Experience, expertise, and the rational ideal: Funds of knowledge and influence in Oregon’s decision-making bodies

Figures & data

Table 1. Experience group examples.

Group	Example reference #1
Group 1: Drew primarily from identity-based and experiential funds of knowledge during board participation	And I do think … the fact that I'm not a U.S. citizen, so I'm, you know, I can’t vote for the people that are in the offices that make some of these decisions, I do bring a different perspective. Also, just as a person who English is a second language, I have a different perspective … that I was able to share with the people around the table. —Human Rights Commission member
Group 2: Drew primarily from technical funds of knowledge during board participation	So, I think … I brought that, together with my professional experience in urban design has been very relevant to the whole business of public open space, the continuity between formal parks and the public realm of streets and squares and the gaps between buildings. —Parks Board member
Group 3: Drew from relatively even combination of experiential and technical funds of knowledge during board participation	In the sense of, like, being part of my identity. And also, I'm Black, but I didn’t grew up here so I have a different perspective and expectations about racial equity than most of the Americans. AND There’s like this conference here in [the city], the tree summit, and one of the city staff associated to the board, asking me to do a presentation in a conference and probably asked me that because I'm a student. So, I did a presentation about one of my papers … maybe because of my professional background. —Parks Board member

Table 2. Influence ratings and indicators.

Rating	Example Reference
Weak: Described very low power over decisions; used to “check a box”	In terms of did we influence anything? No, we didn’t. We gave [a statement] but … the decision was kind of already made. With this sit-lie ordinance … it’s kind of the same thing. The mayor has already made his decision, I mean the sit-lie is coming from his office, you know? And so, are we going to make an impact? I don’t think so. But I think it is worth it to, to show people that, hey, we’re here. We’re listening. We’re not going to just keep quiet. —Human Rights Commission member
Fairly weak: Described limited power but influence over select decisions or conversations	I mean, the City Council, so it’s an advisory board, so it doesn’t have any actual meat and teeth and power. We don’t make decisions that … [have] immediate effect on anyone. We make decisions to make recommendations to the people who make decisions at the city. —Human Rights Commission member
Mixed: Described feelings of both stronger and weaker influence	So, we can make requests, but we can’t make demands. So, we don’t get to make those decisions, but we get to form either an approval or disapproval of the budget. And pass on specific concerns to council when they go through their formal review. —Budget Committee member
Fairly strong: Described some impact over broader conversations or the agency they advised, but emphasized the limitations of that power	I think you want to make sure that they’re meaningful, that it’s not just for the sake of having a group or checking a box. But at least my experience with this particular group is that, and then the other commissions that we interact with touch a lot of different needs within … the state … whether it’s education, public health, the environment—I mean, they all intersect. And so, it is I think an important part of just civil society, and I'm grateful they do it here. —Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander Affairs member
Strong: Described a high level of confidence in having power over decisions and impact on community conversations	So, the agency develops their strategic plan. We played a really important role in that. I mean, at the end of the day, we have to approve it. Right. So, we approved it, but at every meeting, they would give us an update … on, like, the consultants that they hired, public participation process that that went through in order to get the information. And so, yeah, so we played a really instrumental role in developing the housing, the state’s housing strategic plan. —Oregon Housing Stability Council member

Table 3. Distribution of influence ratings.

Group	Influence ratings
Group 1: Drew primarily from identity-based and experiential funds of knowledge during board participation	Weak: 0 Fairly weak: 1 Mixed: 0 Fairly strong: 2 Strong: 0 Unsure: 1 Total: 4
Group 2: Drew primarily from technical funds of knowledge during board participation	Weak: 1 Fairly weak: 0 Mixed: 3 Fairly strong: 2 Strong: 0 Unsure: 0 Total: 6
Group 3: Drew from relatively even combination of experiential and technical funds of knowledge during board participation	Weak: 0 Fairly weak: 1 Mixed: 1 Fairly strong: 2 Strong: 3 Unsure: 1 Total: 8