Participation with Meaning
Our series on Ownership-based Change continues with this tenth in the series article.
Photo by Aakash Karki on Pexels.com
Read time ~8 min.
Can we be frank? The most diabolical organizations, communities, and groups embarking on a change initiative say they want participation from everyone that is touched by the change but, in fact, they don’t. Not really.
So why do they say it? Because it may be an expectation of a funder or constituency. Or, more cynically, they just think it is what they are supposed to say in the 21st century. What the group really wants is the appearance of participation from a diverse group of people from the Whole Community but not the substance of participation from them. For the most sinister, participation needs to be just enough so that if anyone asks community members if they are involved in the change project, they can say “Yes!” This will look good for the group and allay the concerns of those who may be worried about it.
The substance of participation is what we call Meaningful Participation. It is participation that honors the interest, commitment, and expertise of community members. It does this by first seeing them in the Whole Community, then creating a path for equitable participation, and then welcoming them into a partnership of collective decision-making with Content Experts. In this partnership their expertise has equal value to that of the Content Experts and it is received eagerly and respectfully.
In 2008 Roger Hart published a paper reflecting on work he had done 28 years before on the issue of increasing children’s participation in programs, projects, and even the organizations that had been built to serve them. His original paper was published in 1980 with Robin Moore but gained considerable prominence when it was adopted by UNICEF in 1992. In his 2008 paper Hart attempted to correct some of the misinterpretations of his work and address some of the discussions and debates that followed the introduction of the “the ladder of children’s participation,” a metaphor for the degrees of participation in decision-making that children could or should have. Moore and Hart, it should be noted, based this ladder on Sherry Arnstein’s 1969 Ladder of Citizen Participation.
However, it has commonly become known as Hart’s Ladder of Participation and, in fact, which is how we refer to it at Tenacious Change. Though originally created to explain and advocate for how children can play a more significant role in decision-making, the Ladder of Participation has been applied in other ways as well.
We adapted Hart’s Ladder of Participation to describe how Content Experts and Context Experts work together and to be a self-assessment tool. For example, we use it to help communities, groups, and organizations assess how Content Experts typically engage and involve Context Experts in change initiatives. Then, we take it a step further and use it to help them set an aspirational goal for how they would like to engage and involve Context Experts in the future. We use it because the Ladder of Participation is an elegant illustration of what constitutes participation and what does not.
There are eight rungs on the metaphorical Ladder of Participation. The top five rungs represent forms of what Hart described as Degrees of Participation. We argue, however, that only the top two rungs are closest to authentically Meaningful Participation. The three immediately below these two represent marginal participation because the real decision-making power continues to reside with the Content Experts.
Hart describes the lowest three rungs of the ladder as Non-Participation, and we agree, though each is different in terms of treatment of the Context Experts.
At their worst, the most diabolical groups, organizations, and communities will tokenize the participation of Context Experts or use them as decoration or even just manipulate them.
To tokenize them is to give them limited voice and little choice about what they say or how they can communicate.
To use them as decoration is to make sure they are “seen but not heard” because their appearance makes it seem they are more involved and engaged than they are.
To manipulate them is to effectively appropriate Context Experts ideas and voice for the benefit of Content Experts.
Hart argues in his 2008 paper that the Ladder for Children’s Participation has served its purpose. He could be right…as it relates to children’s participation, though we suspect there are people who advocate for children’s rights and would take issue with him.
However, we believe the Ladder of Participation to still be relevant for its original purpose and also to be relevant in group, organization, and community change work. Here’s why.
When we have used our Ladder of Participation assessment, we’ve found there is often a gap in the pathways of participation that groups, organizations, and communities actually create for Context Experts and the pathways they believe they should create. This doesn’t strike us as unusual as it is part of the human condition because our aspirations are often different from our reality. We all know we should do better, right?
What we find troubling is that we have often found there is too much comfort with that difference and an easy acceptance of it when it comes to change efforts in groups, organizations, and communities. Our experience is that Content Experts may try to create pathways for Meaningful Participation but, when it proves more time consuming or difficult than expected, they quickly settle for the lower degrees of participation and, in the worst cases, they settle for non-participation.
For example, needs assessment surveys have often been used as one pathway for participation. Content Experts may view this survey pathway as “adequate” for engaging the community and facilitating its participation. However, at best, it is marginal participation because it is merely a form of consulting with Context Experts. Marginal participation is far from adequate for durable change initiatives.
While there are several different components of Ownership-based Change, Meaningful Participation is one of the most important. For one part, this is because it doesn’t exclude either Content Experts or Context Experts from participation in decision-making and working together on other key tasks of Collective Change Leadership. For the other part, it provides an equal and equitable pathway of participation for both that honors their expertise, respects their voices, and makes it possible for a sense of ownership in the change to grow within all who participate. When the pathway to Meaningful Participation is traveled by both Content Experts and Context Experts, it sets both up to engage the other in Collaborative Leadership and Partnership. But that’s for next week.
By the way…Happy Spring!
Now Getting to Third Space! Lamar and Tom discuss what First and Second Space might look like.
Watch the podcast now on the Tenacious Change YouTube Channel or listen on Spotify.
Be sure to subscribe to Change It Up! and be among the first to know when new episodes are available.
To learn more about our work with communities, organizations, and groups, visit us at our company website at www.tenaciouschange.us by clicking on the image below:
