Orality in environmental planning

Abstract

An often-neglected aspect of interactive policy making is the symbolic interaction between professionals and citizens, specifically the way they speak, the kind of orality that is involved. The orality of officials is text bound and texts on the environmental attain a firm position in the discourse of these officials, quite different from the orality of citizens. The characteristics of orality and literacy, from a communicative viewpoint, vary considerably. In literacy details and figures matter; in orality it is the intention of the speaker and the gist of the story that counts most. By bringing in a large amount of literacy in oral presentations, officials spoil the functions of orality, its effects on learning, its creative potential, the way how, via stories, many people can get involved or how trust is developed. Officials can conquer the orality of the people, they can cope with it in a strategic way or they can deal with it as a valuable

Information Delivery and its Effect on Production of Cashews in Oyo State, Nigeria

“…The effectiveness of extension service delivery is believed to have been limited as a result of prevailing sociocultural and economic circumstances of not only the farmers but, more importantly, of the prevailing authorities, either government or non-government agencies charged with carrying out the task of social change (Farrington, Christoplos, & Kidd, 2002;Roling & Wagemakers, 1998). Information on new technologies and innovations reaches a larger proportion of farmers through personal contacts such as visits from extension agents, while electronic and other mass media methods are scarcely used; the high cost of print media and time slots in electronic media, as well as an inappropriate and inconsistent government policy, could be responsible for the high reliance on personal contact, especially in developing countries (van Woerkum, 2002).…”

A Forest for Each City and Town: Story Lines in the Policy Debate for Urban Forests in Flanders

“…Yet the linguistic structure as a narrative or story may be beginning to lose its force. Stories make elements of reasoning comprehensible and easier to remember, and may thus become a helpful political tool to get key ideas across (van Woerkum, 2002) or to oppose others. In its 'fluid' narrative form, the story line can be passed on, shared socially and discussed, and hence is attractive for actors to engage in.…”

Creativity, planning and organizational change

“…Free speech allows for imagination, novel perspectives on different directions and the necessary steps for realizing these new ideas. An important characteristic of speech or “orality” is the predominant influence of the speaker's intention and the gist of the story as compared to written products, wherein data and details are more critical (Hildyard and Olson, 1982; Nonaka, cited in Lichtenstein, 2000, p. 533; Van Woerkum, 2002). Space for experimentation is restricted where presenters constantly refer to texts.…”

“…Planning, including alternative approaches to planning, demands a great deal of paper work. But during the creative process itself, spontaneous discourse can best operate without too much dependence on documentation (Van Woerkum, 2002; Lichtenstein, 2000; Wenger, 1998).…”