10 key ideas about participation
Behind the detailed suggestions in the guide about how to manage participation effectively are 10 key ideas. Each of these is also dealt with in the A-Z and in other sections.
Level of participation
Sherry Arnstein, writing in 1969 about citizen involvement in planning processes in the United States, described a ladder of participation with eight steps. I have altered this model to five stances detailed in the Framework section:
- Information
- Consultation
- Deciding together
- Acting together
- Supporting independent community interests
I do not suggest any one
stance is better than any other - it is rather a matter of
`horses for courses'. Different levels are appropriate at
different times to meet the expectations of different
interests.
Here's the original Arnstein model.
1 Manipulation and 2 Therapy. Both are non
participative. The aim is to cure or educate the
participants. The proposed plan is best and the job of
participation is to achieve public support by public
relations.
3 Informing. A most important first step to
legitimate participation. But too frequently the emphasis is
on a one way flow of information. No channel for
feedback.
4 Consultation. Again a legitimate step - attitude
surveys, neighbourhood meetings and public enquiries. But
Arnstein still feels this is just a window dressing
ritual.
5 Placation. For example, co-option of hand-picked
'worthies' onto committees. It allows citizens to advise or
plan ad infinitum but retains for power holders the right to
judge the legitimacy or feasibility of the advice.
6 Partnership. Power is in fact redistributed through
negotiation between citizens and power holders. Planning and
decision-making responsibilities are shared e.g. through
joint committees.
7 Delegated power. Citizens holding a clear majority
of seats on committees with delegated powers to make
decisions. Public now has the power to assure accountability
of the programme to them.
8 Citizen Control. Have-nots handle the entire job of
planning, policy making and managing a programme e.g.
neighbourhood corporation with no intermediaries between it
and the source of funds.
Sherry Arnstein's ladder is available in full here
Initiation and process
This guide deals with situations where someone, or some organisation, seeks to involve others at some level - that is, participation doesn't just happen, it is initiated. Someone (termed here a practitioner) then manages a process over time, and allows others involved more or less control over what happens. In the guide the process is described during four phases: Initiation - Preparation - Participation - Continuation.
Control
The initiator is in a strong position to decide how much or how little control to allow to others - for example, just information, or a major say in what is to happen. This decision is equivalent to taking a stand on the ladder - or adopted a stance about the level of participation.
Power and purpose
Understanding participation
involves understanding power: the ability of the different
interests to achieve what they want. Power will depend on
who has information and money. It will also depend on
people's confidence and skills. Many organisations are
unwilling to allow people to participate because they fear
loss of control: they believe there is only so much power to
go around, and giving some to others means losing your
own.
However, there are many situations when working together
allows everyone to achieve more than they could on their
own. These represent the benefits of
participation.
Role of the practitioner
This guide is written mainly for people who are planning or managing participation processes - here termed `practitioners'. Because these practitioners control much of what happens it is important they constantly think about the part they are playing.
Stakeholders and community
I think that `stakeholders' is one piece of jargon which really helps our understanding of participation. On the other hand `community' can be a hindrance.
A stakeholder is anyone who has a stake in what happens. The term forces us to think about who will be affected by any project, who controls the information, skills and money needed, who may help and who may hinder. It does not follow that everyone affected has an equal say; the idea of the ladder is to prompt thinking about who has most influence.
Community is a problem term if it is used as a blanket description for `all those other people'. There are many communities, defined by, for example, people's shared interests, locality, age or gender. The `community' which participates will depend on the project or programme because different people are interested in different issues. Where community is used in the guide it is shorthand for communities.
Partnership
Partnership, like community, is a much abused term. I think it is useful when a number of different interests willingly come together formally or informally to achieve some common purpose. The partners don't have to be equal in skills, funds or even confidence, but they do have to trust each other and share some commitment. In participation processes - as in our personal and social lives - building trust and commitment takes time.
Commitment
Commitment is the other side of apathy: people are committed when they want to achieve something, apathetic when they don't. But what leads to commitment? Not, in my experience, telling people `you ought to care', inviting them to public meetings or bombarding them with glossy leaflets. I think people care about what they are interested in, and become committed when they feel they can achieve something. Hard selling won't achieve that. If people are apathetic about your proposals, it may simply be that they don't share your interests or concerns.
Ownership of ideas
People are most likely to be committed to carry something through if they have a stake in the idea. One of the biggest barriers to action is `not invented here'. The antidote is to allow people to say `we thought of that'. In practice that means running brainstorming workshops, helping people think through the practicality of ideas, and negotiating with others a result which is acceptable to as many people as possible.
Clearly this isn't possible if you are simply providing people with information about your own ideas, or consulting them on a limited number of ideas of your own. Apathy is directly proportional to the stake people have in ideas and outcomes.
Confidence and capacity
Ideas and wish lists are
little use if they cannot be put into practice. The ability
to do that depends as much on people's confidence and skills
as it does on money. Many participation processes involve
breaking new ground - tackling difficult projects and
setting up new forms of organisations.
It is unrealistic to expect individuals or small groups
suddenly to develop the capability to make complex decisions
and become involved in major projects. They need training -
or better still the opportunity to learn formally and
informally, to develop confidence, and trust in each
other.
Each or these terms is dealt with in more detail in the
A-Z
of effective participation.
The next sections
Each or the terms above is dealt with in more detail
in
the A-Z section,
and you may wish to skip the following sections and browse
the A-Z, then return to some of the theory.
The first theoretical section, A
framework for participation,
takes the revised ladder of participation, and extends it
across time - the process - and across interests - the
stakeholders. Before that here are some Easy
answers - or are
they?