Gaventa, J. & Cornwall, A. 2001). Power and Knowledge. In P. Reason & H. Br Handbook of Action Research: Participative “inquiry and Practice (pp. 70-80). London: Sage Publications. fadbury (Eds.), 6 Power and Knowledge JOHN GAVENTA AND ANDREA CORNWALL Participatory research has long held within it jmpliet notions of the relationships between power dand knowledge. Advocates of participatory action research have focused their critique of conventional esearch strategies on structaral relationships of power and the ways through which they are main- {ined by monopolies of knowtedge, arguing that participatory knowledge strategies can challenge Step rooted power inequities. Other acti sesearch ‘todiions have focused moro on issues of power and Knowledge within organizations, while others stil have highlighted the power relations between individuals especially thse involving professionals fand those with whom they work. ‘Earlier understandings of power in participatory research tended to dichotomize the notion: “they” ‘organizations, experts) had power, ‘we {the oppressed, grassroots, marginalized) did not. ‘artiipatory research wasa means of losing the 5p, remedying the poveer inequities trough processes ffknowledge production, which strengthened voice, ‘organization and action. Tin more recent year, the uses and understandings of participatory research have broadened cousider- bly. Rather dan being seen as an instrument only Of the powerless, the language and methods of participatory research are being adopted by lange tnd powerful institutions. The new legitimacy and ‘cceptance of paticipatory research raises critical ‘Questions. What aspects of participatory practice Ste institutions like national governments and the ‘World Bank taking up? Docs this new inconporation represent co-optation, or does tepresent new spaces for larger and more effective ation? How are power relations mediated across agencies and actors as pasticipatory practice moves to larger scale? What fate the interclationships of the uses of participatory research for social, institutional and individual ‘change? Power as Knowledge ower and knowledge ae inextricably intertwined, ‘A starting point for situating our analysis of power ‘and knowledge a pariipatory research sto map out Some of the different ways in which power is ‘conceptualized and tei implications foresearch. In ‘doing so, we draw on Gaveat's (1980) castor work ‘on quiescence and rebellion among mining com- ‘unites in rural Appalachia, We take a our starting the three dimensions of power elaborated by Fikes (1974) and built upon in Gaventa’s analysis! “Adding 2 fourth dimension, the relational view of power emerging from the work of Foucault (1977, {o79) and his followers, we explore questions of power, knowledge and participation. ‘rukes (1974) begins his argument by challenging the traditional view in which power is understood asa relationship of “A ever B’: that i, power isthe ability ofA (herelatvely powerful person or agency) to get B (the relatively powerless person or agency) to do what B might not otherwise do (Dabl, 1969). In this approach, power is understood asa product cof conflicts between actors to determine who Wins ‘and who loses on key, clearly recognized issues, in 2 relatively open system in which ther are estab- lished decision-making arenas. IPcertain voices are bscat in the debate, their non-participation i intet~ preted as their own apathy or inefficacy, not as a [process of exclusion from the political process. ‘Within this st dimension of power, knowledge or research may be conceived as resources to be ‘mobilized to influence public debates. Practically, ‘with this view, approaches to policy influence, ‘Knowledge and action relate largely to countering expertise with other expertise. The as isch “better” (objective, rational, highly credible) now ledge will have greater infivence. Expertise often takes the form of policy analysis or advocacy, both ‘of which involve speaking ‘for’ others, based not on lived experience of a given problem, but on 8 study ‘of it that claims to be ‘objective’. Lite atention is ‘aid in this view to these whose voices or whose Knowledge were not represented in the decision- making process, nor on how forms of power affected the ways in which certain problems come to be framed, “This plaralist vision of an open society, in which power is exercised through informed debate amongPower and knowledge n ‘competing interests, continues to affect many of ‘ur understandings of how power affects policy. However, this view has been widely challenged. Political scientists such as Bachrach and Baratz {1970)put forward a second understanding of power. ‘They ergued thatthe hidden face of power was not bout who won and who lost on key issues, but was also about Keeping issues and actors from getting to the table in the first place. Drawing upon the ‘work of Schattschneider, they argued that politcal develop a mobilization of bias... in fivor ofthe exploitation of certain kinds of conflict fd the suppression of others... Some issues are nto polities while ethers are organizod out" (Gchatischneider, 1960: 71). The study of polities, Bachrach and Baratz argued, must focus “both on ‘who gets what, when and bow and who gets left out ‘and how” (1970: 105). ‘in this view knowledge, and the processes of its production, contribute very strongly to the mobil- Potion of bias. Scientific rules are used to declare the knowledge of some groups more valid than ‘others, for example “experts” over “lay people’, etc ‘Asyminetiies and inequalities in research funding sean that certain issues and certain groups receive ‘more attention than others; clearly established “tpethods’ or rules ofthe game can be used to allow some voices to enter the process and to discredit the legitimacy of others. "From the second dimensional view, empowerment heough knowledge means not only challenging expertise with expertise, but itmeans expanding Who participates in the Imowledge production process in the first place, It snvolves a concern with mobilize- tion, or action, to overcome the prevailing mobile {eation of bias (see Gaventa, 1993). When the process is opened t0 include new voices, and new per- spectives the assumption is tha policy deliberations Will be more democratic, and less skewed by the resources and knowledge of the more powerfol “Wille the second dimension of power contributed to our understanding of the ways in which power ‘operates to prevent grievances fiom entering the politcal arenas, it maintained the idea that the exercise or power must involve conflict between the powerful and the powerless over clearly ros0B- nized grievances, This approach was then challenged by others such as Steven Lukes who suggested that pethaps “the most effective and insidious use of power is to prevent such conflict from arising in the fist place’ (1974: 24) The powerful may do so rot only by influencing Who acts upon recognized frievances, but also Gough influencing conssious- fess and awareness of such grievances in the first place. Tn this approsch, the control of knowledge as a ‘way of influencing conseiousness is critical to the exercise of power. Knowledge mechanisms such as socialization, education, media, secrecy, information Control, and the shaping of political beliefs and {doologies, all become important tothe understanding ‘ofpower and how itoperats. Inthis approach, power begins to resemble Gramscian notions of hegemony" (Entwistle, 1979) or Freitean ideas (1981) of the ways fn which knowledge is internalized to develop a ‘eulture of silence” ofthe oppressed. ‘Countering power involves using and producing knowledge in a way that affects popular awareness land consciousness ofthe issues which affect their lives, a purpose that has often been put forward by advocates of participatory research. Here the dis- ‘cussions of research and knowledge become those favolving strategies of awareness building, berating education, promotion of a critical consciousness, ‘overcoming internalized oppressions, and developing Sndigenous or popular knowledge. There are count- fess examples of how the transformation of con sciousness has contributed to social mobilization, te they in the civil rights, women’s, environmental for other movernents. And, there are a aumber of {ntellectual traditions which may contribute to our ‘understanding in this area Increasingly, forinstanee, fnew social movement theory recognizes the impor tance of consciousness by raising such issues as the development of collective identity, and of the ‘constructions of meaning, and of culture in galvan- izing citizen action (Moms, 1984; Mueller, 1992). "Bachof these approaches io power carry with them implicit or more explicit conceptions of knowledge, land how it relates to power, as well as to strategies ‘Of empowerment, Inthe first view, knowledge is ‘ resonrce, used and mobilized to inform decision- ‘making on key public issues issues of whe produces Knowledge, of its impact on the awareness and ‘capacity of the powerless are less important. Tn the second view, the powerful use control over the production of knowledge as a way of setting the Public agenda, nd for including or exchuding certain ‘oices and participants in action upon it. In esponse, mobilization ofthe relatively powerless to act upon thc grievances and to participate in public affairs ‘becomes the strategy — one in which action research ig an important tool. In the third dimension, the ‘emphasis is more upon the ways in which production of knowledge shapes consciousness of the agenda in the first place, and participation in knowledge ‘production becomes 2 method for building greater Zwateness and more authentic sel-consciousness of ‘one’s issues and capacities for action Beyond the three dimensional view ‘While over the years this three dimensional frame work has provided a useful way of understanding power and knowledge in research, it has also been Criliqued from a number of differing perspectives. For some, the approach imited nits understanding ‘of power as a ‘power over" relationship ~ whereas {infact power can be seen as a more positive attribute