Urban Policy and Research,

Vol. 23, No. 1, 21–36, March 2005

Building Citizens: Participatory Planning

Practice and a Transformative Politics
of Difference
JENNY CAMERON & DEANNA GRANT-SMITH
School of Environmental Planning, Griffith University, Nathan, Australia

ABSTRACT Decision makers frequently use separate participatory activities to involve margin-
alised groups. This approach can generate valuable insights, but it has limitations. We discuss the
benefits and limits through two examples involving young people, and outline how the approach can
be modified, thereby building citizens who are responsive to other perspectives.
KEY WORDS: Community consultation, politics of difference, young people, regional planning,
public space planning

Introduction
In the last decade, public participation has not only become an established part of planning
and policy decision-making practice, it is now recognised that ‘the public’ is made up of
diverse groups with different needs and perspectives. Contemporary planning and policy
approaches acknowledge this diversity, encouraging decision makers to involve a range of
groups whose backgrounds and experiences differ from the mainstream. Such groups
include younger and older people, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and those
with disabilities and of non-English-speaking background.
Recognising diverse publics has been an important development, prompting planners
and policy makers to reflect on ways their participation practices either implicitly or
explicitly exclude certain groups, while privileging others. One way decision makers are
working towards more inclusionary practice is by considering factors such as timing,
accessibility, provision of childcare, transportation, use of written materials, and
presentation style and tone when planning and running public meetings, workshops,
forums, visioning exercises and the like (e.g. Sarkissian et al., 1999). Another strategy is to
target particular groups or communities of interest and provide specific engagement
activities for them within the context of broader participation programs.
Such efforts to develop more inclusionary practices, built on recognising difference and
diversity, are to be supported for they represent a welcome departure from the days when

Correspondence Address: Jenny Cameron, School of Environmental Planning, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD
4111, Australia. Fax: þ 61 (07) 3875 6684; Tel.: þ 61 (07) 3875 7155; Email: jenny.cameron@griffith.edu.au
ISSN 0811-1146(Print)/ISSN 1476-7244(online)/05/010021-16 q 2005 Editorial Board, Urban Policy and Research
DOI: 10.1080/0811114042000335296
22 J. Cameron & D. Grant-Smith

planners and policy makers were presumed to be able to take a ‘god’s eye’ view and make
decisions on behalf of ‘the public interest’. In this article, however, we argue that this
response to difference also has limitations. Drawing from the broader theoretical context
we suggest that focusing on particular groups may only serve to reinforce existing identity
categories and further isolate and marginalise these groups. A further implication is that
emphasising specific identity categories may create conditions for expressing and
promoting self-interest, while providing limited opportunities for considering broader
collective interests. We therefore argue that recognition of difference needs to be taken a
step further so that participatory planning practice contributes to a transformative politics
of difference.
As we will discuss, this transformative politics of difference involves shifting emphasis
away from self-interest to considering the interests of others. For us, this is part of the
project of building citizens who are not only responsive to the views and concerns of other
groups but also able to reflect on their own particular and partial perspective. We illustrate
the potential for a transformative politics of difference to be incorporated into planning
practice through two Australian examples of youth targeted consultation—a regional
planning exercise involving youth people in south-east Queensland and a local design
exercise involving young women in suburban Brisbane, Queensland. Although designed
to cater for a specific identity category, we argue that these two exercises could easily be
adapted to capture the more transformative opportunities offered by the politics of
difference.

The Politics of Difference

One of the major developments in social and political theory over the past decades has
been recognising the diverse groups that comprise society. There has been a shift away
from the idea of the universal and undifferentiated citizen to accepting and valuing
diversity and difference along axes that include gender, race, ethnicity, age, class,
sexuality and (dis)ability (e.g. Young, 1990a; Phillips, 1993; Fraser, 1994; Sandercock,
1998). This is important because it opens up opportunities for those who have been
“neglected, distorted or silenced by the majority” (Maclure, 2003, p. 6). A foremost
feminist and political theorist of this shift, Iris Marion Young, identifies that the politics of
difference “lays down institutional and ideological means for recognizing and affirming
differently identifying groups in two basic ways: giving political representation to groups’
interests and celebrating the distinctive cultures and characteristics of different groups”
(1990b, p. 319).
The shift in vision from a uniform to a diverse and heterogeneous public has
impacted planning and policy making, particularly public engagement practice. Planners
and policy makers are urged to use strategies to ensure that decisions take into account
a range of needs and perspectives by involving a diverse public in consultation and
decision-making activities. In the Australian context the range of government and
agency publications that outline strategies for engaging with diverse groups include
Queensland Departments of Main Roads and Transport (1997a, b), Carson and Gelber
(2001), the Western Australian Department of the Premier and Cabinet, Citizens and
Civics Unit (2002), Local Government Association of Queensland (2003),
PlanningNSW (n.d.) and Victorian Local Governance Association and Local
Government Division (n.d.). Strategies put forward include involving organisations
 Building Citizens 23

representing so-called ‘special interest’ or ‘special needs’ groups in planning and

promoting public consultation events to their constituents, advertising events in various
languages, providing childcare services, and locating and timing events to maximise
access for a range of groups.
The strategy of opening out participatory activities so a broader range of groups is
involved has, however, been criticised for not being sufficiently sensitive to difference.
As part of the critique of the “communicative turn” (Healey, 1992, p. 143) in planning
(and communicative democracy in general) writers have argued that the types of forums
used in consultation and participatory decision-making processes are neither neutral nor
universal, but are particular to western democracy. Bev Kliger and Laurie Cosgrove
(1999), for example, highlight how public meetings used for land use and planning
consultation in Broome, north-western Australia, did not fit with the forms of
communication the indigenous community was familiar or comfortable with (see also
Young, 1995; Cosgrove & Kliger, 1997). Likewise in the context of their research into
multiculturalism and planning in Melbourne, Leonie Sandercock and Bev Kliger (1998)
argue that “[s]tandard consultation techniques cannot be assumed to be translatable to
Aboriginal or Vietnamese or Muslim communities” (p. 224).
One response to this critique has been to run separate engagement processes targeting
special needs or special interest groups, such as young people or Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander peoples, and using techniques that are seen as more culturally appropriate
(e.g. Office of Disability, 1999; Office of Youth Affairs, 2002; ATSIC et al., n.d.). Often
these processes are run parallel to a larger ‘mainstream’ program and the planning or
decision-making team is responsible for integrating the results of the separate activities
with the results of the larger program.
The two examples that we draw on in this article were designed as separate consultation
processes to ensure that young people’s voices were heard in the decision-making process.
There are good reasons for running separate activities with young people. In terms of
urban planning, Nadia Auriat (2002) believes that it is necessary to target young people
because they are generally ignored or their input is not incorporated (p. 13). Even when
young people are included in mainstream activities the techniques used (e.g. community
meetings and written submissions) “often lead to disinterest and silencing of young
people” (Malone, 1999, p. 23).

SEQ 2021 Youth Engagement Program

The first consultation example was run in May – November 2003 as part of the SEQ 2021
regional planning exercise. SEQ 2021 aims to “develop a long-term vision and strategy for
a sustainable south-east Queensland in response to predicted continuing high population
growth” (Department of Local Government and Planning, 2003, p. 1). This region is one of
the most rapidly expanding in Australia and covers both rural and urban environments
from Noosa in the north, to the New South Wales border in the south and Toowoomba in
the west. The Queensland Government and 18 local councils in the region jointly fund the
SEQ 2021 program. Stakeholder and community input has been via a broad consultation
program, particularly a series of public forums held in the latter part of 2003. Alongside
this broader consultation agenda, SEQ 2021’s youth engagement program was designed to
provide an avenue for young people aged 12– 25 years to express their values, aspirations
and concerns.1
24 J. Cameron & D. Grant-Smith

One of the advantages of conducting a youth engagement program is that issues can be
presented and input sought in a way that is more inviting and relevant for young people.2
The findings of the survey of the mainstream SEQ 2021 public forums also highlighted
another benefit of holding a youth specific program. Approximately 500 people attended
the forums, with almost half completing an evaluation survey. This survey found that only
3 per cent of attendees were aged under 25 years. Eleven per cent were aged 25 –39 years;
63 per cent, 40– 64 years; and 23 per cent, 65 years and over (Grant-Smith & Cameron,
2004). It is unlikely that the proportion of young people attending the public forums would
have increased in the absence of the youth engagement program as the forums were run as
events for the general public and did not target any specific groups in the advertising or
promotion campaigns.
The overall aim of the youth engagement program was to inform the ongoing
development of the SEQ 2021 program, and in particular:
. To alert young people to the opportunity to comment on the SEQ 2021 project.
. To inform young people in the region of SEQ 2021’s regional planning
challenges.
. To identify what young people think are the important issues, challenges and
outcomes for south-east Queensland’s future.
. To find out how young people would respond to the regional planning
challenges (Duckworth, 2004, p. 13).
The program was based around face-to-face engagement activities, supported by a youth-
oriented website and survey which could be completed online or in hard copy. The face-
to-face interactions and the survey asked young people to identify their concerns about a
series of predetermined key issues, namely, transport, employment, open space and
urban development. These issues were comparable to those the general public
commented on in the ‘mainstream’ consultation program being conducted at the same
time. Over a 7-month period, SEQ 2021 officers met with 300 young people across the
region and the survey was completed by a further 365 young people. SEQ 2021 sought to
elicit responses from a range of young people and targeted young mothers’ groups and
youth immigrant programs in addition to secondary schools, universities, youth
organisations and youth councils.
Overall, young people perceived that employment and training opportunities were the
most important regional challenge. Protection of the natural environment and resources
was the next most important. Another key issue facing young people in south-east
Queensland was shortcomings in public transport—in particular “costs, lack of integration
and connectivity . . . and the infrequency and reliability of services [were seen to] strongly
impact on young people’s capacity to socialise, be independent and take up the
opportunities and support services to get ahead in life” (Duckworth, 2004, p. 9). Not
unsurprisingly, a lack of affordable and appropriate entertainment and recreation options
were also identified as important issues.
The overall results and detailed findings were presented to the main SEQ 2021 policy-
making committee (the Policy Development and Integration Committee [PDIC]) as well
as individual policy working groups for them to consider when developing strategies and
actions responding to the key issues. The initial feedback from the PDIC and the working
groups was that the results were extremely valuable and it is intended that they be
incorporated into the ongoing work of the Office of Urban Management.3
 Building Citizens 25

Involving Young Women in Leisure Planning

The second example is a participatory design exercise conducted in 2001 as part of an
Honours Research Project on young women’s use of public space for informal
recreation activities (Mitchell, 2001). The design exercise comprised two parts: first, a
discussion about the young women’s current recreation activities; and second, a ‘hands
on’ urban design activity for the adjacent parklands. Two groups from Corinda State
High School in the western suburbs of Brisbane completed the exercise (one group was
comprised of eight 13- and 14-year-old young women, and the second, eight 16- and
17-year-old women).
There were two reasons for focusing on young women. In terms of consultation
processes, researchers have found that even in groups with equal numbers of young
women and young men, young men tend to dominate discussions. Young women seem
to engage more, and more openly, when young men are absent (Curtis et al., 2004).
This was highlighted in the Honours Research Project with several of the participants from
the 16- to 17-year-old group commenting:

Participant 1: Can you imagine what would happen if the guys were here?

Participant 2: Yeah, we’d be like, doo-da-doo [not do anything and sit and watch].
(Mitchell, 2001, p. 50)

As well as this issue of process, Mitchell (2001) designed her participatory exercise to
overcome the gender blindness that has been associated with the content of public space
planning. Past research has shown that public spaces for informal recreation are
gendered, primarily planned and catering for young men’s leisure time with facilities like
BMX tracks and skate ramps (e.g. Griffiths, 1988; Booth, 1995; Heitmann, 1998). As a
result, young women commonly spend their informal recreation time in their bedrooms
(James, 1995), a pattern that has become known as the “culture of the bedroom”
(Griffiths, 1988, p. 53). This was confirmed in the first part of the design activity with the
young women reporting that they spent a large proportion of their informal leisure time
in their bedrooms.
In the second part of the design activity, however, when the young women were given
free rein to design the parklands for their informal recreation they came up with a range of
novel ideas, including climbing walls, quiet reading spaces, a maze and human
chessboard. The exercise demonstrated that there is a distinct gap between the facilities
currently provided in public parks and the activities these young women are interested in.
Indeed, compared to the ideas generated by the young women, most parks seem to be
sterile and inhospitable public spaces. We acknowledge that in this design exercise there
were none of the constraints that local councils or developers have to consider such as
budgets or operational issues. Nevertheless it was clear that the young women were
interested in a range of active and passive pursuits outside of the home and their bedrooms,
and that public parks provide few of these opportunities.
As shown by these two examples there are often very sound reasons for holding separate
consultation processes with groups like young people, and these processes can produce
outcomes that would probably not result unless separate consultations had taken place.
This is important for ensuring that the voices of those who might normally be absent from
26 J. Cameron & D. Grant-Smith

or marginalised in a mainstream engagement program are heard and their perspectives

taken into account in planning and decision-making processes.

The Limits of the Politics of Difference

Recognising difference within planning and policy making so that marginalised and
disadvantaged groups are targeted for separate engagement activities is an advance on the
strategy of simply encouraging these groups to participate in a mainstream program. We
argue, however, that there are limits to this approach. Based on our reading of various
strands of political theory (particularly those that belong to what we might call post-
identity political theory) we identify four.

Limiting Learning
Our first concern is that holding separate participatory events potentially promotes narrow
self-interest and encourages groups to focus on their own perspectives, needs and issues to
the exclusion of others. In essence it robs participants of the opportunity to hear about and
learn from other positions, and to rethink and modify their own position in light of this new
knowledge. Critically, it is not just those who participate in separate consultations who are
robbed of this opportunity, so too are those in mainstream programs. Employing separate
forums to elicit the voices of marginalised groups brings to mind Malone’s (2002, p. 6)
discussion of Youth Specific Space, or as she terms it “the Not seen and Not heard
strategy” (emphasis in the original), in which young people are provided with their own
spaces to occupy—“youth rooms in the basement of shopping malls or skate ramps on the
outskirts of town”—“without interfering with legitimate users of public space”.
Furthermore, these marginal locations “eradicat[e] the possibility for interaction”
(emphasis in the original, p. 6). Malone is concerned with material space, but her example
highlights the risk that by using separate engagement events the views of the marginalised
remain marginal, isolated in the footnote ‘basement’ or the appendix ‘outskirts’, without
impacting on the content of the main discussions.
In terms of debates about citizenship this is a very real concern. These debates hinge on
two different views of citizenship, the first, a transcendent view and the second, a
transformative view (Phillips, 1993, pp. 75– 89). The transcendent view is based on the
idea that as citizens we need to “get beyond our local identities and concerns” and take on
a generalised perspective that is concerned first and foremost with the “greater collective”
(p. 81). This is the view of Sheldon Wolin when he made his critique in 1982 of interest
group politics, arguing that “[t]he citizen, unlike the groupie, has to acquire a perspective
of commonality, to think integrally and comprehensively rather than exclusively. The
groupie never gets beyond ‘politics’, the stage of unreflective self interest” (p. 21). Not
surprisingly some have taken issue with this view of citizenship. Perhaps one of the
strongest critiques has come from Young who argues:

In a society where some groups are privileged while others are oppressed, insisting
that as citizens persons should leave behind their particular affiliations and
experiences to adopt a general point of view serves only to reinforce that privilege;
for the perspectives and interests of the privileged will tend to dominate this unified
public, marginalizing or silencing those of other groups. (1989, p. 257)
 Building Citizens 27

The alternative view of citizenship rests on the claim, hinted in the quote from Young, that
all positions are partial—even the apparently general or neutral perspective arises from a
particular gendered, racialised and classed location. According to this perspective,
citizenship is a transformative process in which we acknowledge the partiality of our
perspectives and are “necessarily reminded of other people’s claims, and in this sense are
impelled to reconsider our initial positions” (Phillips, 1993, p. 84). The aim is not to cast
aside our individual identity and embrace a common and shared identity—the
transcendent view—but to recognise the particularity of our own and other people’s
positions—and be transformed (in ways that cannot be predicted or known in advance) by
reflecting on other people’s perspectives.
In the transformative view of citizenship, participation is one avenue for citizens to
directly engage with other arguments, needs and concerns, and to use these insights to
modify their own positions. For those who are privileged (and those who are marginalised)
such participation results in “[c]onfrontation with different perspectives, interests, and
cultural meanings [that] teaches individuals the partiality of their own, and reveals to them
their own experience as perspectival” (Young, 1997, p. 403). It also means that a variety of
understandings and experiences become a resource for public deliberation (Young, 1995,
1997). Holding only separate engagement processes for marginalised groups limits the
opportunity for all citizens to learn from each other, and participate in and practise this
transformative version of citizenship.

Restricting New Becomings

Recent work by the political theorist William Connolly (1999, pp. 47 – 71) on the politics
of becoming points to a second limitation. In Connolly’s view, new identities are always in
the process of forming and these identities are neither known in advance nor the
“realization of an essence or universal condition” (p. 51). Rather, new identities emerge
out of specific historical and geographical contexts. For example, the European-North
American context in recent centuries has given rise to new identities that according to
Connolly include Indians, slaves, feminists, Jews, labourers and homosexuals (p. 51).
Once formed and granted institutional recognition these identities often become
sedimented and congealed as if they were a timeless form of being. They can also become
resistant when confronted with new identities that emerge in the continually changing
context. Many in the gay and lesbian movement, for example, having gained some degree
of recognition are now challenged by the emergence of transgender identities, and are
having to rethink the basis of their own identity claims. As Connolly (p. 59) puts it:

when the winners of one round are convinced what they are touches the ultimate
truth of being, they are ill prepared to come to terms with the work upon themselves
needed when a new round in the politics of becoming begins. And there is always
another round in the politics of becoming.

Connolly advocates receptiveness to the formation of new identities, particularly those

that emerge out of experiences of suffering and marginalisation, through “[a]n ethos of
critical responsiveness” (p. 62). This involves more than tolerating the new identity; like
the transformative version of citizenship it involves reconsidering one’s own identity in
light of the emergent one. In Australia, for example, one way ‘whites’ can respond to
28 J. Cameron & D. Grant-Smith

indigenous identity formation is to acknowledge the ways in which whiteness is

constructed, sustained and privileged through multiple cultural, economic and political
processes and institutions. Similarly the arrival of refugees on Australian shores behoves
those of us with secure citizenship to reflect on the economic and political privileges such
citizenship affords.
In terms of participatory approaches, separate activities may be an important
institutional practice for affirming and recognising identities that have recently emerged.
On the other hand this affirmation can also contribute to the process by which a new
identity consolidates as if it was natural and pre-given. As Maclure describes, it potentially
has “the negative effect of freezing the identity” (2003, p. 13). The practice of consulting
separately with young people, for example, contributes to naturalising and entrenching this
identity category (and of course this is only one practice in a multitude of other cultural,
political and economic practices, including popular film and music, schooling and
advertising, that contribute to consolidating identity categories). Connolly’s concern is
that an ethos of critical responsiveness is all the more difficult to adopt when existing
identities have become solidified, when the process of becoming is forgotten and being is
entrenched. As a result emergent identities encounter additional suffering and
marginalisation.

Downplaying Other Differences

The third limitation of holding separate consultation processes is that one axis of
difference—age, gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality or (dis)ability, for example—
tends to be prioritised and the others silenced. When consultations are held with particular
identity groups the tendency is to downplay differences within the group and to interpret all
experiences as deriving from the one identity. So in the case of young people the
temptation is to reduce all experiences to the common factor of age, and to ignore the
impact of other axes of difference like gender, class, race and ethnicity in shaping
experiences and viewpoints.
The assumption that all members of a particular group are similar means that it is
perfectly acceptable to approach one organisation, group or agency and ask them to speak
on behalf of the identity category. In the case of young people researchers have noted that
one strategy for consulting with young people is to turn to an existing organisation such as
a youth council (Fitzpatrick et al., 2000). Certainly, as Ewan notes (1994) this makes
participation simpler (particularly when time and resources are limited), but such
organisations do not necessarily represent the diversity of young people. Indeed, members
of youth councils are likely to be selected by adults and not at all representative of the
range of young people’s experiences and viewpoints (Matthews, 2003). Similarly, Kliger
and Cosgrove found in their study of indigenous involvement in planning in Broome that
the local council “was only willing to communicate with, and listen to, a univocal
Aboriginal perspective” thereby “disguis[ing] the multiplicity of Aboriginal viewpoints
and perspectives” (1999, pp. 64 and 65). So long as an identity category is isolated and
asked to speak as that identity category other forms of difference that play a role in shaping
an individual’s experience are likely to be silenced (see also Fraser, 1997, pp. 390 –391).
In contrast in an approach in which a range of different identity groups are combined
participants are more likely to speak from a range of positions and be heard as speaking
from these different positions. For example, in a separate young people’s consultation
 Building Citizens 29

a married 19 year old with children who is working full time is being asked to identify with
other young people with whom they may have little in common in terms of their needs,
concerns and issues—like a 24-year-old full-time student who is living ‘at home’ and
financially dependent on their parents. But in a mixed process, age may become less of an
issue and class or race take greater precedence. Furthermore, in a mixed process young
people (and older people) are being given the opportunity to consider ways in which their
experiences are not unique but may cut across generations (Finn & Checkoway, 1998,
p. 343). This highlights the constraints of identity-based politics and the way in which this
type of politics (and participatory practices based on it) can occlude connections being
formed across seemingly unbridgeable divides between various identity categories.

Moderating Different Perspectives

The final limitation we identify is that planners are placed in the powerful position of
adjudicating between the results of mainstream and any separate engagement
activities. The traditional view is that planners and other decision makers are
independent and impartial and therefore able to arrive at judgements that will best
serve the general interest. Such a view has been critiqued in recent planning studies.
In her research on the development of a control plan for inner Newcastle, Australia,
McGuirk (2001) found that planners (unavoidably) exercised power by subtly
changing community input through processes of sorting, prioritising and translating.
In particular, the rational and technical aspects were privileged and other forms
of knowing and valuing downplayed (pp. 208 –211). Similarly, Tewdwr-Jones and
Thomas (1998) in their study of community participation in a national park project in
Wales found that despite the good intentions of planners community input was not
necessarily taken ‘on board’ in the terms that it was offered. Instead planners “tended
to impose their perspectives and priorities as, allegedly, technical, value-free,
professionals and bureaucrats and to thereby discount alternative views and modes of
expression” (p. 139). These researchers have identified the powerful role planners play
in dealing with the outputs of mainstream public involvement; this role is likely to be
intensified when planners have to address the results of separate participatory activities
with marginalised groups.
In this section we have outlined four limitations with the approach of
involving marginalised groups in engagement activities that are separate from mainstream
events. We have argued that this response to the politics of difference potentially promotes
self-interest, robs participants (both marginalised and privileged) of opportunities
to connect with and learn from others, and contributes to the process of consolidating
and naturalising identity categories with implications for the emergence of new identities.
Furthermore, it places decision makers in the powerful position of having to arbitrate
between various claims.

From the Politics of Difference to a Transformative Politics of Difference

The discussion so far suggests that we are presenting contradictory views. On the one hand
we have argued that it is important to hold separate consultation processes with groups
who are marginalised and frequently absent from mainstream processes. On the other,
we have offered a critique of this approach that draws from recent political theory.
30 J. Cameron & D. Grant-Smith

This conundrum can be reconciled, however, through using a two-phase approach to

public involvement with marginalised groups. In this section we outline the approach and
then demonstrate how it could be put into practice by drawing on the two examples of
consultation with young people discussed above.
The first phase is to hold separate engagement activities (such as those discussed
above) that give marginalised groups the opportunity to explore and establish their ideas
and perspectives. Jane Mansbridge (1994) describes these as “safe spaces in which the
likeminded can make sense to themselves of what they see” (p. 63), and argues that
“most people, but particularly those who are disadvantaged in the larger society, need
some of this protection in order to think more critically and carefully” (p. 64). The
insights generated by the SEQ 2021 youth program and the young women’s design
workshop are indicative of the thoughtful and novel outcomes that such “protected
enclaves” (p. 63) can produce. But as we have argued above there are limits to using
separate activities.
Thus a second phase is to follow the separate activities with broader forums where a
range of groups express their views, and learn about and respond to the perspectives of
others in a process of public deliberation.4 The intention is to move beyond the
dialogue that takes place within the “protected arenas”, and to develop what Maclure
(2003, p. 11) calls a “multilogue” involving diverse participants. Young (1990a) is a
strong advocate of such public deliberations, arguing that the best decisions result
from discussions in which participants put forward their ideas, justify them in the light
of learning about other perspectives and reconsider their initial position (p. 399). She
is adamant that differences rather than being seen as the basis for conflict are a
necessary resource for public discussion and debate, and that such deliberations need
to be entered into “with a spirit of openness and mutual accountability” (p. 402). She
claims:

If citizens participate in public discussion that includes all social perspectives in

their partiality and gives them a hearing, they are most likely to arrive at just and
wise solutions to shared problems. (p. 402)

For Young, “[t]his account of democratic communication” is an ideal (p. 404), but there
are examples of public deliberations where participants with diverse views and values are
able to reach agreement on acceptable solutions. The planning theorist John Forester
(1999a) documents (among others) one case of HIV/AIDS prevention in Colorado where
diverse participants, including straight and gay activists and conservative Christian
groups, were able to agree on funding priorities. As Forester makes clear, a skilled
facilitator/mediator ensured that deep value differences were “properly, respectfully, and
effectively handled” (p. 488). Such skilled facilitation/mediation is also one way to temper
the power that planners and other decision makers still have in these types of deliberative
processes.
The two examples of consultation with young people presented in this article also
demonstrate the attainability of Young’s ideal of democratic communication. In both cases
the young people involved were asked to provide input specifically from their standpoint
as young people (or young women in the case of the design exercise). Yet, in both cases the
young people did not just focus solely on their own self-interest but were starting to take
into account what they knew of the perspectives of other groups. Consider the following
 Building Citizens 31

comments from several of the 16- to 17-year-old participants as they discussed the types of
facilities to incorporate into the design of the local park:

I say we keep the soccer fields and stuff, cause then the guys will have something.
(Mitchell, 2001, p. 40)

Participant 1: Any boys allowed?

Participant 2: Yeah, we have soccer.
Participant 1: It’s a community-oriented park. (Mitchell, 2001, p. 45)

Later in the workshop the facilitator (Mitchell) quizzes participants about their design:

Facilitator: Who do you think these designs will attract?

Participant 1: Everyone.
Participant 2: Teenagers, families. (Mitchell, 2001, p. 55)

This preparedness to incorporate the interests of other groups in the design of local
facilities is not atypical. Sanoff (2000), for example, discusses a participatory design
exercise in which young people produced a model of a neighbourhood community centre
that clearly conveyed they had thought about other neighbourhood groups and users of the
centre (p. 19).
The young people involved in the SEQ 2021 youth program also demonstrated a
pronounced interest in broader concerns and the perspectives of other groups when
articulating their vision for a regional future. Some of the comments reported by
Duckworth (2004) from young people aged 18 and under included:

The people in the community should also feel welcomed and have opportunities to
meet other people in the community.

I would like to see safety towards the residents in my community and would like less
violence, graffiti and vandalism.

Community being aware of the area around them and the people. A community that
works together to choose and create a better area.

I’d like to see a community with equal opportunities for everyone in Brisbane.

I would like to see a community where public services are able to service the
community as a whole.

I would like to see a lot of trees and would like to see the world becoming a
better place with lots of parks and shops but enough homes for people in this
country.

[Preserve] a great environment and good breathing air so that the children of the
future will enjoy what we are enjoying today.
32 J. Cameron & D. Grant-Smith

I would make sure that there is still a sustainable and wide agricultural industry in
South-east Queensland . . . Our best land is going under houses.

Some of the comments from young people aged 18 and over included:

I would like to see community harmony with a focus on keeping the environment
clean and safe.

Actively rewarding community groups addressing problems like urbanisation by

planting gardens and helping those in need by raising money.

Local parks are planned so that skateboarders can skate and the elderly can walk
without clashing with each other.

Again, this willingness to consider other interests and concerns in broader decision-
making processes is consistent with other research. For example, Stafford et al., (2003)
found that young people were well able to recognise that a range of considerations,
including the views of adults, should be taken into account in decision making (p. 372).
Malone similarly argues that:

The assumption . . . that young people, when given the opportunity to participate in
planning processes, will ask for ‘pie in the sky’ or unrealistic changes is an urban
(planning) myth. Rather, given the opportunity, most young people have insightful
and practical ideas which take into account the needs of the whole community.
(1999, p. 18; see also Meucci & Schwab, 1997, p. 12)

The examples of the participatory design activity and the SEQ 2021 youth program
highlight how young people are considering the interests and needs of other groups
even when they are asked to provide input as young people. It is therefore a simple next
phase to run broader participatory exercises in which young people (and other groups)
are invited and encouraged to attend in order to input their ideas, hear about the
perspectives of others and reconsider their own position. This would provide an
opportunity for not only young people to learn more about the concerns of other groups,
but for these groups to also learn more about young people. As discussed earlier, such
opportunities would make an important contribution to the practice of transformative
citizenship, with participants having to confront other perspectives and interests, and
rethink their own.
The approach of using dialogues as a first phase and multilogues as a second phase in
the engagement process has implications for the role of planners and decision makers,
repositioning them more as mediators and negotiators than as a ‘clearing house’ for public
input. Forester is a strong advocate of this shift in emphasis arguing that it “can encourage
public learning about social significance and value as well as about positive fact, about
historical identity and difference as well as about shared common ground” (1999b, p. 61).
Consistent with the transformative view of citizenship, participants in these types of public
deliberations learn to appreciate “how their wants, interests, preferences, and priorities can
shift and evolve” (pp. 62 –63).
 Building Citizens 33

Conclusion
In this article we have argued that ‘protected arenas’ are important for groups who are
usually marginalised from planning and decision-making processes to develop their own
position and response to problems. The SEQ 2021 youth program and the young women’s
participatory design exercise are examples of such arenas, generating ideas and insights
that would have been unlikely to emerge in more open forums. We have also argued that
this response to the politics of difference does not go far enough. The risk of stopping at
separate exercises is that citizens do not get the opportunity to learn more about the
concerns of others and to reflect on their own perspectives in light of this learning.
Furthermore, separate exercises can contribute to fixing and naturalising identity groups,
potentially making them unresponsive to the claims of emergent groups. We therefore
advocate for a transformative politics of difference in which protected arenas are followed
by broader participatory activities that bring together a range of groups. Such arenas might
contribute to the process of building citizens who are knowledgeable about and responsive
to others who are different from them, and able to reflect on and reconsider their own
position.

Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the invaluable work and comments of Helen Duckworth, former Education Officer with
the SEQ 2021 Regional Resource Unit, and Casey Mitchell, former Honours student from the School of
Environmental Planning, Griffith University, currently a Town Planner at Gold Coast City Council. The authors
acknowledge the funding support of an Australian Research Council Linkage grant and the support of the authors’
Industry Partner, the Queensland Department of Local Government and Planning. Thanks also to the referees for
their helpful suggestions.

Notes
1. The two authors are involved in an Australian Research Council–Linkage project (with the Queensland
Department of Local Government and Planning as Industry Partner) evaluating the broad public consultation
program of SEQ 2021 (see Cameron & Johnson, 2004). Although a rigorous assessment of the youth program
was not part of the research brief, the authors attended and observed SEQ 2021 youth program events, and have
been present at meetings where the results were presented and discussed. These activities along with the final
program report—prepared by the youth officer, Helen Duckworth—provide the basis for the observations
made in this article.
2. This is particularly of concern in a regional planning exercise where the scale is unfamiliar for many people,
including young people. One of the difficulties is that people find it difficult to translate their local and
everyday activities and concerns onto the broader regional scale.
3. After the Queensland government elections in mid-2004, the SEQ 2021 Regional Resource Unit, which was
responsible for overseeing the development of a framework for growth management in south-east Queensland
and associated consultation activities, was moved to a new Office for Urban Management. This Office reports
directly to the Deputy Premier. At the time of writing, it had been agreed that the timeframes for finalising the
SEQ 2021 Regional Plan would be shortened considerably (Urban Management & Infrastructure Co-
ordination Committee, 2004).
4. This does not necessarily mean having to hold additional consultation events. It is entirely feasible to run one
event in which the first part operates as a “protected enclave” and the second part involves a mixing of
participants. In some circumstances, however, it might be more appropriate to hold two separate events
allowing participants time to reflect on the first before contributing to the second. Indeed, as one referee for this
article pointed out, in some situations where there are deep-rooted differences it may be necessary to proceed
even more gradually, for example, working first with a group of young Muslim women, before running a multi-
ethnic group of young women and then joining a wider community group.
34 J. Cameron & D. Grant-Smith

References
ATSIC, Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Services, Department of Indigenous Affairs and Department of
Premier & Cabinet, Citizens & Civics Unit (n.d.), Engaging with Aboriginal Western Australians
(ATSIC, Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Services, Department of Indigenous Affairs and Department of
Premier & Cabinet, Citizens & Civics Unit). Available at http://www.citizenscape.wa.gov.au/docs/
ochre_guide.pdf
Auriat, N. (2002) Introductory note, in: D. Driskell (Ed.) Creating Better Cities with Children and Youth: A
Manual for Participation (Paris: UNESCO Publishing).
Booth, C. (1995) Gender and public consultation in the United Kingdom, in: L. Ottes, E. Povenlvd, M. Schendelen
& G. Banchet (Eds) Gender and the Built Environment: Emancipation in Planning, Housing and Mobility in
Europe (Assen, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum).
Cameron, J. & Johnson, A. (2004) Evaluating for development: planning for public involvement in SEQ 2021,
Australian Planner, 41(1), pp. 49 –55.
Carson, L. & Gelber, K. (2001) Plan First—Ideas for Community Consultation: A Discussion on Principles and
Procedures for Making Consultation Work. Report prepared for the NSW Department of Urban Affairs &
Planning, February 2001, (NSW Department of Urban Affairs & Planning).
Connolly, W. (1999) Why I Am Not a Secularist (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press).
Cosgrove, L. & Kliger, B. (1997) Planning with a difference: a reflection on planning and decision
making with indigenous people in Broome, Western Australia, Urban Policy and Research, 15(3),
pp. 211 –217.
Curtis, K., Roberts, H., Copperman, J., Downie, A. & Liabo, K. (2004) ‘How come I don’t get asked no
questions?’ Researching ‘hard to reach’ children and teenagers, Child and Family Social Work, 9,
pp. 167 –175.
Department of Local Government & Planning (2003) SEQ 2021: A Sustainable Future—South East
Queensland’s Regional Planning Challenge: Options for the Future (Brisbane: Queensland Government &
SEQROC).
Department of the Premier & Cabinet, Citizens & Civics Unit (2002) Consulting Citizens: A Resource
Guide, April 2002 (Perth: Department of the Premier & Cabinet, Citizens & Civics Unit, Western
Australia).
Duckworth, H. (2004) What Young People are Saying! A Report on the Outcomes of the SEQ 2021
Youth Engagement Program May–November 2003, Unpublished Working Paper (Brisbane: SEQ 2021
Unit—Department of Local Government and Planning).
Ewan, J. (1994) Youth participation concepts and structures, Youth Studies Australia, spring, pp. 13–20.
Finn, J. L. & Checkoway, B. (1998) Young people as competent community builders: a challenge to social work,
Social Work, 43(4), July, pp. 335 –345.
Fitzpatrick, S., Hastings, A. & Kintrea, K. (2000) Youth involvement in urban regeneration: hard lessons, future
directions, Policy & Politics, 28(4), pp. 493–509.
Forester, J. (1999a) Dealing with deep value differences, in: L. Susskind, S. McKearnan & J. Thomas-Larmer
(Eds) The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement (Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage).
Forester, J. (1999b) The Deliberative Practitioner: Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes (Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press).
Fraser, N. (1994) Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to actually existing democracy, in: H. Giroux &
P. McLaren (Eds) Between Borders: Pedagogy and the Politics of Cultural Studies (New York: Routledge).
Fraser, N. (1997) Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the “Postsocialist” Condition (New York:
Routledge).
Grant-Smith, D. & Cameron, J. (2004) Evaluation of the SEQ 2021 Public Forums 2003 (Nathan: Griffith
University, School of Environmental Planning).
Griffiths, V. (1988) From ‘playing out’ to ‘dossing out’: young women and leisure, in: E. Wimbush & M. Talbot
(Eds) Relative Freedoms: Women and Leisure (Milton Keynes: Open University Press).
Healey, P. (1992) Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory, Town Planning Review,
63(20), pp. 143 –162.
Heitmann, S. L. (1998) Gender gaps: gender differences in patterns of urban park use in Brisbane and the
implications for park planning, design and management, Honours Thesis, School of Environmental
Planning, Griffith University, Nathan.
 Building Citizens 35

James, K. (1995) The perceived ownership of recreational space: implications for participation of adolescent
women, in: C. Simpson & B. Gidlow (Eds) ANZALS Conference Proceedings (New Zealand: Department of
Parks, Recreation and Tourism).
Kliger, B. & Cosgrove, L. (1999) Local cross-cultural planning and decision-making with indigenous people in
Broome, Western Australia, Ecumene, 6(1), pp. 51–71.
Local Government Association of Queensland (2003) Community Consultation Guide for Queensland Local
Government (Brisbane: LGAQ).
Maclure, J. (2003) The politics of recognition at an impasse? Identity politics and democratic citizenship,
Canadian Journal of Political Science, 36(1), pp. 3–21.
Malone, K. (1999) Growing up in cities as a model of participatory planning and ‘place making’ with young
people, Youth Studies Australia, 18(2), pp. 17 –23.
Malone, K. (2002) Exposing Intolerance and Exclusion and Building Communities of Difference,
Keynote address Youth Coalition Symposium “Youth and Public Space”, National Museum Canberra,
8 April 2002.
Mansbridge, J. (1994) Using power/fighting power, Constellations, 1(1), pp. 53–73.
Matthews, H. (2003) Children and regeneration: setting an agenda for community participation and integration,
Children & Society, 17(4), pp. 264–276.
McGuirk, P. M. (2001) Situating communicative planning theory: context, power, and knowledge, Environment
and Planning A, 33, pp. 195–217.
Meucci, S. & Schwab, M. (1997) Children and the environment: young people’s participation in social change,
Social Justice, 24(3), pp. 1– 6.
Mitchell, C. J. (2001) Puberty blues: actively involving young women in leisure planning, Honours Thesis, School
of Environmental Planning, Griffith University, Nathan.
Office of Disability (1999) Consultation: A Practical Guide to Involving People with Disabilities (Canberra:
Commonwealth of Australia). Available at http://www.facs.gov.au/disability/ood/consgide.pdf
Office of Youth Affairs (2002) Two-Way Street: How Government Departments can Engage with Young People
through Consultation (Brisbane, Queensland: Department of Employment & Training).
Phillips, A. (1993) Democracy & Difference (Cambridge: Polity Press).
PlanningNSW (n.d.) Community Engagement in the NSW Planning System, Prepared by Elton Consulting for
PlanningNSW. Available at http://www.iplan.nsw.gov.au/engagement
Queensland Departments of Main Roads & Transport (1997a) Policy, Standards & Guidelines (Brisbane,
Queensland: Departments of Main Roads & Transport).
Queensland Departments of Main Roads & Transport (1997b) How to Gain Broader Participation in
Consultation (Brisbane, Queensland: Departments of Main Roads & Transport).
Sandercock, L. (1998) Towards Cosmopolis: Planning for Multicultural Cities (New York: John Wiley).
Sandercock, L. & Kliger, B. (1998) Multiculturalism and the planning system: Part Two, Australian Planner,
35(4), pp. 223–227.
Sanoff, H. (2000) Community Participation Methods in Design and Planning (New York: John Wiley).
Sarkissian, W., Cook, A. & Walsh, K. (1999) Community Participation in Practice: A Practical Guide, 2nd edn
(Perth: Institute for Science & Technology Policy, Murdoch University).
Stafford, A., Laybourn, A., Hill, M. & Walker, M. (2003) ‘Having a say’: children and young people talk about
consultation, Children and Society, 17, pp. 361–373.
Tewdwr-Jones, M. & Thomas, H. (1998) Collaborative action in local plan-making: planners’ perceptions of
‘planning through debate’, Environment & Planning B, 25, pp. 127 –144.
Urban Management & Infrastructure Co-ordination Committee (2004) Report of the Urban Management &
Infrastructure Co-ordination Committee to the Hon Terry Mackenroth, Deputy Premier, Treasurer and
Minister for Sport (Brisbane: Queensland Government). Available at http://www.seq2021.qld.gov.au/
documents/pdf/UMICCreport_0404.pdf
Victorian Local Governance Association & Local Government Division (n.d.) Best Value Victoria: Community
Consultation Resource Guide (Victorian Local Governance Association & Victorian Government).
Available at http://www.vlga.org.au/library/contents/issues/consultation_engagement_BestValueVictoria
CommunityConsultationResourceGuide0.pdf
Wolin, S. S. (1982) What revolutionary action means today, Democracy, 2(4), pp. 17–28.
Young, I. M. (1989) Polity and group difference: a critique of the ideal of universal citizenship, Ethics, 99(2),
January, pp. 250–274.
Young, I. M. (1990a) Justice and the Politics of Difference (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).
36 J. Cameron & D. Grant-Smith

Young, I. M. (1990b) The ideal of community and the politics of difference, in: L. Nicolson (Ed.) Feminism/
Postmodernism (New York: Routledge).
Young, I. M. (1995) Communication and the other: beyond deliberative democracy, in: M. Wilson & A. Yeatman
(Eds) Justice and Identity: Antipodean Practices (St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin).
Young, I. M. (1997) Difference as a resource for democratic communication, in: J. Bohman & W. Rehg (Eds)
Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).