Common Patterns in Coping with Under-Representation in Participatory Processes: Evidence from a Mutual Learning Space for Portuguese Local Authorities (LAs)

Figures & data

Table 1. Existence of functionalities – in the webpages of participatory processes – which can favour a friendly access to some minorities/traditionally under-represented groups.

Target group that could mainly benefit of each functionality	Description of the functionality's goal	Existence of the functionality in the local authorities’ webpages (N = 58)			Existence of the functionality in the webpages of the subgroup that also answered to the questionnaire on inclusion strategies (N = 10)
		YES	NOT	Not applicable	YES	NOT	Not applicable
Citizens with visual impairments	Possibility to enlarge the screen	1.7%	98.3%	-	-	100%	-
	Possibility to enlarge the font’s size	-	100%	-	-	100%	-
	Audio option for written contents	-	100%	-	-	100%	-
Citizens with audio impairment	The videos have subtitles (just in Portuguese)	6.9%	12.1%	81% (there are no videos)	20%	30%	50% (there are no videos)
	Audio contents are transcribed	-	10.3%	89.7% (there are no audio contents)	-	30%	70% (there are no audio contents)
	Existence of a sign-language option for contents	-	100%	-	-	100%	-
Foreigners with no fluent understanding of Portuguese	The pages are translated into (at least) another language beyond Portuguese	1.7%	98.3%	-	-	100%	-
	The pages have the option of an automatic translator	5.2%	94.8%	-	10%	90%	-

Table 2. Social groups at risk of underrepresentation which are considered easier or most difficult to reach through specific inclusion strategies (Q10; Q11).

Groups at risk of underrepresentation	Types of people underrepresented whose proposing, funding and implementing inclusive actions are considered as easier to obtain (Q10) (N = 33)*	Types of people underrepresented whose proposing, funding and implementing inclusive actions are considered as most difficult to obtain (Q11) (N = 33)*
Children (6-13 years)	7	1
Teenagers (14-17 years)	4	-
Young people (18-30 years)	1	-
Senior citizens (65 years and over)	6	1
Women (in different age groups)	3	-
People with reduced mobility	3	-
People with visual impairments	2	1
People with hearing impairment/muteness	1	1
People with mental diseases/psychiatric problems	-	7
Ex-offenders/ released from prisons	-	7
People with low levels of literacy	1	-
People from isolated rural areas	2	-
Extra-EU foreigners (in different age groups)	1	4
EU-nationals from other countries (in different age groups)	-	3
Members of ethnic minorities (including nomads/Roma)	2	4
People with high purchasing power (in different age groups)	-	1
LGBTQI + persons	-	3
People with speech impediments	-	-
People with spina bifida	-	-
Homeless/street dwellers	-	-
People with general physical impairment	-	-
People with high purchase power	-	-

Table 3. ‘Why the usually under-represented groups listed in Table 2 are easier to reach?’ (Main Clusters deduced from Q10.4.).

(1) Some groups tend to gather in institutions or spaces which are easily accessible (schools, day centres for seniors or specific settlements where they reside);

(2) “advocacy organisations” or “service-providing institutions” (as IPSS or volunteering associations) facilitate the contact with them, acting as multipliers for disseminating information, or as catalysts in convincing them to play an active role in the participatory processes;

(3) communication with these groups requires specific language skills and translation;

(4) the LA had already or have ongoing projects involving these people (i.e., in the domains of culture, social assistance or urban rehabilitation) and they can take advantage of the parallel pre-existing dialogue to address their presence/commitment also in/to participatory processes;

(5) from past experience of social dialogue with these groups, specific “subgroups” emerged and acquired protagonism;

(6) the parallel existence of specific institutions (hybrids between participatory institutions and “semi-representative entities of the governance system*” – as Youth or Senior Councils, Local Councils for Social Action, or the so-called Social Networks**) can “bridge” the groups which they target to different participatory processes not specifically conceived for them.

* = Interview to a civil servant (OPTAR, 2013).

** = “Social Network” (Rede Social) is a program created by Resolution of the Council of Ministers 197/1997 (regulated by Dec-Law 115/2206) to articulate the efforts made between active social agents in each municipality, to tackle poverty and social exclusion and promote social development (Guerra & Henriques, 2001). Although the Program formally ended in 2012 (Godinho & Henriques, 2013) in many cities the networks survived, using diversified sources of funding (see: https://www.redesocialcascais.net).

Figure 1. ‘Why the usually under-represented groups listed in Table 2 are more difficult to reach?’ – Interpretation and clustering of main answers (N = 19).

Guerra, I., and J. M. Henriques. 2001. Programa Rede Social. Lisbon: SOARTES.

 Google Scholar

Godinho, R., and J. M. Henriques. 2013. Relatório Final da Avaliação do Programa Rede Social 2010-2012. Lisbon: IESE- Instituto de Estudos Sociais e Económicos.

 Google Scholar