This section provides an overview of the key actors involved in public participation processes. It discusses how public participation is initiated by a variety of actors from public institutions to private organizations. The ultimate purpose of public participation is also debated, with common goals including developing citizen capacity, integrating citizens in governance, and building consensus. The main actors described are private firms/freelancers, not-for-profit organizations, elected officials, civil servants, independent public agencies, academics/researchers, project promoters, and citizens themselves. Understanding these diverse actors is important for examining the professionalization of the public participation field.

1. LES PUBLICATIONS
DE L’INM
PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FIELD
Actors, challenges, opportunities

3. Professionalization of the Public Participation Field

4. 4
A WORD ABOUT INM
INM’s mission is to increase citizens’ participation in the democratic life. INM is an
independent and non-partisan organisation operating primarily in Quebec from a
social justice and social inclusion perspective, respecting democratic values and
sustainable development principles, and in a spirit of openness and innovation.
INM’s actions improve the quality of the public debate and increase the proportion
of citizens that participate. They contribute to reinforcing social links and promoting
democratic institutions.
5605 De Gaspé Avenue, suite 404
Montréal (Québec) H2T 2A4
1 877 934-5999
CREDITS
Project Management : Malorie Flon / Production : Sophie Seguin-Lamarche
Editors : Miriam Fahmy, Malorie Flon
Writers : Laurence Bherer, Miriam Fahmy, Marian Pinsky
Translators : Mylène Proulx, Pamela Daoust
Graphic designer : Francis Huot

5. 5
Professionnalisation de la
participation publique
Acteurs, défis, possibilités
Institut du Nouveau Monde, 2015
Les inégalités, un choix de
société?
Mythes, enjeux et solutions
Institut du Nouveau Monde, 2015
Nous sommes démocratie
Plaidoyer pour la participation
citoyenne
Institut du Nouveau Monde, 2014
La culture, notre avenir!
21 priorités citoyennes pour la
culture québécoise
Institut du Nouveau Monde, 2008
Miser sur l’égalité
L’argent, le pouvoir, le bien-être et
la liberté
sous la direction d’Alain Noël et
Miriam Fahmy, 2014
L’état du Québec
Institut du Nouveau Monde, 2016,
2015, 2013-2014, 2012, 2011, 2010,
2009, 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005,
2004
Petit guide québécois de la
participation locale
Voter au municipal, pour quoi
faire?
Institut du Nouveau Monde, 2009
Guide pratique de
l’acceptabilité sociale
Pistes de réflexion et d’action
Julie Caron-Malenfant et
Thierry Conraud, 2009
Aux sciences, citoyens!
Expériences et méthodes de
consultation sur les enjeux scienti-
fiques de notre temps
sous la direction de
Florence Piron, 2009
INM PUBLICATIONS
This document is published as part of INM’s collection.
All publications are available on INM’s online store at inm.qc.ca/boutique
Régénérations
Propositions citoyennes pour un
Québec intergénérationnel
Institut du Nouveau Monde, 2011
Oser la solidarité!
L’innovation sociale au coeur de
l’économie québécoise
sous la direction de
Marie-Hélène Méthé, 2008
Jeunes et engagés
Institut du Nouveau Monde, 2005
LES INÉGALITÉS
UN CHOIX DE SOCIÉTÉ?
Mythes, enjeux et solutions
Les PUBLIC ATIONS
de l’INM

6. 6

7. 7
Introduction
Behind the booklet...
Part 1: Mapping Public Participation Actors
1.1 What do we mean by public participation?
1.2 What is the Ultimate Purpose of Public Participation?
1.3 Who are the actors of public participation?
1.3.1 Private firms and freelancers
1.3.2 Not-for-profit organizations
1.3.3 Elected officials
1.3.4 Civil servants
1.3.5 Independent public agencies
1.3.6 Academics and researchers
1.3.7 Project promoters
1.3.8 What about citizens?
1.4 The ecosystem of public participation
1.5 Here come the pros
Part 2: Opportunities and Challenges of the Professionalization of
the Public Participation Field
2.1 Effects of standardization
2.2 Does professionalization kill diversity?
2.3 Who’s invited to play?
Conclusion
9
12
16
17
17
18
19
19
20
21
22
23
25
25
26
28
27
29
31
32
34
TABLE OF CONTENTS

9. 9INTRODUCTION
Public participation has traditionally
been primarily associated with partici-
pation mechanisms initiated by public
authorities, when asking citizens to ex-
press their opinions on a specific area of
public action. These types of initiatives
are integrated into the decision-making
process and are intended to help guide
public decisions.
However, this definition of public par-
ticipation is often considered to be too
limited. Civil society actors also use par-
ticipation mechanisms in the context
of their mobilization activities, and in
efforts to influence public decisions:
“Uninvited engagements are initiated
and organized by citizens mobilizing
themselves independently of formal
decision institutions”1
. These actors in-
clude private developers, interest groups
or other stakeholders who may organize
public forums on a specific issue. For
example, a property developer may set
up spaces for citizen deliberation in a
neighbourhood in order to inform re-
sidents and consult them on a project
that is being developed. This type of
practice is often encouraged by public
authorities, who see such participation
initiatives as a way of better integrating
projects into the realities of neighbou-
rhoods.
Organizations specializing in public par-
ticipation activities may set up public
forums independently or offer consul-
ting services on the design and organi-
zation of public participation forums.
These include not only private firms but
INTRODUCTION
LAURENCEBHERER
Professor, Department of Political Science, Université de Montréal
1
Jason Chilvers, Sustainable participation? Mapping Out and Reflecting on the Field of Public
Dialogue on Science and Technology, Harwell, Sciencewise Expert Resource Centre, 2010.

10. 10 PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FIELD
also NGOs such as America Speaks in the
United States, Involve in Great Britain and
the Institut du Nouveau Monde in Québec.
As such, there is a diversity of actors that
employ methods similar to those used by
public authorities, but for alternate objec-
tives. For these public participation actors,
the ultimate goal is not only to influence
public decisions, but also to mobilize a
community around shared issues. In sum,
those initiating this kind of public discus-
sion are not only public authorities, but
also private actors, including non-profit
organizations.
The diversification of the public participa-
tion process has been accompanied by the
development of a new type of expertise:
the ability to design, organize, promote,
evaluate and explain the day-to-day func-
tioning of public participation activities.
There has in fact been a growing professio-
nalization of public participation in recent
decades, as shown by the creation of pro-
fessional associations, such as the Interna-
tional Association for Public Participation
(IAP2),andthetraininginthisfieldgivenin
universities or by public participation spe-
cialists. The private or public organizations
thatinitiatepublicforumsindeedcallupon
public participation professionals who
have developed specific expertise in the
wake of the gradual recognition of public
participation. These professionals play an
importantroleintheimplementationofpu-
blic participation, as they interact with all
theactorsinvolvedinthistypeofprocedure
(elected officials, public servants, citizens,
public or private developers)2
. In short, pu-
blic participation professionals are at the
heart of the supply of participation mecha-
nismsbecauseoftheirimportantroleinthe
implementation of public participation.
“Even though they may adopt different
approaches, these public participation
specialists are helping to codify this field
of activities, to promote the need for public
participation, and to reinforce the idea that
participation processes require specific
types of know-how and tools”3
.
2
Carolyn M. Hendriks and Lyn Carson, “Can the Market Help the Forum ? Negotiating the Com-
mercialization of Deliberative Democracy”, Policy science, no 41, 2008, p. 293-313.
3
Loïc Blondiaux, Le nouvel esprit de la démocratie. Actualité de la démocratie participative,
Paris, Seuil, 2008, p. 23. [Our translation]
Looking at the actors who initiate and
organize public participation thus
allows us to better understand the
conditions involved in the negotiation of
participatory design

11. 11INTRODUCTION
Looking at the actors who initiate and
organize public participation thus al-
lows us to better understand the condi-
tions involved in the negotiation of par-
ticipatory design. The diversification of
public participation activities shows the
complexity of the field of public partici-
pation: public participation professio-
nals take different approaches and de-
velop different designs for participation
mechanisms, which may be initiated by
either public authorities or civil society.
Starting with a discussion on the mul-
tiple and diverse understandings of pu-
blic participation, this booklet builds a
portrait of relevant actors of public parti-
cipation (Part 1). It discusses challenges
and opportunities brought about by the
professionalization of public participa-
tion (Part 2). The report concludes with
recommendations for the expansion of
participatory, reflexive, citizen-based
and capacity-enhancing public partici-
pation.

13. 13BEHIND THE BOOKLET...
As part of the International Politi-
cal Science Association’s (IPSA) 23rd
World Congress of Political Science,
Laurence Bherer, Professor of Political
Science at the Université de Montréal,
and the Institut de Nouveau Monde,
an organization dedicated to active ci-
tizenship, coordinated a two-day sym-
posium (July 21-22, 2014) to discuss the
professionalization of public partici-
pation. The event brought together lo-
cal and international researchers and
practitioners representing the diver-
sity of this field.
This report summarizes the main to-
pics explored in the two-day sympo-
sium, along with the answers partici-
pants of the symposium provided to a
questionnaire that was circulated after
the event.
We thank the participants of the sym-
posium as well as the questionnaire
respondents for making this booklet
possible.
Alice Mazeaud, Alice Mayeux, Amaia
Errecart, Anne Juillet, Brenda Pichette,
Brunella Vallelunga, Caroline Lepine,
Caroline W. Lee, Carolyn Lukensmeyer,
Cécile Blatrix, Charles Chateauvert,
Christian Boudreau, Constance
Ramaciere, Danielle Landry, Dave
Charron Arseneau, David Kahane,
Élizabeth Brosseau, François Robert,
Geneviève Begin, Genevieve Fuji
Johnson, Giovanni Allegreti, Jacquie
Dale, Janis Crawford, Jason Chilvers,
Jeffrey Kennedy, Jimmy Paquet-
Cormier, Julia Hahn, Julia Bonaccorsi,
Julie Cavanagh, Julie O’Miel, Julien
Beaulieu, Laurence Bherer, Louis
Simard, Luc Doray, Luc Richard,
Magali Nonjon, Margaux Ruellan, Maria
Vazquez, Marian Pinsky, Marian Roy,
Marie Pascale Lalonde, Marie-André
Roy, Marie-Hélène Sa Vilas Boas,
Marie-Pascale Lalonde, Mario Gauthier,
Martin Guevremont, Martine Noreau,
Mary E Moreland, Mary Pat MacKinnon,
Mélanie Lagacé, Michel Venne, Miriam
Fahmy, Monique Fournier, Moustapha
BEHIND THE BOOKLET...

14. 14 PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FIELD
Sène, Myriam Arbour, Myriam Valliere,
Nicholas Douay, Nicole Swerhun,
Noemie Briere-Marquez, Pau Alarcón
Pérez, Peter MacLeod, Robert Cole,
Rodolfo Lewansky, Rosa Venuta, Sarah
Labelle, Sarah Kraemer, Simon Burall,
Sophie Gélinas, Stéphane Bérubé,
Stephania Ravazzi, Suzanne Waldman,
Sylvie Beauregard, Sylvie Cantin, Tyler
Shymkiw, Xavier Deschenes-Philion,
Stéphanie Yates, Yves Doucet.

15. 15BEHIND THE BOOKLET...

16. 01
Part

17. 17MAPPING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTORS
MAPPING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTORS
1.1 What do we mean by public parti-
cipation?
There are a number of concurrent and
competing definitions of public partici-
pation (PP). For the purposes of this re-
port, we broadly define it as encompass-
ing all methods, spaces and processes
aimed at involving citizens in a public
decision. As such, it is closely associ-
ated with deliberative and participato-
ry democracy. Initiated by a variety of
actors ranging from public institutions
at all political levels to private for-profit
or not-for-profit organizations, public
participation can take and mobilize a
variety of structures, approaches and
tools4
.
1.2 What is the Ultimate Purpose of
Public Participation?
Similarly, the objective public partici-
pation ultimately serves is not univer-
sally agreed-upon. Public participation
is implemented to fulfill a number of
varying or converging objectives: to de-
velop citizen capacity for collective de-
cision-making; to integrate voters into
the governance process through delib-
erations on issues of public concern; to
engage individuals and communities
in productive dialogue. Representative
democracy is strengthened through the
solicitation of citizen opinion and feed-
back. Incorporating a diversity of voic-
es can contribute to greater community
cohesion, social capital, and consensus
building. Indeed, public participation in
4
While “public participation” is a term often used interchangeably with “civic participation” or
“public engagement” in English communities, Francophone practitioners are more inclined to
discuss “public participation” as more strictly referring to participation mechanisms initiated
by public authorities, where citizens are asked to express their opinion on a specific area of
public action or policy.

18. 18 PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FIELD
its essence encourages citizens to move
beyond merely voting once every four
years to playing an active role in influ-
encing and shaping policies that directly
affect them. Power sharing or setting the
stage for co-decision making are there-
fore some of the motivating factors be-
hind implementing PP mechanisms.
Public participation plays an increas-
ingly important role in our democracies.
With social movements multiplying and
a decreasing level of citizen trust in the
representation mechanism, we’ve seen
growing demand for public participa-
tion. Accompanying this rapid growth
have been calls for how the field can be
standardized and formalized, with such
trends impacting the profile of PP actors,
and vice versa. With the increase in at-
tention of this field, the PP professional
is rising in importance.
The goal of this report is to report on
the professionalization of the practice
of public participation. Before we can
do that, it is important to introduce the
current actors engaged in participatory
processes.
1.3 Who are the actors of public parti-
cipation?
Varying definition of public participa-
tion and its objectives lead to varying
understandings of who constitutes a
public participation actor. Conversely,
one’s understanding of who PP actors
are will influence their perception and
interpretation of the processes that can
constitute legitimate PP.
This diversity of interpretations of PP
has also led to the formation of multiple
communities of actors rather than one
unified community of shared values and
practices. The impact such competing
definitions have on revealing inherent
power relations will be explored in the
section on ecosystem of PP actors.
But first, an examination of the profile of
actors who initiate and organize public
participation allows us to better under-
stand the conditions involved in the ne-
gotiation of participatory design. Public
participation actors range from those
who call for participatory processes,
those who conduct the processes, and
those who observe, reflect, and analyze
the outcome of such mechanisms.
Public participation in its essence
encourages citizens to move beyond
merely voting once every four years to
playing an active role in influencing and
shaping policies that directly affect them

19. 19MAPPING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTORS
1.3.1 Private firms and freelancers
Participatory design service providers
include for-profit organizations and in-
dividual freelancers.
Private firms are structured around a ser-
vice offer to a variety of clients, ranging
from private to public organization and
institutions. They can be vulnerable
to commercial logic and its extensions
(satisfying the client, making a profit),
which may undermine or constrain the
democratic aims associated with public
participation and deliberation.
Some would even argue that freelanc-
ers and for-profits can be susceptible to
promoting a certain perspective corre-
sponding to the needs or objectives of
their clients rather than adhering to best
practices of PP and the balanced har-
vesting of public participation results.
However, it must be clarified that there is
no indication as of yet that the “for-prof-
it” or “not-for-profit” distinction in sta-
tus necessarily affects positively or nega-
tively an organization’s ability to design
ethically responsible public participa-
tion mechanism. Indeed, the struggle to
maintain neutrality and independence
in PP processes is a challenge shared by
both non-profits and for-profits. In ad-
dition there are varied profiles of firms,
and their level of commitment to the
ethics of public participation can vary
greatly.
1.3.2 Not-for-profit organizations
As noted in the introduction, a growing
number of civil society not-for-profit
organizations are claiming expertise in
the conception and organization of dif-
ferent forms of public participation pro-
cesses. PP activities designed by these
organizations run the gamut from local,
community-based, fully independent
conversations to publically mandated
and financed consultation processes.
Public discussions are organized with
the aim of influencing public affairs, or
producing public knowledge through
the organization of public deliberation.
Non-profits are more inclined to be in-
novative in implementing a diversity of
public participation structures for solic-
iting citizen feedback and involvement.
there is no indication as of yet that the
“for-profit” or “not-for-profit” distinction
in status necessarily affects positively
or negatively an organization’s ability
to design ethically responsible public
participation mechanism

20. 20 PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FIELD
Not-for-profit organizations are dis-
tinguished from their for-profit coun-
terparts due to their actions being
structured around a mission statement
dedicated to preserving and upholding
the “common good”. While this may be
a strong moral ground for preserving the
highest standards in implementing pub-
lic participation and preventing com-
promise on associated democratic aims,
non-profits may struggle with maintain-
ing an objective stance if their mission
or value statements are at stake. If they
have moral or ethical interests in pro-
moting a particular outcome, non-prof-
it organizations lending their expertise
in the design of participatory processes
run the risk of becoming lobbyists for
the causes that are close to their hearts,
putting their neutrality into question.
They are also vulnerable to the “market
logic” as are their for-profit counterparts
because they can also be a provider of
participatory services to public author-
ities or any kind of organizations inter-
esting by implement a participatory pro-
cess. They can be in fact a competitor of
private firms. However, their board and
their membership provide some safe-
guarding against it.
1.3.3 Elected officials
Elected officials are political representa-
tives who are voted in with the mandate
to represent their constituency and make
decisions on their behalf. Political actors
havetoconfronttherealityofanoften-dis-
connected populace and build a culture of
trust in political representativeness. Rec-
ognizing the need to make the political or
administrative structure more responsive
to citizen needs and priorities, many elect-
ed officials have solicited and actively
called for public participation processes.
Trust is an important currency when it
comes to public opinion and public par-
ticipation. Elected representatives who so-
licit citizen feedback also boost credibility
in political processes, reinforcing citizen
To be credible, PP mechanisms need
to not be token gestures in advance of
garnering electoral and constituent
support of incoming elections, or
maneuvers to force the adoption of a
specific project, but demonstrate genuine
openness and interest in citizens’ points
of view influencing public affairs

21. 21MAPPING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTORS
perception of their needs being heard and
prioritized. More than merely listening to
constituents, public participation may of-
fer methods for co-decision making and
shared power.
Whether real or perceived, the possible
partisanship of elected officials in calling
for public participation can be an issue of
concern. There is wariness of PP mecha-
nisms being implemented in the lead-up
to elections with the objective of soliciting
constituent support and consensus. Ad-
ditionally, there can be scepticism of the
neutrality of the process. With the impor-
tance of addressing the deficit of trust of
citizens comes the need to build govern-
ment capacity to engage the public. How-
ever, there is equally the challenge of a
politician adopting a “cause” or having a
vested interest in favour of one outcome or
another, again putting neutrality and rep-
resentativeness of the state into question.
While many public servants embrace the
importance of institutional responsive-
ness and good public involvement, there
can also be risks that public engagement
becomes part of communications or pub-
lic relations strategy for the marketing of
new policies. To be credible, PP mecha-
nisms need to not be token gestures in
advance of garnering electoral and con-
stituent support of incoming elections,
or maneuvers to force the adoption of a
specific project, but demonstrate genuine
openness and interest in citizens’ points
of view influencing public affairs. From
this point of view, the will of representa-
tives to achieve an authentic and fair par-
ticipatory process is a decisive factor to
allow good participatory practices.
1.3.4 Civil servants
While elected officials will frequent-
ly commission public participation
mechanisms, the responsibility for
their implementation is often turned
over to civil servants who are tasked
with either overseeing or organizing
it. Or, alternatively, outsourcing that
responsibility to external firms or in-
dependent public organizations. The
role of civil servants is important to
combat tendencies of silos in gov-
ernment mentality and structure. As
guardians of institutional memory to
preserve the common good, civil ser-
vants contribute to the transparency
of the decision-making processes. In
this role, and following PP, they are in
a greater capacity to harvest results of
the PP and make recommendations to
the elected officials.
Similar to the challenges outlined
above with elected officials, civil ser-
vants may experience constraints in
The role of civil servants is important to
combat tendencies of silos in government
mentality and structure

22. 22 PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FIELD
implementing PP, given their reliance
on the political will and interests of
elected officials. Civil servants’ de-
grees of autonomy may vary depending
on political leadership, with their own
perceptions of the relevance or quality
of participatory outcomes contributing
to meeting or hindering government
policy agenda. While not partisan,
civil servants can tend to be more risk
averse to the particular methods of PP.
There are thus limitations of this sta-
tus, which is technically neutral, yet in
reality accountable to policies, laws,
and elected officials. This may also
explain why public participation initi-
ated by the state or public authorities
often take more conventional and con-
servative tones and structures, with
citizen deliberations playing a more
consultative, rather than decisional
role, that would directly impact or in-
fluence policies.
The question arises: Should civil ser-
vants be trained in facilitating PP
themselves? As civil servants can ei-
ther engage in PP or outsource it to
professionals, one can wonder if it
would be preferable for each govern-
mental structure to create an office
of public engagement. Rather than
adding PP onto civil servants’ exist-
ing responsibilities, results might be
enhanced and more reflexive with the
incorporation of a structure fully ded-
icated to and versed in the principals
and goals of PP.
1.3.5 Independent public agencies
Independent public agencies dedicat-
ed to public participation are the main
incarnations of institutionalized PP. As
public agencies created by the state with
the mandate to deliver participatory fo-
rums, they are commissioned by civil ser-
vants who lead the public deliberations.
Independent public organizations bring
expertise as well as objectivity to the de-
sign and implementation of public partic-
ipatory mechanisms and are thus seen as
guarantees of an open, transparent and
accountable structure for PP. Best known
examples of such independent public
organizations are: Danish Board of Tech-
nology (between 1985 and 2012, before its
conversion in NGO) (Denmark), Commis-
sion nationale du débat public (France),
Regional Authority for Participation in
Tuscany (Italy), Bureau d’audiences pub-
liques sur l’environnement (Québec) and
Office de consultation publique de Mon-
tréal (Québec).
A complete picture of autonomy is not
obtained by adding up each criterion but
rather by analyzing the interdependency
among them

23. 23MAPPING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTORS
As mandated by the government, inde-
pendent agencies ensure the adherence
to best practices of neutrality and in-
dependence. That autonomy may vary
greatly from one agency to another. An in-
dependent agency’s autonomy is a ques-
tion of equilibrium and counterbalance:
more autonomy in one area often means
less capacity in another. A complete pic-
ture of autonomy is not obtained by add-
ing up each criterion but rather by ana-
lyzing the interdependency among them.
There is some ambiguity in regard to the
meaning of autonomy: is more autonomy
always best? Intuitively, we may agree, as
autonomy is a strong value in democracy.
But when we look at the delicate issues
of the link with the decision-making pro-
cess and the resources available for these
agencies, it seems that a good degree of
autonomy is truly necessary for the credi-
bility of the organization. But these agen-
cies also need some capacity to be heard.
And this kind of power comes with a more
restricted process of public participation.
Their affiliation with the state that can
result in more conventional structures of
public engagement. Consultative meth-
ods may sometimes be the preferred
structures of choice rather than the more
confrontational or experimental proce-
dures that would lead to intense debate.
This would depend on their level of inde-
pendence. The more cautious or risk-ad-
verse approach adopted by some agen-
cies can point to their creation rooted in
law; while securing the integrity of the PP
process, such institutionalisation runs
the risk of undermining creativity and
innovation, and limit the choice of PP
methods to tried and true methods.
Many of these agencies tend to be re-
stricted to playing a consultative role. As
state-commissioned processes, there is
no mechanism in place to hold political
stakeholders accountable to implement
the recommendations. Nevertheless, in
reporting results to the state, such agen-
cies can play a critical role in influenc-
ing government decisions, packaging PP
results in a way which garners greater
state receptivity. Additionally, in light of
this limitation, citizens often fill the role,
using the publically available reports
to hold elected officials accountable to
public scrutiny through the media, for
example.
1.3.6 Academics and researchers
As public participation actors, academ-
ics and researchers engage in tasks rang-
ing from conducting extensive literature
reviews on trends and past implemen-
tations of PP in a particular context to
harvesting and evaluating results from
participatory activities. Researcher-led
literature reviews contextualize the dis-
cussion in an informed framework. As
analysts of the results of public partici-
pation, researchers and academics serve
a critical role in preserving the reflexive
capacity and the institutional memory
of organizations, through conferences,
workshops and publications.
This form of “external observer” exper-
tise contributes to the neutrality inher-
ent in meeting PP objectives. It must be
noted, however, that researchers more
often play the role as subject experts to
guide the PP structure, rather than ex-
perts in PP facilitation per se. The thor-
ough analysis of case studies, as well

24. 24 PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FIELD
as an identification and exploration of
patterns, can lead to insightful recom-
mendations.
Becoming involved at the onset of the
project can allow for the controlling or
measuring of certain variable through
its implementation of PP mechanisms.
Such analysis also contributes to identi-
fying and exploring patterns and trends
on both a local, national, and interna-
tional scale. Additionally, an alliance of
community or citizen groups with repu-
table researchers can also contribute to
the PP processes having greater reso-
nance and legitimacy, as well as greater
inclination of the positive reception of
proposed changes by political decision
makers.
However, the different time frames of
academics and practitioners can im-
pede effective collaboration. With short-
term agendas and practical deadlines,
practitioners can feel constrained by
the longer time frames implemented by
researchers who need to see the case in
its context. Academics may also be con-
cerned with the competition for research
funds and the pressure to produce and
publish in order to secure tenure. Such
a delay constrains the important impact
on day-to-day adaptation of decision
makers.
For the purposes of comparative anal-
ysis, researchers can also apply a nor-
mative approach of the ideal parame-
ters of PP, as opposed to the empirical
observation on the ground. The more
observer approach of academics also
upholds best practices of PP neutrality,
but brings into question how participa-
tory they are or should be, with corre-
sponding influences on the objectivity
of the research. While garnering greater
legitimacy in the eyes of political leaders
tasked with the responsibility of imple-
menting recommendations, researcher
reports which use academic jargon can
be viewed with skepticism by the con-
cerned community. Different approach-
es and visions of a “successful PP” can
also influence how impact is assessed
and how systemic change is valued.
Yet, is this an artificial barrier and gap?
The section below on ecosystem of PP
actors points to how horizontal collab-
oration or “field building” is important
to build commonalities and an exchange
of skill sets in enhancing the practices
Becoming involved at the onset of the
project can allow for the controlling or
measuring of certain variable through its
implementation of PP mechanisms

25. 25MAPPING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTORS
of public participation. Greater involve-
ment of researchers in the PP process
can contribute to deeper understanding
of both their role limitations as well as
collaborate towards a shared agenda for
research that is mutually beneficial. In
recent years, there has been a prolifera-
tion of academics engaging in research
projects to counter accusations of shal-
lowness and the disconnect from the
privileged position of the “ivory tower”
to adopting deep community engage-
ment and a commitment to mutual and
collaborative learning. This challenge
of negotiating neutrality as an academ-
ic-activist, or “pracademic” with all its
associated baggage, can be a difficult
one to navigate, but many researchers
do play active and important roles in or-
ganizations.
1.3.7 Project promoters
Project developers and promoters, in-
dustry trade associations and unions
are increasingly orchestrating partici-
patory arrangements, with the goal of
attaining “social acceptability” of their
projects or pre-empting controversy
and rejection of the project by local
communities.
Usually this one-off sponsor subcon-
tracts the PP work: they will hire par-
ticipatory consultants to implement
the participatory arrangement. In
some instances private proponents
who have to do this more often will
internalize the expertise and have in-
house professionals who can conduct
the work. In fact, the specialization
process in this emerging profession
is prompting academics and others to
distinguish the PPPs who design the
participatory process within the spon-
soring organization and the external
PPPs who take the participatory frame
designed by the sponsor to implement
and facilitate the dialogue. In this re-
spect, the promoters resemble public
authorities who must chose to hire
in-house professionals or continue to
work with consultants.
1.3.8 What about citizens?
Attempts at defining who the actors are
yield different results when asking re-
searchers or practitioners. There tends
to be more consensus among academ-
ic-researchers who recognize actors in a
more formal light, referring to categories
of public servants, for-and-not-for-profit
organizations, and independent public
agencies. Practitioners, however, extend
the ecosystem of public participation
professionals to include community
members, civil society, and volunteers.
There is often concern that elected offi-
cials should be removed from the list of
actors, since their role is precisely not to
be an expert of PP but rather to recog-
nize the value of PP.
Hence, the above list cannot be con-
sidered a final one. With greater en-
gagement of citizens comes the need
to broaden the perception of PP actors
to include others, such as community
members and volunteers who can serve
as the catalysts and motivators of public
accountability and participation in dem-
ocratic decision-making. For the purpos-
es of this overview of the professional-
ization of the PP field, we have excluded
them from the mix.

26. 26 PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FIELD
1.4 The ecosystem of public participa-
tion
This diversity of perspectives and ap-
proaches shapes the public participa-
tion field through the interactions of its
actors and their influence on the prac-
tice itself.
Each public participation actor brings
a unique skill set and expertise to the
field of PP. As such, there are many op-
portunities as well as a critical need for
field-building and horizontal collabora-
tion in order to overcome the limitations
of each and promote a robust inter-
change in the promotion of effective PP
structures. Such an alliance predicated
on mutual learning addresses feelings
of disconnect or distrust among differ-
ent PP actors. For instance, bringing ac-
ademics together with practitioners to
set the agenda makes civic engagement
work more reflexive of the needs of the
community.
Such collaboration also helps lever-
age often-different levels of access to
resources, financial, logistical or sta-
tus-related. For example, the support of
civil servants in PP processes enhances
likelihood of policy recommendations
harvested from PP processed being
considered by elected officials. Elected
officials are accountable to the views
and needs of their constituents. In the
absence of direct solicitation of citizen
voices, civil servants can play the role
as mediator in either designing or im-
plementing PP structures themselves,
or draw on the resources of a third par-
ty, such as a civil society organization.
While upholding the guidelines of neu-
trality in PP, civil servants are in fact
susceptible to being risk-averse due to
being accountable to elected officials.
This tri-partite collaborative structure
with civil society organizations can
address and navigate such challenges
and provoke greater openness towards
implementing unconventional and ac-
countable structures of PP. While PP
needs to become embedded in the polit-
ical structure, there is no consensus on
whether the most effective mechanisms
would be led by civil servants them-
selves or separate government entities
dedicated to public engagement.
This debate on prioritizing a balanced
approach of PP points to the role of ac-
ademics and researchers. The emphasis
on neutrality can paradoxically lead to
a disconnect from practitioners and the
situation at hand. How? The distance
that contributes to the academics’ abil-
ity to thoroughly research and reflect
on trends and institutional history, can
lead to an objectification of the case
study. At the same time, many research-
ers are collaborating more with practi-
tioners for their insights, while a third
group of researchers delving into the
role of being public participation facili-
tators themselves, rather than engaging
in a collaboration with practitioners.
The challenges this poses to academics
prioritizing and endorsing pet projects,
much in the same way as elected offi-
cials’ partisanship, poses many ques-
tions, whether become more implicated
in the case study compromises neutral-
ity, and whether neutrality is necessary.
Notwithstanding the importance of

27. 27MAPPING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTORS
“horizontal collaboration” particular-
ly in recognizing that different public
participation actors differ in capacities,
expertise and approach, it must be rec-
ognized that there are power structures
and relations that ultimately influence
PP structures and results. For instance,
the need for academics to compete for
research funding can impede or inhib-
it the effective collaboration with other
PP actors, and can stratify the actors
based on responsiveness by elected offi-
cials. Independent public agencies can
also be seen as having greater legitima-
cy and therefore power to make recom-
mendations than non-profits, while at
the same time, the latter can have great-
er resonance with the community itself.
At the same time, independent public
agencies as commissioned by the state,
while acting as the official harvester of
public deliberations, have limited effec-
tiveness in holding the state account-
able to implementing those recommen-
dations.
1.5 Here come the pros
Within this ecosystem of actors, the pub-
lic participation professional stand out
as a newly explored category, based on
the claim or acknowledgment of an ac-
quired “expertise” in organizing and fa-
cilitating PP.
Is it a useful heuristic or mental category,
to facilitate understanding of these ac-
tors? Does this suggest that there are PP
practitioners who are not professionals?
If so, are they more or less “legitimate?”
more or less “credible”? And more or less
“desirable” in meeting the objectives
of public participation? What makes a
professional a “professional”? Are they
identifiable because they receive finan-
cial remuneration for this work? What
about volunteers and others who are not
paid for this? These questions cannot be
answered definitively but in observing
the ongoing changes in the PP field we
can start to understand the possible con-
sequences of these choices.

28. 02
Part

29. 29OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF THE PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FIELD
OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF THE
PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE PUBLIC PAR-
TICIPATION FIELD
By professionalization, we mean the
development of expertise around the
design, organization, promotion, evalu-
ation, oversight and day-to-day function-
ing of public participation activities, as
well as the authorship of this expertise
conferred on the actors of public partici-
pation listed in Part 1. A consequence of
the development of this expertise is the
creation of a body of knowledge around
the practice of PP. The emergence of this
newly recognized savoir-faire has led to
a call for more standardization. In fact,
with the increasing appeal of PP as a pro-
cess of democracy itself come calls for the
formalization of the field as a whole.
However, does there need to be a stan-
dardized approach to public participa-
tion? Is there strength in diversity? What
are the implications for both the profes-
sionals as well as for the practice of pub-
lic participation itself?
Part 2 explores the opportunities for a
standardization of PP practices and the
benefits of such formalization, as well as
the inherent tensions and challenges that
accompany such a transition. It will also
examine the role of PP professionals, and
the implications of such professionaliza-
tion on citizen capacity building.
2.1 Effects of standardization
Advocates of standardization argue that
it promotes the diffusion of best practic-
es or “règles de l’art”. Such codification
ensures that representativeness, integ-
rity, neutrality, inclusion are known cri-
teria and thus better verified. And the
enshrinement of these rules in a code of
conduct of a PP professionals’ associa-
tion creates a class of admissible or “le-
gitimate” PP brokers.
This standardization could also lead to
more responsible, accountable and pre-
dictable structures and processes of PP,
which protect its democratic quality. As
well, such formally recognized practices
make them more publically known and
hence more accessible to citizens. With

30. 30 PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FIELD
greater tools at their disposal, citizens are
also more aware and critical of participa-
tory tokenism and of “citizen washing”.
The standardization also allows for
trans-disciplinary research, with an em-
phasis on assessing impact. It provides a
common language and a cohesive set of
values and approaches to PP. All of this
enhances the legitimacy of PP mecha-
nisms among decision-makers, creating
“models of success” that can be followed.
For some observers, bringing in ex-
ternal PP professionals in the context
of tense social dilemmas can bridge
the gap between opposing parties.
Multi-stakeholder dialogue mediat-
ed by PP professionals recognized as
such allows for discussion and consen-
sus-building in the context of even the
most controversial of topics. As such,
standardization opens the way towards
greater inclusivity and resolution of dif-
ferences in public or private projects.
And an adaptation of laws and policies
by regional and local authorities aimed
at promoting citizen engagement could
lead to effective co-decision making
and enhance trust in the decision-mak-
ing process. The professionalization
can therefore increase the relevance
of PP as an institutional tool for more
democratic decisions.
Some are more critical of the implications
of such standardization. Critics of stan-
dardization counter that it can have the
undesired result of undermining com-
munity legitimacy. Depending on who is
understood as a PP professional there is
risk of elitism and exclusion, with pre-
dictable impacts on goals of citizen em-
powerment.
Another risk associated with trends to-
wards professionalizing public participa-
tion is that it removes capacity from com-
munities and citizens to build their own
deliberative conversations.
Also, while standardization addresses
the need to make public participation
valued and palatable to public officials,
there is a risk that it reduces the depth of
practice, by being deferential to the risk
averseness of elected officials and civil
servants. The move towards profession-
alization includes the inherent risk that
deeper forms of democratic engagement,
as led by more unstructured public par-
ticipation practices, will be reduced.
Some worry that it even takes away their
ability or even their will to engage with
The professionalization can therefore
increase the relevance of PP as an
institutional tool for more democratic
decisions

31. 31OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF THE PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FIELD
public authorities in other ways. Could
the increased institutionalization of par-
ticipation marginalize or de-legitimize of
other forms of citizen engagement, such
as protests, when public participation is
hailed as the legitimate form of partici-
pation? Elected officials could even use
the endorsement of PP to justify rejecting
other forms of citizen action.
With formalization comes “industry” and
some fear the risks of commercialization
of PP for profit and client objectives, as
well as its corresponding effects on de-
mocracy. There are veritable risks of PP
adhering to more conventional structures
or even compromising values of neutral-
ity in favor of accommodating client vi-
sions and desires. One must be cautious
of tokenism, of effort being focused on
form rather than substance. Professional-
ization can indeed lead to enhanced stan-
dards guiding PP, but market competition
and the service provision logic can be
equally powerful forces working against
values of integrity and neutrality.
With public participation being inher-
ently embedded in context, another
issue that arises from the possibility of
standardization is that it might tense up
a process that requires adaptability and
reflexivity. In fact some wonder wheth-
er flexibility guided by each context is a
weakness that lowers the standards of
the public participation field or a strength
that expands the reach and scope of PP.
There is a lack of consensus among PP
professionals themselves as to whether
standardization is a positive trend or not.
Such divergence reflects differing beliefs
and visions of desirable forms of democ-
racy. This debate returns to an earlier
discussion on the ultimate objective of
public participation. Is PP meant to better
connect policy with the needs of citizens?
Or to foster public deliberation and citi-
zen engagement, with benefits accruing
from the process itself? Differing views of
the end goals of PP influences how stake-
holders view the properties of profession-
alization.
2.2 Does professionalization kill diver-
sity?
What are the impacts of professionaliza-
tion or standardization on the diversified
field of PP, its actors and practices? Cur-
rently, there is a proliferation of PP mech-
There are veritable risks of PP adhering
to more conventional structures or even
compromising values of neutrality in
favor of accommodating client visions and
desires

32. 32 PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FIELD
anisms which reflect the diversity of both
stakeholders it engages and of goals it
pursues. A compelling question is wheth-
er standardization of public participation
practices threatens diversity. Is the en-
deavor to standardize PP implementation
sacrificing the diversity of approaches
which makes this field both vibrant, re-
flexive to citizen needs, and responsive to
context? Conversely, such pluralism runs
the risk of relativism in levels of adher-
ence to minimal standards of practice.
Most would argue not, attesting to the
resilience and reflexivity of diverse forms
of PP. As the field of PP grows/expands,
it opens up new opportunities to experi-
ment with new practices and in new con-
texts.
2.3 Who’s invited to play?
Along with the professionalization of the
field come inherent power relations and
tensions; who are the professionals who
can define, legitimize and implement the
parameters of public participation? Does
this create unnecessary hierarchies?
What are the implications for tradition-
al intermediaries between public bodies
and citizens like community animators,
volunteers and community groups?
One of the main challenges for the pro-
fessionalization of public participation is
indeed the exclusion of PP actors not con-
sidered to be “professionals”. Emerging
power relations such as PP professionals
coming from the ranks of elected officials,
for-profit organizations or researchers,
run the risk of displacing traditional PP
actors, like community groups. This can
have corresponding effects on the per-
ceived relevance of the PP process by
communities.
Especially when these techniques are in-
creasingly used by businesses. This can
be interpreted as an openness on their
part (and it is) but at the same time, it
makes the mobilization by groups less
profitable for PPPs.
While having the potential to create the
parameters of a more structured system
of public engagement, the professional-
ization of PP can also inadvertently dis-
place the inclination or commitment of
citizens to engage or drive the participa-
tory structures themselves. This reduced
level of ownership can lead to displace-
ment of responsibility or reinforce a
sense of disconnection to public affairs.
As a stakeholder-based form of public en-
gagement, it is critical that citizens be at
Along with the professionalization of the
field come inherent power relations and
tensions

33. 33OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES OF THE PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FIELD
the center of public participation, both as
stakeholders and designers.
In fact, another challenge is that with in-
creased professionalization, the profile
of experts will not always be reflective
of the cultural diversity of the communi-
ty. As the field develops, it is imperative
that there be a diverse pool of PP practi-
tioners. Social inequalities also inhibit
certain groups of communities from be-
ing represented within these ranks.

34. 34 PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FIELD
The professionalization of public par-
ticipation both hails the hope of a re-
newed more vibrant democracy and
advises caution in proceeding.
With the rise of interest in public par-
ticipation as a tool for dialogue and
consensus-building come calls for the
professionalization, and, some would
say, standardization of the field. Pub-
lic participation professionals bring in
both third party objectivity that builds
consensus and facilitates co-decision
making among a diversity of opinions,
communicates results harvested from
PP to key decision-makers, and facili-
tates institutional memory.
Professionalization of public partici-
pation has led to greater social accept-
ability of deliberative methods among
policy-makers and elected officials.
Previously skeptical of the tangible
benefits, as well as time and financial
investment required for effective pub-
lic participation, the move towards
professionalization of PP has garnered
greater interest on the part of both
governments and corporations to hold
participatory and deliberative demo-
cratic events.
There are currently no rules for public
participation; should there be? What
should the standards be? And who
should be tasked with setting them in
order to garner greater legitimacy as
well as enhanced standards and integ-
rity? Trust is an important currency to
be gained, hand in hand with moral
authority to gain legitimacy. How does
one create an accountability system?
The field of PP is a constantly evolving
one. It needs to stay critical. Various
actors contribute and learn to collab-
orate in ways that allow for the in-
creased emergence and applicability of
this field. With an increasing accessi-
bility of online tools come the move to
innovate through online deliberation,
for instance. Disparities of what is un-
CONCLUSION

35. 35CONCLUSION
derstood as being “authentic” public
participation between the multiple
organizations that offer consultations
need not be taboos but topics of the
ongoing conversation.
One of the main challenges of pro-
fessionalizing public participation
is to both convince policy makers of
the importance and value of public
deliberation in influencing policies,
as well as sharing decision-making
power in a way which resonates with
the needs of citizens. As such, public
participation professionals have an
important role in increasing political
will and commitment, as well as social
acceptability of this method of public
engagement. Building both citizen and
political capacity to have an impact
on policy-making, trust-building, and
field building.