Think of a recent change to a policy in your area, or council, or even your country. A small change; like a new recycling bin? Or a larger change, like new Tax rules? Now how involved were you in making that decision? Were you in control of it or were you simply informed of it and soothed?
Governments and public bodies – like your council, local health bodies, national Government etc – all aspire toward empowering and involving service users in their decision making models. Perhaps you have been asked to participate in anything from focus groups to an evaluation survey. To explore the varying levels of participation we shall introduce the ground-breaking work of Sherry Arnstein. In 1969 Sherry Arnstein created what is known as “Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation”. Arnstein’s ladder presents 8 different degrees of empowerment, from dismissive manipulation to full citizen control. The ladder forms the basis of many, if not the majority, of efforts to involve people within decision making. Of course other issues also affect the influence of participation practices; the genuine intent, commitment, facilities and scope to influence decision making varies between each situation. This article shall introduce the 8 “rungs” to Arnstein’s ladder.
Manipulation
The lowest rung of the ladder. This is the least empowering form of participation. It involves power holders simply leading participants to assume they have been involved and engineering their support. It is an elaborate illusion to effectively educate and alter an individual into dropping protest. The flow of communication is likely to be very one way; top-down with power-holders setting the agenda, controlling the stage and being the heaviest of talkers within the “dialogue”. An example may be public presentations where speakers discuss an issue or proposal but allow little if any feedback or interaction for the audience to voice concerns.
Therapy
Described bluntly by Arnstein as “dishonest and arrogant”, such collaborations between power holders and participants are described as “therapeutic” when the former acts solely with the intention of soothing or “curing” concerns or protests via discussion and not action; in short, it is the “sweet-talking” and charm approach. Participants can be involved in a wide range of intensive activities under the illusion that they are participating in the power structure, when in reality, they are simply being involved in group therapy to alter their feeling and judgements of the issue, and not tackling the cause of the protest itself.
Informing
Sharing information with participants is a critical cornerstone of true and honest participation. The fault – and manipulation by power holders – occurs when this dialogue of information is one way; from power holders who are informing and dictating to the participants with, as Arnstein shows, no channel for feedback, evaluation or contribution. In this respect, information can easily be manipulated, altered or chosen selectively to sway and appease participants. Examples in current day include leaflets, household guides, articles and televised information – where changes are being presented to society, but there is little if any scope to respond, contribute or influence the final outcome. This echoes the aspect of manipulation in that power holders are attempting to win over participants. However in this situation they do so by informing residents; to talk residents around to what is on offer, not – as is the case in manipulation – to directly target issues of contention and talk the residents out of their protests.
Consultation
The fourth level of participation in Arnstein’s ladder. This is where individuals are indeed involved, but only upon a façade, or empty basis. For examples; Arnstein suggests that people involved within this rung are deduced as being nothing more than statistics for effect i.e; surveys encapsulate this thinking wherein time is spent answering questions however it is then unknown to what extent the results influence the outcome. Was the survey just a “ticked box” for power-holders to state they did involve participants or does it truly influence the outcome?
Placation
The fifth rung. This is where power holders grant the participants a low level of controlled influence. Placation can, for example, involve a focus group leading to discussions, however the extent to which comments and suggestions are taken onboard are still subject to the decisions of power-holders. Citizens may feel, at this stage, they have participated extensively…but not profited from the exchanges. Whilst, on the other side, power holders can argue they have engaged with participants and heard the concerns. How power holders then respond to these concerns is the real measurement of influence.
Partnership
Agreed roles and responsibilities with power is the critical defining aspect of partnership. Having negotiated responsibilities and powers, power holders and participants hold definitive and clear powers. Each are each able to dictate and direct the direction of policies, employ or dismiss specialists or experts and finally, obtain control of finances to operate effectively. For example; independent schools, local libraries, some Doctors practices etc.
Delegated Power
Through negotiations, participants adopt control of a wider range of responsibilities. This requires power-holders to acknowledge and accept the fairness, rights and perhaps even specialist knowledge, skills or experiences of participants to enable a successful and fruitful transition of power for the sake of the overall outcome. Overall, it is a model of partnership. Whilst perhaps not of equal influence, each group must work collaboratively with the other to ensure the success of the overall project.
Citizen Control
Finally, the top tier of Arnstein’s ladder. Full governance of projects or issues grants citizens the opportunity to arrange projects and operate in a manner befitting to their needs without external influence. This illustrates absolute control wherein citizens have full power over initiatives. They can dictate and direct the course of the project, employ or dismiss desired specialists and strive towards agreed goals out with any external influence.
Arnstein’s ladder remains, to this day, a pillar for any academic or political intent seeking to promote wider participation. Whilst various authors strive to build upon its work or evolve the ideas into a more modern society [1] and [2], the structure and fabric remains. Having looked at each stage, perhaps examples have emerged in your mind or when you may have been manipulated? Informed? Or perhaps held full control of an initiative? It is important to now be aware of each degree of involvement and to critique efforts of authorities who preach of sufficient participation…just how involved were their “participants” really?
Sherry R. Arnstein (1969): A Ladder Of Citizen Participation, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35:4, 216-224
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01944366908977225
[1] http://www.engage.hscni.net/library/The%20Snakes%20and%20Ladders%20of%20User%20Involvement.pdf
[2] http://oro.open.ac.uk/8589/1/Path_paper_Collins_Ison.pdf
