o Behaviour of grassroots stakeholders shaped by process, thereby containing dissent (e.g. grassroots stakeholders positioned to act as ‘gatekeepers’ rather than as community representatives; meeting norms discourage certain types of input; paperwork/reporting begins to shape thinking) [5, 19, 22].|
o Energy of grassroots groups occupied by process, thereby containing dissent.
o Process embeds and transmits logic of status quo (e.g. neoliberalism, colonialism, structural racism and misogyny, etc.).
o Participants experience frustration and/or burn-out. [23, 25, 26].|
o Participants lose faith in participatory processes/participation .
o Community leaders who have championed process lose credibility .
o Energy of grassroots groups sapped by process, thereby diminishing capacity.
o Participants/groups face sanctions for resisting process as defined (see below).
o Success of project relies on free labour of participants.|
o Project fails to address and/or distracts from broader, systemic processes due to focus on ‘micropolitics’ [5, 21].
The broader literature emphasizes that participants resisting or building alternatives to official processes can, in some contexts, face sanctions ranging from loss of paid work  to imprisonment and violence .