

s

In te

g ra

ti o

n b

e tw

e e n

te c h

n ic

a l

a n

d e x

p e ri

e n

ti a l

k n

o w

le d

g e

is im

p o

rt a n

t b u t

o n ly

te c h n ic

ia n s

c a n

p e rc

e iv

e th

e p

ro je

c t

a s

a w

h o

le .

W e

a ls

o a c q

u ir

e re

le v

a n

t in

fo rm

a ti

o n

fr o m

d w

e ll

e rs

(l e v

e l

o f

th e

ri v

e r)

In fo

rm a ti

o n

a re

e x c h

a n

g e d

b e tw

e e n

te c h n ic

ia n s

a n d

d w

e ll

e rs

a n d

e n v ir

o n m

e n ta

l e d u c a ti

o n

c o u rs

e s

w e re

p ro

v id

e d

to e n

h a n

c e

lo c a l

e n

v ir

o n

m e n

ta l

a w

a re

n e ss

B 2

T h

e p

a rt

ic ip

a to

ry p

ro c e ss

is c o m

p le

x to

b e

m a n

a g

e d

, b

u t

w a s

e ff

e c ti

v e

in te

rm o f

c iv

ic e d u

c a ti

o n

a n

d so

c ia

l re

la ti

o n

s

T h

e g

o v

e rn

m e n t

o f

lo c a l

e n

v ir

o n

m e n

t su

ff e r

th e

la c k

o f

a n

in te

g ra

te d

p o

li c y

A so

c ia

l a n d

re la

ti o n a l

se n si

ti v it

y is

n e e d e d

to m

a n a g e

p a rt

ic ip

a to

ry a re

n a ,

b u

t te

c h

n ic

a l

k n

o w

le d

g e

is fu

n d

a m

e n

ta l

A tr

a n

sf e r

o f

k n

o w

le d

g e

b e tw

e e n

c iv

il so

c ie

ti e s,

N G

O a n d

g o v e rn

m e n t

h a p p e n e d

th ro

u g h

p a rt

ic ip

a ti

o n

C 1

In st

ru m

e n

ta l

a n

d u

se fu

l T

h e

lo c a l

e n

v ir

o n

m e n

t is

p o

ll u

te d

: w

a st

e in

th e

ri v

e r

a n d

w a st

e o

n th

e ro

a d

a re

c a u

se d

b y

re si

d e n

ts b

h e a v

io u

r a n

d ir

re g

u la

r p

u b

li c

se rv

ic e

T h

e k

n o

w le

d g

e re

q u

ir e d

is c e rt

a in

a n

d u n d e rs

ta n d a b le

in fo

rm a ti

o n

o n

th e

w o

rk s

T h

e p

ro c e ss

ta u

g h

t u

s to

h a v

e a

d if

fe re

n t

e n

v ir

o n

m e n

ta l

b e h

a v

io u

r (e

.g .

n o

t th

ro w

p a p

e rs

o n

th e

fl o

o r

a n

d to

re d u

c e

e n

e rg

y a n

d w

a te

r c o

n su

m p

ti o

n )

C 2

In st

ru m

e n

ta l

a n

d so

c ia

ll y

re le

v a n

t T

h e re

a re

p ro

b le

m s

w it

h d

u st

g e n

e ra

te d

b y

b u

il d

in g

d e m

o li

ti o

n s,

b u

t th

e lo

c a l

w a st

e m

a n a g e m

e n t

im p ro

v e d

T h

e k

n o

w le

d g

e a c q

u ir

e d

c o

n c e iv

e s

in p

ro c e d

u ra

l in

fo rm

a ti

o n

. A

lw a y

s e x

is ts

a sp

e c ifi

c p

e rs

o n

a li

ti e s

o f

th e

G o

v e rn

m e n

t in

w h

ic h

w e

tr u

st fo

r th

e se

in fo

rm a ti

o n

T h

e p

ro c e ss

h e lp

to a c q u

ir e

n e w

so c ia

l a w

a re

n e ss

512 Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522

123

T a

b le

3 c o

n ti

n u e d

N a rr

a to

rs C

a te

g o

ri e s

o f

m e a n in

g s

P a rt

ic ip

a ti

o n

E n v ir

o n m

e n t

K n o w

le d g e

L e a rn

in g

C 3

P e o p le

ju st

p a rt

ic ip

a te

to re

c e iv

e b

a si

c in

fo rm

a ti

o n

E n

v ir

o n

m e n

ta l

p o

li c ie

s o

u g

h t

st a rt

fr o

m th

e n

e ig

h b

o u rh

o o

d .

T h

e re

a re

se v

e ra

l in

te rc

o n n e c te

d p ro

b le

m s

a n d

th e

h ig

h ri

sk o

f fl

o o

d s.

In te

rv e n

ti o

n s

m a y

st a rt

fr o

m su

b -b

a si

n

T h

e p

ro je

c t

is b

a se

d o

n a

re se

a rc

h w

o rk

, a n

d th

is u

n d

e rl

y in

g st

u d

y w

a s

w e ll

d is

c lo

se d ,

e v e n

if it

d o

e s

n o

t m

a tc

h th

e e x

p e c te

d a c ti

o n

s. N

o t

a ll

in fo

rm a ti

o n

a re

tr a n

sf e rr

e d

to th

e p

o p

u la

ti o

n

S o

c ia

l li

fe a lw

a y

s te

a c h

e s

so m

e th

in g

. P

a rt

ic ip

a ti

o n ,

in g e n e ra

l, g iv

e s

th e

o p

p o

rt u

n it

y to

m a k

e so

c ia

l c o n

tr o

l a n

d th

is c iv

ic m

is si

o n

c a n

e n h

a n

c e

c it

iz e n sh

ip

D 1

T h

e p

ro c e ss

d e si

g n

e d

w e re

u n

b a la

n c e d

a n

d a u

th o

ri ta

ri a n

, b

u t,

w e

c a n

a lw

a y

s le

a rn

th ro

u g

h p

a rt

ic ip

a ti

o n

T h

e lo

c a l

e n

v ir

o n

m e n

t o

f B

a ix

a d

a F

lu m

in e n

se is

ri sk

y , th

e n

se w

e r

sy st

e m

is n

o t

in te

g ra

te d

w it

h d

re d

g e

in te

rv e n

ti o

n s.

D w

e ll

e rs

a re

n o

t a w

a re

o f

th e

ri sk

In th

is p

ro c e ss

b o

th te

c h

n ic

a l

a n

d e x

p e ri

e n

ti a l

k n

o w

le d

g e

(f ro

m lo

c a l

c o

m m

u n

it ie

s) a re

re le

v a n

t, b

u t

te c h

n ic

a l

in fo

rm a ti

o n

n e e d

to b

e c o

m m

u n

ic a te

d in

a n

u n

d e rs

ta n

d a b

le w

a y

to p

a rt

ic ip

a n ts

W e

fo rm

th ro

u g

h th

e m

il it

a n c y

b u

t w

e le

a rn

th ro

u g h

p a rt

ic ip

a ti

o n .

P a rt

ic ip

a ti

v e

p ro

c e ss

e s,

e v e n

w h e n

il l-

st ru

c tu

re d

, a lw

a y

s e n

h a n

c e

o u

r c a p a c it

y to

d e a l

w it

h d if

fe re

n t

so c ia

l a c to

rs

D 2

T h

e p

a rt

ic ip

a to

ry p

ro c e ss

is a m

b ig

u o

u s

a n

d ti

m e -

c o n

su m

in g

b e c a u

se it

is n

o t

a im

e d

a t

d e c is

io n

m a k in

g

T h

e e n

v ir

o n

m e n

t to

b e

p ro

te c te

d is

th e

w h

o le

p la

n e t

a n

d n

o t

ju st

o u

r p

la n e t

T h

e re

is a

la c k

o f

in st

it u

ti o

n a l

k n

o w

le d

g e ,

b e c a u

se it

is n

o t

c le

a r

h o

w p

u b

li c

a d

m in

is tr

a ti

o n

s w

o rk

. M

o re

k n

o w

le d

g e

a n

d c iv

ic c u

lt u

re a re

n e e d

e d

P a rt

ic ip

a ti

o n

is a

li fe

e x

p e ri

e n

c e

so it

a lw

a y

s a ll

o w

s le

a rn

in g

so m

e th

in g

. T

h e re

a re

n o

te a c h

e rs

in th

is p

ro c e ss

, th

e p

ro c e ss

it se

lf p

ro v

id e s

a n

im p

li c it

a n

d in

fo rm

a l

le a rn

in g

c o

n d

it io

n

S o

u rc

e a u

th o

r’ s

e la

b o ra

ti o

n o

f se

m i-

st ru

c tu

re d

in te

rv ie

w

Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522 513

123

A second kind of rhetoric concerns civic and institutional knowledge, which is supposed

to be disseminated through the participatory arena (A2, D2). Besides this same meaning of

the word knowledge, narrators provide two different evaluations of their participatory

experience. In fact, while the facilitator (A2) refers to the civic and institutional knowledge

exchanged, conceiving it as an effective result of socio-technical work, the representative

of the environmental movement (D2) criticizes the management of the process on the

grounds of the deficient institutional information provided to the participants.

A third rhetoric, related with the meanings of knowledge, is based on the dichotomy, lay

versus technical knowledge, and it seems to be a concern for the majority of the sample

(A1, B1, B2, C3, D1, D2). While general agreement emerges among these narrators on the

necessity of integration between the two kinds of understanding, it is still possible to

highlight different nuances. Actually, B1and B2 emphasize, in their discourse, the rele-

vance of technical knowledge for environmental projects, whereas C3, D1 and D2 express

greater concern for the public understanding of technical information. In the opinion of

these three actors, technicians involved in the project must make information under-

standable and complete (C3, D2). The director of the Residents Association (D1) states

that:

Technicians are not always the problem. Sometimes they can represent good partners

for residents and residents’ associations. In particular, when the technician is a public

employee, and not a consultant, he feels free to explain to us what is really hap-

pening, because, as a civil servant, he is not concerned with corporate interests.

As for the semantic of learning concept, it is worth noting that in each story the learning

process is associated to the social experience of the participatory process. Therefore, the

idea of experiential learning prevails. Only the Government Project Co-ordinator identifies

learning with formal environmental education courses, rather than informal interaction.

Despite broad agreement that public participation always teaches something, as the

Director of the Residents Association stated, the learning experiences described are dif-

ferent. A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 express a general satisfaction when assessing the participatory

process from the learning perspective, as they said they had acquired specific knowledge

related with both the political context and environmental management (C1, C2), or it had

enhanced their civic awareness (A2, B1, B2). Both an active and a passive cognition of

learning emerge. The Government representative (B2) declared:

Fig. 3 Semantic field. The figure shows, through the position on the plan, the association between the key concepts and the main attributes assigned to them. Source the author

514 Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522

123

Maybe the project still has not improved the local community’s quality of life, but

has taught the residents to participate with the aim of exercising civic rights and

fulfilling duties… They have learned to participate without asking to be paid for it…

On the other hand, other narrators (A1, D1, C3) claimed a lack of concern for learning

on the part of participatory process proponents and facilitators, as they stated that only an

unidirectional transfer of information occurred in the Project meetings. Even so, one of

these residents (C3) acknowledged that, through the process, he acquired the cognition of

social control as a right and duty of citizens. Because of his critical view, he chose to leave

the process to build up a new Civic Commission aimed at operating social control over the

Iguaçu Project and advocating profound changes.

The semantic analysis shows the existence of different languages and different mean-

ings, that, even being an indicator of the process plurality, which, in turn, represents an

opportunity for learning, hampered the creation of collaborative relations in the public

arena. The following excerpt from D1’s story exemplifies this point, as he reported the

experience of one of the members:

…., one of our members started to question a point regarding the dredging work, asking about the depth of the digging. The technician corrected him, saying that the

problem was not to do with depth, but with bathymetry… Now he learnt a synonym for the word ‘‘depth’’, but technicians could have used a more understandable concept

to support the interaction with the lay public… Actually, he had a past professional experience in dredging works, so his criticisms and suggestions (to use an iron plate at

a point of dredging intervention) allowed a reduction in the Project’s labour costs.

Theory Development

The semantic space of the words knowledge and learning shows that there are several flows of

meanings and contents occurring in a participatory process, and, from a social change per-

spective, this epistemological complexity may represent a resource. To appreciate this

potential, the different knowledge, which converges in the process, may be organised to be

shared and become of public relevance. Even though participatory arenas cannot be rigidly

structured, as they ought to be open and flexible, they can be observed and rethought through

an organizational perspective. Thinking of the participatory arena as a semi-organization, it

allows identification of knowledge exchanged within the participatory process as a strategic

resource, produced and developed through learning dynamics, which are the driving force of a

participatory system. If this learning is socialized, it causes the PP to work as a social

innovation catalyst. The literature on SL shows that there are several contextual pressures and

fluxes of inputs, which affect individual and collective learning dimensions (Rist et al. 2006;

Garmendia and Stagl 2010). In the case of the Iguaçu Project, I observed that the three

residents, despite their different conceptions of participation, experienced a process of

learning, which increased their civic awareness as well as their social commitment. However,

even though their political and socio-cultural backgrounds were similar (none of them has

past experience in political activism or in social associations), their responses to the partic-

ipatory experience differ depending on the socio-technical work process they are involved in.

As matter of fact, the stories of the two residents (C1, C2), who participated in the small group

meetings about housing construction have a non-politicized rhetoric. On the contrary, the

other resident who participated in the broader CLA meetings, acquired a politicized rhetoric

through PP experience. In the first case, the process of learning led to the foundation of a local

Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522 515

123

community within the participatory process, while, in the other case, it led to an opposition

and to the constitution of a counter-community.

Dealing with the multiple-loop learning paradigm (Pahl-Wostl 2009; Berkes 2009;

Argyris and Schön 1996), and with the theory of community of practices (Brown and

Duguid 1991; Wenger 2000), I matched the above empirical findings with revised theo-

retical concepts, combining and extending them. In particular, I hypothesise that, in a semi-

organization, such as a public arena, likewise any organizations, learning dynamics occur

through several loops. I defined them as contextual loops, i.e. increasing levels of social

interaction based on knowledge exchange. These contextual loops start from basic infor-

mation transfer, to reach the highest level of knowledge co-production. In doing so, I

represented the participatory arena as a spiral process, it being an open system, which

evolves through the tension between engagement of new participants—legitimate

peripheral involvement (Lave and Wenger 1991)—and the community building. This

elliptical process, which starts with the public issue discussed in the participatory arena,

evolves through the contextual loops, and result in various possible outcomes (see Fig. 4).

By identifying the public innovation as the evolutionary outcome of a participatory arena, I

assume that such an outcome has to pass through the constitution of learning communities

of participants (communitisation).

Each of the four contextual loops identified—information and communication, social-

isation, communitisation, politicisation—represents a process of content exchange and

corresponds to one of the three dimensions of individual learning: perception, behaviour

and understanding (Rist et al. 2006; Garmendia and Stagl 2010). Information represents an

earlier step of the public involvement process, which affects individual perceptions and

consists of unilateral content transfer. Communication implies an exchange and an early

level of interaction. When this interaction is based on dialogue, i.e., in Isaac’s words, on ‘‘a

field of genuine meeting and inquiry’’, rather than on debate, then it can evolve into

socialisation. This last loop entails that participants share not only information, but also the

process of understanding, as they become aware of different beliefs and are able to modify

their tacit assumptions. I hypothesise an overarching organisation system, which accom-

panies these dynamics from the earlier engagement of participants to an innovation in

public policy, brokering contents and beliefs when they start to be socialised. If such

knowledge brokerage occurs, socialisation can lead to a communitisation loop. This term,

borrowed from the governance experience of Nagaland State in India (Yhome 2011), is

combined here with Wengen’s concept of a ‘‘community of practice’’. The notion of

communitisation, as it is used in the Indian experience, consists of a transfer of power and

ownership from the government to a community of citizens, which became, at the same

time, holders and managers of public services and utilities. In the case of PP, the com-

munitised resource is the knowledge. In other words, I name communitisation the learning

loop process that allows the co-production of new knowledge and beliefs, underpinning

shared decisions and solutions to public issues. At this level of process, participants, who in

the lower loops exchanged knowledge and understood others’ knowledge, can start to think

collectively, addressing their dialogue towards knowledge co-production. In this way,

participants are forming a community of practices, and if this knowledge can generate

relevant public change, then they are socially learning. Actually, without a community, the

learning experience, being individual, cannot lead to public innovation.

Finally, I considered that, in an open participatory arena, political interactions also

occur. Here politicisation can lead to a kind of ‘‘counter-loop’’, as it entails the opposition

of different contents, ideas and values. It is based on a discussion of public issues focused

on political principles, and can evolve towards two directions: on the one hand, it could

516 Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522

123

empower participants who can increase their understanding of political and institutional

mechanisms, enhancing their capacity to support communitisation; on the other hand, if

politicised contents are positional, they can only be negotiated bilaterally, hindering the

generation of communities. Politicisation can feed misinformation and misunderstanding,

leading to conflict within the process (this is the case of resident C3 who stopped attending

the CLA meetings). If this is the case, I hypothesise that the evolution towards the former

direction will depend on the ability of the facilitator to build trust relations.

Discussion

Following the abductive methodological premises of this work, I discuss here the above

results intertwining concepts from theory and findings from the field. I detected five

explicative propositions (p.) of learning dynamics in an organization-related participatory

process, which answers the question when and why participants socially learn through PP.

Fig. 4 Learning processes and contextual loops in public participatory arena. The figure describes the development of the contextual loops which represent multiple-loops learning dynamics enlivening a participatory arena from the organizational view perspective. Source the author

Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522 517

123

First of all, I highlight the impact of the organizational structure of the participatory

process on its participants’involvement and learning. While the CLAs’ socio-technical

work was based on a structure designed by the government and facilitators, the other

meetings regarding housing construction were composed only by residents and evolve

spontaneously throughout the process. Nevertheless, the first ended up being irregular and

discontinuous, while the other is described by participants as timely and continuous

(Maiello et al. 2013a; Maiello and Christovão 2011). The residents participating in the two

processes express different meanings and take different actions, therefore the organization

of the process crucially affects the learning experience. This consideration leads to stating

a first proposition:

I p.: participants experienced SL dynamics when the participatory process had sys-

tematized organizational support

Secondly, I compared my findings with the narrative analysis applied to those conducted in

private firms. The study of the Iguaçu Project shows how each actor understands events and

stories in a different way, developing a different semantic. Reissner detects an opposite trend

for private organisations (Reissner 2005). In her analysis of Tyssen Krupp, she describes a

fundamental homogeneous structure in the narratives collected. The hierarchical defined

structure of private organisations is opposed to the plurality and informality of public par-

ticipatory arenas, which contain greater diversification and variability of visions. While, in a

participatory arena, several values and visions meet, and the challenge for participants is to

find a shared vision, in a private organisation, a defined mission exists and the problem for

workers is to overcome organisational limits without breaking the protocol, as Isaac

emphasises. This first contrast allows explanation of the difference between an organization

and a semi-organization, and why I defined a participatory process by using the second

concept. The narrative analysis of the Iguaçu Project shows that a participant’s personal

commitment is crucial to form communities within the participatory process and to approach

a SL dynamic. Similarly, Reissner, in her narrative analysis about Tyssen Krupp, shows that

its commercial success was due not only to technology, but also to people commitment

(Reissner 2005). The commitment in both cases is a fundamental premise for participants to

form a community of practices, which leads to a feeling of membership and a willingness to

collaboratively find answers to common problems. From this consideration, the second and

third propositions are derived:

II and III p.: participants have been able to socially learn because they had a strong

commitment in the engaging public policy and because of the pluralism of the

participatory arena

The organizational literature provides a suitable explanation for the ill-administrated

mechanism of PP. In fact, the lack of information in the Iguaçu Project, a complaint of both

stakeholders and residents, can be partially explained by Argyris’ statement (Argyris

1976): valid information appears to be more easily generated for less important and less

threatening decisions. This leads to the third proposition, that is:

IV p.: participants did not learn socially because they were kept away from the

participatory arena by omissive behaviour of process proponents (e.g. government)

In Orr’s ethnographic studies, representatives used to share problems among themselves in

order to develop new solutions together (Orr 1996). In addition, they socialised this new

knowledge with workers of different levels (specialists) with whom they activated a col-

lective learning process. Unlike the aforementioned studies, in the experience of the Iguaçu

518 Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522

123

Project, where routines do not yet exist, although trust relations emerge, collaborative

behaviour does not prevail. As a matter of fact, in PP, the existence of a plurality of meanings

inhibits the creation of communities of practice. In a private organisation, workers from

different departments speak a common language, and even if each of them has a different

professional background, they all share the firm’s values and mission. As an interviewee in

Reissner’s research stated: in an organisation « everybody sings from the same song

sheet » (Reissner 2005). On the contrary, in a participatory process, different actors with their

own voices, meet (Bobbio 2004), and only in the best cases, does good music come out.

Though the pluralism is an added value of each participatory process, such a plurality of

sounds need a facilitator, who has the task to harmonise the different contributions and

support and organise the actors involved. It allows statement of the fourth proposition:

V p.: the participatory arena generated SL dynamics when a facilitator accompanied

the organizational structure

Conclusions

PP is a fundamental component of public environmental policies and management prac-

tices. Even so, it is losing momentum in a period of global economic crisis and due to the

difficulties in implementing effective efficient participatory policies. While participation

remains a necessity to manage complex socio-ecological systems, it is also necessary to

rethink it. This research tried to do so, inquiring into a participatory process from an

organizational perspective, and in particular from the point of view of the underlying SL

dynamics. Moving from the definition of organization, the research proposes identification

of the participatory arena as semi-organization, that is an evolving open system, where

engaged actors interact. But, the shared mission is not a premise. Rather it is a goal of the

process. In the interpretative framework I proposed, this goal is public innovation, whose

fundamental driver is SL. Thus, the research is addressed by the aim to explain when and

why SL occurs in PP. To do so I adopted an abductive approach, that is, I started with a

case study, and progressed to revised theories. I produced some inferences for PP theory

development. I chose the case of the Iguaçu Project, as it is paradigmatic as an environ-

mental policy. As matter of fact, PjI is one of the winners of the national award ‘‘Best

practices of local management, 2011’’ promoted by the Caixa Ecônomica Federal 5

(Vargas 2011). Though the accomplished works are mainly concerned with dredging rivers

and flood control, housing interventions, which require close co-operation among insti-

tutions, technicians and residents, they are delayed and constitute the prevailing cause of

underlying conflicts. It shows that the larger the number of actors affected by a policy, the

more necessary public engagement becomes.

Despite the validity of the selected case, the study presents limitations, as it had to cope

with the difficulty in analysing an open system, with no natural boundaries (Dubois and

Gadde 2002), and from a qualitative perspective too. Thus, the interpretation is inherently

affected by the researcher’s point of view, results are not immediately generalizable, and

inherently partial, being derived from an ethnographic investigation. Nonetheless, while

trying to develop the existing theories and expand the current debate on PP in environ-

mental policies, this paper provides three main contributions. First of all, the interpretative

framework proposed allows one to think of the participatory arena as a multiple-loop

system, where organization is crucial to balance the dynamics taking place in the loops

below: politicisation loop, where the questioning of values and assumptions occurs, and the

Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522 519

123

communitisation loop, where new shared values ought to emerge. Secondly, the case

analysed shows that the effectiveness of participation is not a matter of process design, as

former scholars maintained (Garmendia and Stagl 2010; Siebenhüner 2004; Webler et al.

1995). Rather it is systematised, but not a centralizing accompaniment of a competent

facilitator. Finally, SL seems to occur because of: the participants’ commitments, the

plurality of the participatory arena and the reliability of the proponents.

Annex

Interview Protocol

a. Project story

(a.1) Do you know the story of the Iguaçu Project? If so, could you tell me this story?

(a.2) Where and how did you learn this story?

b. Participation, knowledge and environment

(b.1) Do you know the pattern of participation on which the socio-technical work of

the Iguaçu Project is based? If so, could you tell me how it operates?

(b.2) Do you take part in this process? If so, what is your role?

(b.3) If you have attended the meetings of the Local Committees or Forum, could

you say on which main subject they were focused?

(b.4) What kind of knowledge prevails in the discussions? In your opinion, what kind

of knowledge is necessary to accomplish the Project goals and pursue the

improvement of the local environment?

(b.5) What is your perception of the local environment?

c. Learning

(c.1) Do you think you have learned something through the participatory process? If

so, could you tell me what you learned? If not, could you say why?

(c.2) If you answered ‘‘Yes’’ to question (c.1), do you think this knowledge is

useful? Is it useful only for your own interest(s) or for those of the entire

community you belong to? Why?

(c.3) If you answered ‘‘Yes’’ to question (c.1), could you say which of the main

categories of actors you learned more from?

(c.4) Do you think you could teach something through the process of participation?

And if ‘‘Yes’’, for whom? And if not, why?

References

Argyris C (1976) Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Adm Sci Q 21(3):363–375

Argyris C, Schön DA (eds) (1996) Organizational learning II. Theory, method, and practice, vol II. Addison- Wesley, Reading

Armitage D, Marschke M, Plummer R (2008) Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Glob Environ Change 18:86–98

Bandura A (1969) Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. In: Goslin DA (ed) Handbook of socialization theory and research. Rand McNally, Chicago

Bandura A (1977) Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

520 Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522

123

Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J Environ Manage 90:1692–1702

Berkes F, Berkes MK (2009) Ecological complexity, fuzzy logic, and holism in indigenous knowledge. Futures 41(1):6–12. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.003

Bobbio L (ed) (2004) A più voci. Amministrazioni pubbliche, imprese, associazioni e cittadini nei processi decisionali inclusivi. Analisi e Strumenti per l’Innovazione. Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Roma

Bos JJ, Brown RR, Farrelly MA (2013) A design framework for creating social learning situations. Glob Environ Change 23(2):398–412. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.003

Brown JS, Duguid P (1991) Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Org Sci 2(1):40–57

Brown MH, Kreps GL (1993) Narrative analysis and organizational development. In: Herndon SL, Kreps GL (eds) Qualitative research: applications in organizational comunication. Hampton Press, Creskill, pp 47–62

Creswell JW (ed) (2002) Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River

Czarniawska-Joerges B (2004) Narratives in social science research. Sage, London deSardan J-PO (1995a) La Politique du Terrain Enquête, vol 1. Parenthese, Marseille deSardan J-PO (1995b) La politique du terrain. Sur la production des données en anthropologie. enquete

1:71–109 Dubois A, Gadde L-E (2002) Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. J Bus Res

55(7):553–560 Easterby-Smith M, Araujo L (1999) Organizational learning: current debates and opportunities. In: East-

erby-Smith M, Burgoyone J, Araujo L (eds) Organizational learning and the learning organization. SAGE, London

Garmendia E, Stagl S (2010) Public participation for sustainability and social learning: concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe. Ecol Econ 69:1712–1722

Gherardi S (2013) Is organizational learning possible without participation? In: Weber SM, Göhlich M, Schröer A, Fahrenwald C, Macha H (eds) Organisation und Partizipation, vol 13. Organisation und Pädagogik. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden, pp 29–43. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-00450-7_2

Ginter PM, White DD (1982) A social learning approach to strategic management: toward a theorethical foundation. Acad Manag Rev 7(2):253–261

Gioia DA (1986) Conclusion: the state of the art in organizational social cognition: a personal view. In: Sims HP, Gioia DA (eds) The thinking organization: dynamics of organizational social cognition. Jossey- Bass, San Francisco, p 49

Hintikka J (1999) What is abduction? The fundamental problem of contemporary epistemology. In: Inquiry as inquiry: A logic of scientific discovery, vol 5. Jaakko Hintikka Selected Papers. Springer, Neth- erlands, pp 91–113. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-9313-7_4

Isaac WN (2002) 9. Creating a shared field of meaning: an action theory of dialogue. Res Pub Policy Anal Manag 12:203–241

Kempton W (1991) Lay perspectives on global climate change. Glob Environ Change 1(3):183–208. doi:10. 1016/0959-3780(91)90042-R

Lave J, Wenger E (eds) (1991) Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Lejano RP, Tavares-Reager J, Berkes F (2013) Climate and narrative: environmental knowledge in everyday life. Environ Sci Policy 31(0):61–70. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.02.009

Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon N (2006) Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Clim Change 77(1–2):73–95. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9072-z

Maiello A, Christovão AC (2011) Meio ambiente urbano e gestão participativa: relações e não-interações entre cidadãos, instituições e natureza. O caso do Projeto Iguaçu In: Britto AL, Carneiro PRF (eds) Gestão Sustentável das Águas na Metrópole do Rio de Janeiro: recursos hı́dricos, saneamento e meio ambiente. Letra Capital, Rio de Janeiro

Maiello A, Christovão AC, de Paiva Nogueira, Britto AL, Frey M (2013a) Public participation for urban sustainability: investigating relations among citizens, the environment and institutions—an ethno- graphic study. Local Environ 18(2):167–183

Maiello A, Viegas CV, Frey MD, Ribeiro JL (2013b) Public managers as catalysts of knowledge co- production? Investigating knowledge dynamics in local environmental policy. Environ Sci Policy 27(0):141–150. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.12.007

Newig J, Haberl H, Pahl-Wostl C, Rothman DS (2008) Formalised and non-formalised methods in resource management—knowledge and social learning in participatory processes: an introduction. Syst Pract Act Res 21(6):381–387

Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522 521

123

Olsson P, Folke C (2004) Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social–ecological systems. Environ Manage 34(1):75–90

Olsson P, Folke C, Hahn T (2004) Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the Development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecol Soc 9(4):2

Onwuegbuzie AJ, Leech NL (2007) A call for qualitative power analyses. Qual Quant 41:105–121 Orr JE (1990) Sharing knowledge, celebrating identity: community memory in a service culture. In: Mid-

dleton D, Edwards D (eds) Collective remembering. Sage, London Orr J (1996) Talking about machines. ILR Press, Ithaca Ospina SM, Dodge J (2005) It’s about time: catching method up to meaning—the usefulness of narrative

inquiry in Public Administration Research. Public Adm Rev 65(2):143–157 Pahl-Wostl C (2009) A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and multi-level learning

processes in resource governance regimes. Glob Environ Change 19(3):354–365. doi:10.1016/j. gloenvcha.2009.06.001

Pasmore WA, Fagans MR (1992) Participation, indiviudal development, and organizational change: a review and synthesis. J Manag 18(2):375–397

Pentland BT (1999) Building process theory with narrative: from description to explanation. Acad Manag Rev 24(4):711–724

Petts J (2006) Managing public engagement to optimize learning: reflection from urban river restoration. Hum Ecol Rev 13(2):172–181

Reissner SC (2005) Learning and innovation: a narrative analysis. J Org Change Manag 18(5):482–494 Rist S, Chiddambaranathan M, Escobar C, UrsWiesmann (2006) ‘‘It was hard to come to mutual under-

standing…’’ The multidimensionality of social learning processes concerned with sustainable natural resource use in India, Africa and Latin America. Syst Pract Act Res 19(3):219–237

Senge P, Kim DH (2013) From fragmentation to integration: building learning communities. Reflections 12(4):3–11

Siebenhüner B (2004) Social learning and sustainability science: Which role can stakeholder participation play? Int J Sust Dev 7(2):146–163

Sintonen T, Auvinen T (2013) Who is leading, leader or story? The power of stories to lead. Tamara Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry 8(2)

Spink PK, Best NJ (2009) Introduction: local democratic governance, poverty reduction and inequality: the hybrid character of public action. IDS Bull 40(6):1–12

Suddaby R (2006) From the editors: what grounded theory is not. Acad Manag J 49(4):633–642 Svennevig J (2001) Abduction as a methodological approach to the study of spoken interaction. Norskrift

103:1–22 Tippett J, Searle B, Pahl-Wostl C, b YR (2005) Social learning in public participation in river basin

management early findings from HarmoniCOP European case studies. Environ Sci Policy 8:287–299 UNCED (1992) United Nation Conference on Environment and Development. Rio de Janeiro UNCSD (2012) The Future We Want. Rio de Janeiro UNECE (1998) Convention on access to information, public information and access to justice in envi-

ronmental matters. Aarhus Van Maanen J (2011) Ethnography as work: some rules of engagement. J Manag Stud 48(1):218–234.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00980.x van Kerkhof M, Wieczorek A (2005) Learning and stakeholder participation in transition processes towards

sustainability: methodological considerations. Technol Forecast Soc Change 72:733–747 Vargas MD (2011) Prêmio Caixa. Melhores Práticas em Gestão Local 2011. Brasilia Webler T, Kastenholz H, Renn O (1995) Public participation in impact assessment: a social learning

perspective. Environ Impact Assess Rev 15:443–463 Wenger E (2000) Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization 7(2):225–246 Wesselink A, Paavola J, Fritsch O, Renn O (2011) Rationales for public participation in environmental

policy and governance: practitioners’ perspectives. Environ Plan A 43(11):2688–2704 Yhome K (2011) Communitisation: the third way of governance. Community Dev J 46(1):147–149

522 Syst Pract Action Res (2014) 27:499–522

123

Copyright of Systemic Practice & Action Research is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.