Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:03:17.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marginalised or Enabled Voices? ‘User Participation’ in Policy and Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2008

Catherine Bochel ,
Hugh Bochel ,
Peter Somerville  and
Claire Worley
Catherine Bochel
Affiliation:
University of Lincoln, Department of Policy Studies E-mail: [email protected]
Hugh Bochel
Affiliation:
University of Lincoln, Department of Policy Studies E-mail: [email protected]
Peter Somerville
Affiliation:
University of Lincoln, Department of Policy Studies E-mail: [email protected]
Claire Worley
Affiliation:
Manchester Metropolitan University, Department of Psychology and Social Change
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The idea of participation has been central to many policy developments in recent years. Both Conservative and Labour governments have used notions of participation and involvement in attempts to justify and implement their social policies. Yet, despite a plethora of initiatives and guidance around ‘participation’ emerging from all levels of government, and a substantial academic literature, there remains a major, and potentially damaging, lack of clarity over many aspects of participation, while the secret of achieving ‘real’ participation appears to continue to remain elusive.

Type
Themed Section on Choice or voice
Information
Social Policy and Society , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 201 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arksey, H. and Glendinning, C. (2007), ‘Choice in the context of informal care-giving’, Health and Social Care in the Community, 15, 2, 165–175.Google ScholarPubMed
Bang, H. (2005), ‘Among everyday makers and expert citizens’, in Newman, J. (ed.), Remaking Governance: Peoples, Politics and the Public Sphere, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, M., Davis, A. and Rogers, H. (2006), ‘Women's voices, women's choices: experiences and creativity in consulting women users of mental health services’, Journal of Mental Health, 15, 3, 329–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, M., Knops, A., Newman, J. and Sullivan, H. (2004), ‘Recent research: the micro-politics of deliberation: case studies in public participation’, Contemporary Politics, 10, 2, 93–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, M., Newman, J. and Sullivan, H. (2007), Power, Participation and Political Renewal: Case Studies in Public Participation, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Beresford, P. and Hoban, M. (2005), Participation in Anti-Poverty and Regeneration Work and Research: Overcoming Barriers and Creating Opportunities, Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Birchall, J. and Simmons, R. (2004), User Power: The Participation of Users in Public Services, National Consumer Council.Google Scholar
Bochel, C. (2006), ‘New Labour: participation and the policy process’, Public Policy and Administration, 21, 4, 10–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bochel, C. and Evans, A. (2007), ‘Inclusive policy making’, in Bochel, H. and Duncan, S. (eds), Making Policy in Theory and Practice, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Bochel, C. and Bochel, H. (2004), The UK Social Policy Process, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bochel, H. and Duncan, S. (eds) (2007), Making Policy in Theory and Practice, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Cabinet Office (2002), Viewfinder: A Policy Maker's Guide to Public Involvement, London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Carr, S. (2007), ‘Participation, power, conflict and change: theorizing dynamics of service user participation in the social care system of England and Wales’, Critical Social Policy, 27, 2, 266–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fung, A. and Wright, E. O. (2003), Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations In Empowered Participatory Governance, London: Verso.Google Scholar
Gaventa, J. (2004), Representation, Community Leadership and Participation: Citizen Involvement in Neighbourhood Renewal and Local Governance, Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, ODPM.Google Scholar
Geddes, M. (2006), ‘Partnership and the limits to local governance in England: institutionalist analysis and neoliberalism’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 30, 1, 76–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, U. and Driver, S. (2005), ‘Parents, power and public participation: sure start, an experiment in New Labour governance’, Social Policy and Administration, 39, 5, 528–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hague, G. (2005), ‘Domestic violence survivors' forums in the UK: experiments in involving abused women in domestic violence services and policy-making’, Journal of Gender Studies, 14, 3, 191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, D. (2005), Social Capital, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Harbers, I. (2007), ‘Democratic deepening in Third Wave democracies: experiments with participation in Mexico City’, Political Studies, 55, 1, 38–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiebert, W. and Swan, D. (1999), ‘Positively fit: a case study in community development and the role of participatory action research’, Community Development Journal, 34, 4, 356–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilditch, M. (2007) ‘Providers begin to veer off choice-based lettings road’, Inside Housing, 27 July: 13.Google Scholar
Howard, J. and Sweeting, D. (2007) ‘Neighbourhoods, democracy and citizenship’, in Smith, I., Lepine, E. and Taylor, M. (eds), Disadvantaged By Where You Live? Neighbourhood Governance and Urban Policy, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kooiman, J. (2005), Governing as Governance, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Layard, R. (2005), Happiness: Lessons from a New Science, London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Massey, A. and Pyper, R. (2005), Public Management and Modernisation in Britain, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Morris, J. (2006), Removing the Barriers to Community Participation, London: National Community Forum/Neighbourhood Renewal Unit/IPPR.Google Scholar
Newman, J., Barnes, M., Sullivan, H. and Knops, A. (2004), ‘Public participation and collaborative governance’, Journal of Social Policy, 33, 2, 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) (2002), ‘Tenants managing: an evaluation of tenant management organisations in England’, Housing Research Summary 174, ODPM, London.Google Scholar
Perrons, D. and Skyers, S. (2004), ‘Challenging injustices through status recognition: conceptual explorations and a case study of the Shoreditch New Deal Partnership’, at: www.lse.ac.uk/collections/geographyAndEnvironment/research/Researchpapers/rp66.pdf.Google Scholar
Platt, S. and Cooper, I. (2006), ‘Democracy and development’, in Malpass, P. and Cairncross, L.. (eds), Building on the Past: Visions of Housing Futures, Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
Saward, M. (2005), ‘Governance and the transformation of political representation’, in Newman, J. (ed.), Remaking Governance: Peoples, Politics and the Public Sphere, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 179–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skidmore, P., Bound, K. and Lownsbrough, H. (2006), Community Participation: Who Benefits?, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, at: www.jrf.org.uk.Google Scholar
Somerville, P. and Haines, N. (2007), forthcoming, ‘Prospects for local co-governance’, Local Government Studies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoker, G. (2007) Why Politics Matters: Making Democracy Work, London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wright, J., Parry, J., Mathers, J., Jones, S. and Orford, J. (2007), ‘Assessing the participatory potential of Britain's New Deal for Communities’, Policy Studies, 27, 4, 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar