Participatory research to influence participatory governance: managing relationships with planners Kirsty Blackstock*, Liz Dinnie*, Rachel Dilley**, Keith Marshall*, Jill Dunglinson*, Hamish Trench † , Katie Harper ‡ , Katriona Finan ‡ , Julia MacPherson ‡ , Eilidh Johnston ‡ and Anna Griffin ‡ *Social, Economic and Geographical Sciences, James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen AB157QB Email: Kirsty.blackstock@hutton.ac.uk **Independent Researcher, 49 Highcliffe Drive, Sheffield S11 7LT † Cairngorms National Park Authority, Grantown on Spey PH26 3HG ‡ Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Castle Business Park, Stirling FK9 4TR Revised manuscript received 9 July 2014 This paper explores the tensions and opportunities involved in becoming a ‘critical friend’ to government agency planners trying to practise more inclusive forms of governance. It thus tackles two interrelated issues: how to build and manage rapport while retaining a critical research agenda, and how to locate niches for further democratising participation within congested multi-level governance structures. A five-year research programme allowed researchers to explore practices by planners charged with developing and implementing natural resource management plans in Scotland. The focus reflects a research interest in opening up governance structures beyond the ‘usual suspects’ to enhance the democratic promise of participatory approaches. The paper reflects on how the balance between rapport and critique influenced the goal of opening up these processes to more public participation. The paper concludes by arguing that analysis of participatory geography must attend to the ways in which transformative opportunities are embraced, resisted or co-opted. Key words: participatory research, governance, river basin management, national parks, power, longitudinal research Introduction This paper describes two case studies of environmental planning to explore a central contradiction within partici- patory geography. Most definitions of participatory research require two criteria: active involvement by all participants (researchers and their research subjects) and action to achieve social transformation (Breitbart 2006). This commitment to social transformation is based on a normative aspect of participation – addressing power asymmetries and enhancing individual and collective energy, skills and knowledge.Thus, participatory research is fundamentally about relationships, as without trust and commitment, personal and collective transformation is unlikely to occur (Pain et al. 2007). However, recognising relationships means also recognising that multiple motivations and positions are adopted within the research process (Cahill 2007a; Mohan 2006; Jupp 2007), these differences mean that a homogenous vision for transformative social change may not be possible. Indeed, participation can be practised for instrumental outcomes (to ensure cooperation and implementation) rather than normative outcomes (to address power asymmetries and invigorate democracy through deliberation) (see Pellizzoni 2001 on motivations for participation). Too often, participation becomes another managerialist tech- nology (Kindon et al. 2007; Cooke and Kothari 2001). This paper considers how the balance between instrumental and normative approaches to participation in planning was enabled or constrained by these participatory research relationships. Participatory geographers have built on feminist, post- modern and post-colonialist research methodologies to recognise the situated dynamics of the research Area, 2014, doi: 10.1111/area.12129 The information, practices and views in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG). © 2014 Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)