Hi Jim
One of the oldest, but still widely used measures of citizen participation
comes from Arnstein (ref: Arnstein, S. (1969); 'A Ladder of Citizen
Participation in the USA'; Journal of the American Institute of Planners,
July.) (I've also included below some references which may be of use to
you).
Here's a bit of a synopsis of Arnstein's approach:
Arnstein (1969) in discussing the confusion around the concept 'citizen
participation' stated: 'the heated controversy over 'citizen participation'
has been waged largely in terms of exacerbated rhetoric and misleading
euphemisms.' In aiming to 'encourage a more enlightened dialogue', she
developed a typology of citizen participation, which was arranged in a
ladder pattern with each rung corresponding to the extent of citizen's power
in determining plans and/or programs. The bottom rungs of the ladder,
'manipulation' and 'therapy', she describes as levels of 'non
participation.' She sees 'manipulation' as 'the distortion of participation
into a public relations vehicle by power holders', and gives examples of
people placed on advisory committees for the express purpose of engineering
their support. She sees group 'therapy' that is masked as community
participation, as often being about power holders wishing to 'cure' or
educate the participants. The next rungs of the ladder progress to what she
calls 'degrees of tokenism', such as 'informing', 'consultation' and
'placation'. Although she acknowledges that informing people of their
rights and options can be a step towards community participation, all too
often the emphasis is placed on a one way flow of information from officials
to consumers. 'Consultation' - that is, inviting peoples opinions, is seen
by Arnstein as being a 'sham' unless it is combined with other modes of
participation. Examples of consultation include the use of attitude
surveys, and public meetings. An example of 'placation' strategy is,
according to Arnstein, placing a 'few hand-picked worthy 'poor' on boards of
community organisations.' She sees that if these people are not accountable
to a constituency in the community, and if the 'traditional power elite'
hold the majority of seats, the "have nots" can easily be manipulated.
Further up the ladder are the degrees of citizen power - which Arnstein sees
as partnership, delegated power and citizen control. She discusses
'partnership' as being the redistribution of power through negotiation
between people and the power holders. Arnstein suggests that partnership
works most effectively when there is an organised power base in the
community to which the people's leaders are accountable. At the level of
'delegated power', people achieve the dominant decision making authority
over particular plans and/or programs. Although Arnstein recognises that no
one can have absolute control, the final rung of the ladder - citizen
control - refers to where citizens obtain the majority of decision making or
full managerial power.
Other References:
Arnstein, S. (1969); 'A Ladder of Citizen Participation in the USA'; Journal
of the American Institute of Planners, July.
Bracht, N. & Tsouros, A. (1990); 'Principles and Strategies of Effective
Community Participation', Health Promotion International, Vol 5, No 3.
Brown, I. (1994); 'Community and Participation for General Practice:
Perceptions of General Practitioners and Community Nurses', Journal of
Social Science and Medicine, Vol 39, No 3.
Dixon, J. (1989); 'The Limits and Potential of Community Development for
Personal and Social Change', Community Health Studies, Vol 13, No 1.
Dwyer, J. (1989); 'The Politics of Participation', Community Health Studies,
Vol 13, No 1.
Freyens, P. et al, (1993); 'How do health workers see community
participation?', World Health Forum, Vol 14.
Hamilton-Smith, E. (1975); 'Issues in the Measurement of 'Community Need',
Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol 10, No 1.
Hunt, S. (1990) 'Building Alliances: Professional and Political Issues in
Community Participation - Examples from a Health and Community Development
Project', Health Promotion International, Vol 5, No 3.
Labonte, R. (1989); ' Community and Professional Empowerment', The Canadian
Nurse, March.
Labonte, R. (1990); ''Empowerment: Notes on Professional and Community
Dimensions', Canadian Review of Social Policy, Issue 26, pp.64-75.
Freire, P. (1972); 'Pedagogy of the Oppressed', Penguin Books, London.
Tumwine, J. (1989); 'Community Participation as Myth or Reality: A Personal
Experience from Zimbabwe', Health Policy and Planning, Vol 4, No 2.
Woelk, G. (1992); 'Cultural and Structural Influences in the Creation of and
Participation in Community Health Programmes', Journal of Social Science and
Medicine, Vol 35, No 4.
Carolyn Frohmader
Executive Director
Women With Disabilities Australia (WWDA)
PO Box 229, Dickson, ACT 2602
Ph: +61 2 62421310 Fax: +61 2 62421314
email: [log in to unmask]
email: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://www.wwda.org.au
----- Original Message -----
From: jim <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:31 AM
Subject: IMPACT of Community Participation
> Hello:
>
> We are presently engaged in a study of "citizen" (also called lay,
> public or community) participation in health reform. We are looking for
> tools and methods for assessing the IMPACT of citizen participation on
> decision-making and decisions made. More specifically, we are interested
> in answering the often-asked question "does citizen participation make a
> difference?
>
> I would greatly appreciate receiving any information you might have
> regarding the measurement of IMPACT of citizen participation.
>
> Best regards Jim
>
> Dr. C. James Frankish, BC Health Research Scholar
> Acting Director, Institute of Health Promotion Research
> Assistant Professor, Division of Preventive Medicine & Health Promotion
> Department of Health Care & Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine
> University of British Columbia
> Room 308, LPC Building, 2206 East Mall Vancouver BC V6T 1Z3
> Ph:604-822-9205 Fax:604-822-9210 E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> Web Site http://www.ihpr.ubc.ca
>
|
