Participation, Diversity, and Legitimation in U.S. Housing: A Rhetorical Analysis of Two HOPE VI Reports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this article is to consider: (1) how participatory rhetorics and methodologies can often invoke classed and racialized hierarchies and (2) the rhetorical strategies by which participatory processes in development contexts become co-opted for institutional means rather than for transformative outcomes.Method: Blending critical discourse analysis and rhetorical criticism, I read two influential federal U.S. housing reports associated with the HOPE VI housing program to derive legitimation strategies seemingly at work in divesting local residents of significant participatory input.Results: As suggested by analysis of the two reports, HOPE VI’s participatory rhetorics consisted of four key legitimation strategies that constrained participation as: participation-as-cultural narrative, participation-as-bio/necropolitics, participation-asdiversity, and participation-as-theodicy.Conclusion: The legitimation strategies reveal that participation is not a neutral framework. The methodology’s institutional privilege has the potential to iterate hierarchy and the reproduction of marginalization. Even in explicit invocations of diversity, race, and community, participation risks the entrenchment of otherization. These problematic qualities challenge organizational and institutional efforts to achieve a transformative agenda for diversity and inclusion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".