Robust Public Process in Cultural Planning: Institutionalizing Participation in U.S. Cultural Plans

Résumé fourni par la source

Problem, research strategy, and findings Cultural planning is widely framed as participatory, yet persistent gaps remain between participatory aspirations and equity-oriented planning and governance. In this study I asked: (1) What constitutes a robust public process in cultural planning? and (2) to what extent do U.S. cultural plans possess this capacity, particularly as reflected in planning documents? I developed a multidimensional framework of robust public process by synthesizing equity, communicative, and critical planning perspectives and extending them to cultural planning through a symbolic lens. The framework was operationalized as a matrix combining normative criteria and document-based indicators and is applicable across multiple levels of analysis. Empirically, I used a two-stage design: coding of 74 U.S. cultural plans (35 indicators) and in-depth analysis of six cases (60 indicators). Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression and repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) assessed variation across plans and dimensions. Robust public process in cultural planning comprises institutional and procedural arrangements that connect participation to planning and governance. It is not systematically associated with broader temporal, geographic, or institutional characteristics, but instead exhibits a consistent hierarchy across dimensions. Case analysis identified a three-tier pattern in which higher robustness was associated with stronger institutionalization of participation within coordination and decision-making arrangements. However, even the strongest cases showed uneven development: U.S. cultural plans demonstrated strong capacity to generate and use evidence, moderate capacity to support public deliberation, and limited capacity to specify how public input influences decisions, as participation is primarily institutionalized through administrative processes and only partially linked to decision making.Takeaway for practice This study provides a framework for evaluating how participation is institutionalized within planning systems. The findings suggest that strengthening cultural planning requires moving beyond participation as consultation toward stronger procedural and institutional mechanisms. Planners should develop mechanisms that support deliberation, address power asymmetries, and clarify how public input influences planning and governance decisions.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.