Chow, V W and Leiringer, R (2014) The translation of power: A study of boundary objects in public engagement processes. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2014, Portsmouth, UK.
Abstract
Public consultation and engagement processes have become an integral feature of infrastructure development projects in many parts of the world. Regardless of the drivers behind this trend, legislative or otherwise, a key objective of the process is to facilitate information exchange between affected parties. Somewhat simplified, the process is used by the project team to garner support, collect feedback and address grievances for the project, and by a multitude of stakeholders to voice complaints, lobby for change and secure benefits for themselves. It follows that the process, despite intentions otherwise, is commonly characterised by opposing interests and unequal power relationships that lead to antagonistic standoffs between participants. This paper focuses on what takes place within the engagement process and the format through which information is exchanged. In particular, focus is on the material artefacts that are used to facilitate the information exchange. When used effectively, these artefacts act as boundary objects between participants by allowing them to work together across a diverse range of issues. The paper draws on ongoing research that explores how boundary objects are used in the public engagement process in Hong Kong. The study utilises the Latour-Callon model of ÔinteressementÕ to trace how information is translated through boundary objects across a series of engagement events. An argument is put forward highlighting how boundary objects both affect and are affected by power struggles between social groups, and how this in turn affects decision making and goal alignment. In so doing, the notion of the boundary objects possessing inherent properties making them effective communication tools across events is rejected, and replaced by a view that puts more emphasis on how and why they are used by the participants.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | public engagement; power dynamics; materiality; boundary object; communication |
| Index terms: | project team, decision-making, public consultation, dynamics, artefact, lobby, complaint, public engagement, infrastructure development, boundary object, information exchange, Hong Kong, materiality |
| Subjects: | data science, participation process, project delivery, architectural elements, Geography, infrastructure engineering, conflict resolution, sociology, decision analysis, communities and social development, collaborative management, systems engineering |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Business Strategy, Information Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Digital Applications, Design Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here