Holding space for meaningful disagreement during participatory processes.

Citizen participation has a long history of theoretical developments and practical toolkits. It has been widely adopted by national, regional and local governments to include users and residents in the development of policy making and planning. In participatory processes, interests, experiences and positionalities of citizens and other stakeholders are inherently conflicted (Forester, 1987). Difference and conflict are part and parcel of the functions of democracy (Mouffe, 2000). But in times of persistent crises – increased inequality, climate change and mistrust in the legitimacy of government – positions, opinions and voices tend to reify. Identities turn fixed belief systems instead of flexible constructions. And conversations turn antagonistic debates where the legitimacy for each other to ‘be’ is at the heart of the discussion. In these situations, it is even more important to engage diverse voices in processes of decision making without circumventing or excluding conflict. In other words, participation becomes a challenge for civil servants and politicians to facilitate meaningful interactions and hold a space where people can safely and equally disagree. Theories and practice approaches to citizen participation tend to look at the design of the process itself; where and when people meet, under which conditions, and with what purpose. Notwithstanding the importance of these, I will argue that the quality of citizen participation processes and its ability to shape a space for meaningful interactions depends in what is happening ‘in-between’ (Bartels, 2018; Samanta and Hand, 2022) the strategized activities. Elsewhere I analyzed how well-intended participatory governance turn into experiences of misrecognition (Verloo, 2023) through the micro-politics of interactions. Drawing on ethnographic research of citizen participation processes in Amsterdam, I will interpretively analyze how the ‘in-between’ interactions shape various critical moments (Cobb, 2006; Laws, 2020) where engagement, connection, inclusion and acknowledgement was lost. These critical reflections, in turn, offer valuable lessons for how to hold space for meaningful disagreement among conflicting voices in citizen participation. References Bartels KPR (2018) Collaborative dynamics in street level work: Working in and with communities to improve relationships and reduce deprivation. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 36(7). SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England: 1319–1337. Cobb S (2006) Developmental Approach to Turning Points: Irony as an Ethics for Negotiation Pragmatics. Harvard Negotiation Law Review 11: 147. Forester J (1987) Planning In the Face of Conflict: Negotiation and Mediation Strategies in local land Use Regulation. Journal of the American Planning Association 53(3): 303–314. Laws D (2020) What Use is a Critical Moment? Negotiation Journal 36(2): 107–126. DOI: 10.1111/nejo.12323. Mouffe C (2000) The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso. Samanta A and Hand L (2022) Examining the “in-between” of public encounters: Evidence from two seemingly disparate policy contexts. Public Policy and Administration 37(2): 129–153. DOI: 10.1177/09520767211020986. Verloo N (2023) Ignoring people: The micro-politics of misrecognition in participatory governance. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England: 23996544231182984.