School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Department of Public Health, University of Liverpool, Whelan Building, Liverpool L69 3GB, UK.
Health Promot Int. 2021 Oct 13;36(5):1264-1274. doi: 10.1093/heapro/daaa059.
This article-third in a series of three-uses theoretical frameworks described in Part 1, and empirical markers reported in Part 2, to present evidence on how power dynamics shifted during the early years of a major English community empowerment initiative. We demonstrate how the capabilities disadvantaged communities require to exercise collective control over decisions/actions impacting on their lives and health (conceptualized as emancipatory power) and the exercise of power over these communities (conceptualized as limiting power) were shaped by the characteristics of participatory spaces created by and/or associated with this initiative. Two main types of participatory spaces were identified: governance and sense-making. Though all forms of emancipatory power emerged in all spaces, some were more evident in particular spaces. In governance spaces, the development and enactment of 'power to' emerged as residents made formal decisions on action, allocated resources and managed accountability. Capabilities for alliance building-power with-were more likely to emerge in these spaces, as was residents' resistance to the exercise of institutional power over them. In contrast, in sense-making spaces residents met informally and 'made sense' of local issues and their ability to influence these. These processes led to the development of power within capabilities and power to resist stigmatizing forms of productive power. The findings highlight the importance of designing community initiatives that: nurture diverse participatory spaces; attend to connectivity between spaces; and identify and act on existing power dynamics undermining capabilities for collective control in disadvantaged communities.
这是三篇系列文章中的第三篇,前两篇分别在第 1 部分中描述了理论框架,并在第 2 部分中报告了实证标志,本文旨在展示在一项重要的英语社区赋权倡议的早期阶段,权力动态是如何发生变化的。我们展示了弱势社区在行使对影响其生活和健康的决策/行动的集体控制权(被概念化为解放权力)以及对这些社区行使权力(被概念化为限制权力)时所需要的能力是如何受到该倡议所创建和/或与之相关的参与空间的特征所塑造的。确定了两种主要类型的参与空间:治理和意义建构。虽然所有形式的解放权力都出现在所有空间中,但在某些特定空间中更为明显。在治理空间中,随着居民对行动做出正式决定、分配资源和管理问责制,“权力行使”的发展和实施出现了。在这些空间中,居民更有可能建立联盟建设权力(与他人合作的权力),并对机构权力对他们的行使产生抵制。相比之下,在意义建构空间中,居民们非正式地会面,“理解”当地问题及其对这些问题的影响。这些过程导致了能力内权力和抵制污名化生产性权力形式的权力的发展。研究结果强调了设计社区倡议的重要性,这些倡议需要:培育多样化的参与空间;关注空间之间的连接性;并确定和应对破坏弱势社区集体控制能力的现有权力动态。