Do you know where are you on the ladder?
What is the Ladder of Citizen Participation?
A model developed by Sherry Arnstein in 1969 to describe different levels of citizen involvement in decision-making processes, particularly in the context of government and urban planning. It illustrates how much power citizens have when interacting with public authorities or institutions.
Arnstein’s ladder consists of eight rungs, grouped into three broader categories, each representing varying degrees of citizen control:
Non-participation
At the lowest rungs, participation is more about manipulation or appeasement rather than genuine involvement.
Manipulation: Citizens are “educated” or guided in such a way that they don't actually influence decision-making. This is a deceptive form of participation where the power holders pretend to engage citizens, but really just use them to legitimize decisions.
Therapy: Citizens are treated as if they are in need of help or treatment, with authorities determining what’s best for them. It's still not about genuine participation but rather about shaping public opinion in a way that serves the authorities' interests.
Tokenism
At this stage, citizens may be heard, but they have limited influence over the decision-making process.
Informing: Citizens are informed about decisions after they’ve been made or are in the process of being made. There’s no feedback loop, and while people are kept in the loop, they lack real power to influence decisions.
Consultation: Citizens’ opinions are sought (e.g., through surveys or public hearings), but there’s no assurance that these inputs will affect outcomes. The decision-making power still largely rests with authorities.
Placation: Citizens are allowed to give advice or input, but the power holders ultimately make decisions. They may have some influence, but the control remains primarily with the governing bodies.
Citizen Power
At the highest rungs, citizens share or have full control over decision-making processes.
Partnership: Power is shared between citizens and officials. Decision-making is a collaborative process where both parties have an equal say in outcomes.
Delegated Power: Citizens have a dominant decision-making role and can make certain decisions themselves, though some level of oversight or veto power might still reside with authorities.
Citizen Control: Citizens have full control over policies, programs, and institutions. This is the highest level of participation where citizens directly influence outcomes and have complete authority over decision-making.
Where can you be, if you share your story in the Sense Maker?
Within the SenseMaker Data Collector citizens share their experiences and give meaning to their micro-narratives. This approach of citizen participation would map to the higher rungs of Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation, particularly in the Tokenism and potentially Citizen Power categories.
Tokenism
In SenseMaker, citizens provide micro-narratives based on their experiences, which are then interpreted through a collective sense-making process. At a minimum, this approach would fall under Consultation because citizens are actively sharing their experiences and perspectives. However, the key question is whether this input genuinely influences political decision-making or if it merely informs officials without leading to concrete changes.
Consultation: If the micro-narratives are collected, analyzed, and considered by decision-makers but without any direct or transparent influence on outcomes, it would align with the Consultation rung. Citizens are asked to participate by providing insights, but they don’t have real decision-making power.
Placation: If citizens' narratives influence policy framing, yet final decisions rest primarily with authorities, this would represent Placation. Citizens are being given a role in shaping the debate or even contributing to advisory recommendations, but true decision-making power remains with political leaders.
Citizen Power
If the SenseMaker process allows for greater influence, i.e. where citizens' narratives significantly shape the decision-making process, or the sense-making done by citizens is part of an ongoing partnership between citizens and decision-makers, then this approach could be positioned within Citizen Power.
Partnership: If the data collected is directly integrated into the decision-making process, with citizens and officials working together in analyzing the narratives and co-creating solutions, it would reflect a Partnership. Here, citizens and government share power in decision-making based on insights from the collective experiences.
Delegated Power: If citizens have a structured or formal role in shaping policies or programs as a result of the narratives, or if the narrative insights lead to actions where citizens have clear authority over certain decisions, this would approach Delegated Power. The insights from the narratives would play a critical role in driving the political agenda.
