Consulting Reports in Urban Planning: An Ethnographic Study of Intricacy between Technical Writing and Political Decision

Consulting, study and design reports in urban or regional planning are often criticized for their uselessness or for being overabundant. However, they are still required by local decision-makers before any action or project could be engaged. Which roles do they play beyond their alleged pointlessness? This Paper aims to describe how reports must be analyzed through their production process. Contrary to what we many actors seem to think, reports writing is not the upstream phase of decision. Indeed their production process is closely intricate with decision-making. Our analysis is based on a three-year-long ethnographic inquiry led in an engineering and consulting firm specialized in urban, regional and environmental planning. By opening the “black box” (Latour, 2009) of project process, we show how such documents lie at the very heart of translations, appropriations, bargaining and even hijacking by local actors. Finally, this process leads to a storytelling effect that legitimates projects. First, we explain how consulting firms work hand in hand with local politicians and their technicians. Thus, those professionals can’t be identified as neutral expert as they claim to be. This proximity with decision-making actors is observed through many channels, circles or scenes forming what is called “project”, and constitutes the dominant way to lead urban public policies nowadays (Pinson, 2009). As a result, the rationality of the decision-making process is far from the linear and rational run which is often displayed in reports. On the contrary, consulting firms and their contractors use muddling through (Forester, 1989) by creating or using a large amount of channels to achieve the project goals. Because of the limited access to such channels, the question of interests’ representation in these reports comes up. Second, we explore the variety of forms taken by such reports: Excel tabs, Powerpoint slides, 3D perspective signboards or thick written volumes. We connect this diversity to the different scenes where they are shown and the different functions they take. For example, they can help coordinate a large amount of actors in a local governance setting, functioning like a « boundary objects » (Star et Griesemer, 1989). They are sometimes used as communicative tools to make actors decide or to make projects coming to an end by providing operational tips and advices. They can also be used to justify the legitimacy of projects to funding institutions like State agencies or the European Union. In all these cases, they operate as storytelling, underlying the construction of a narrative of the project. We assume that storytelling reinforces the legitimacy of projects and their well-acceptance by actors and civil society. The use of consulting firms, employing specialists with qualifications and experience, aims to prove the rationality of the decision-making process during projects by telling a “logical” or “scientific” story. Finally, we analyze how reports, as objects, aren’t central to decision-making processes because decision is taken while they are produced: reports are a simple epiphenomena of a process working on actors to make them act in the direction of the project. Bibliography BENTAYOU Gilles et BENBOUZID Bilel, 2009, « L’urbanisme et ses études. Réflexions à partir de deux exemples de politiques d’aménagement urbain à Lyon », Histoire & mesure, 2009, XXIV, no 2, p. 71 108. CADIOU Stéphane, 2009, « La politique locale : une affaire de techniciens ? » dans L’élu local aujourd’hui, Grenoble, PUG, p. 213 226. CADIOU Stéphane, 2011, « Élus et professionnels de l’action publique. Vers une démocratie technocratique ? », Pouvoirs locaux, 2011, no 88, p. 69 73. DESAGE Fabien et GODARD Jérôme, 2005, « Désenchantement idéologique et réenchantement mythique des politiques locales », Revue française de science politique, 2005, vol. 55, no 4, p. 633-661. FORESTER John, 1989, Planning in the Face of Power, Berkeley, University of California Press, 264 p. HOOD C., JACKSON M., (1991), Administrative Argument, Aldershot, Darmouth. IHL Olivier, POLLET Gilles et al., 2003, Les sciences de gouvernement, Paris, Economica, 218 p. LATOUR Bruno, 2007, Changer de société, refaire de la sociologie, Paris, La Découverte, 400 p. MATTHEY Laurent, 2011, « Urbanisme fictionnel : l’action urbaine à l’heure de la société du spectacle », Métropolitiques, 28 octobre 2011. MEGIE Antoine, 2010, Mise en œuvre, in Dictionnaire des politiques publiques, Presses de Sciences Po (P.F.N.S.P.), vol.3e éd. PINSON Gilles, 2009, Gouverner la ville par projet : Urbanisme et gouvernance des villes européennes, Paris, Les Presses de Sciences Po, 420 p. POUPEAU François-Mathieu, GUERANGER David et CADIOU Stéphane, 2012, « Les consultants font-ils (de) la politique ? », Politiques et management public, 15 janvier 2012, Vol 29/1, p. 9 19. STAR S.L., GRIESEMER J., 1989, “Institutionnal ecology, ‘Translations’, and Boundary objects: amateurs and professionals on Berkeley’s museum of vertrebate zoologie”, Social Studies of Science, 19(3), pp.387-420.