Unpacking 'Participation': Models, Meanings and Practices

"Participation" has entered the development mainstream and is used by a variety of institutions, but what it means can vary enormously between different actors. This article explores some of the meanings and practices associated with participation, in theory and in practice. It suggests that it is vital to pay closer attention to who is participating, in what, and for whose benefit. The paper argues that for the democratising promise of participation to be realised, the concept needs to be clarified.

Andrea Cornwall begins by exploring typologies as a starting point for differentiating degrees and kinds of participation. She describes Arnstein's (1969) model, which highlights the centrality of power and control. Arnstein's point of departure is the citizen on the receiving end of projects or programmes. She draws a distinction between "citizen power", which includes citizen control, delegated power, and partnership, and "tokenism", in which she includes consultation, informing, and placation. Cornwall notes that the activities she associates with "tokenism" play a role in the efforts - and indeed the definitions - of development organisations claiming to promote participation. The World Bank, for example, includes both giving information and consultation as forms of participation, and goes on to equate the provision of information with "empowerment" (1996). (Cornwall points out that keeping a flow of information going is in itself important, rather than being simply a "lesser" form of participation.) Jules Pretty's (1995) typology of participation speaks more to the user of participatory approaches. His typology is equally normative: going from "bad" forms of participation - the inclusion model of token representatives with no real power, which he characterises as manipulative participation, and passive participation subsequent to decisions that have already been made - to "better" forms, such as interactive participation, which involves interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple perspectives and make use of systemic and structured learning processes, and self-mobilisation, whereby people participate by taking initiatives independently of external institutions to change systems. Pretty makes clear that the motivations of those who initiate participation are an important factor.

Cornwall states that, in practice, all of the forms and meanings of participation identified in these kinds of typologies may be found in a single project or process, at different stages. "The distinctions that typologies present as clear and unambiguous emerge as rather more indistinct. Indeed, the blurring of boundaries is in itself a product of the engagement of a variety of different actors in participatory processes, each of whom might have a rather different perception of what 'participation' means. As a result, matters are more complex than would seem to be the case from the often-used distinction between participation as a means, often equated with 'instrumental' participation, and participation as an end in itself, what has come to be regarded as 'transformative' participation. This is because the intentionality of those who initiate community participation or use participatory methodologies to facilitate community development is only part of the story."

While typologies like these differentiate kinds of participation, Cornwall points out that they do not tell us much about the different kinds of participants who take part in community development projects. "Participation as praxis is, after all, rarely a seamless process; rather, it constitutes a terrain of contestation, in which relations of power between different actors, each with their own 'projects', shape and reshape the boundaries of action." Further, participation can exacerbate the exclusion of particular groups unless efforts are made to include them. "'Invited spaces' and opportunities to participate that are made available by community development workers - whether in response to statutory obligations or their own initiative - are often structured and owned by those who provide them, no matter how participatory they may seek to be. Transferring that ownership to those who come to fill them is far from easy; sometimes, such spaces are regarded, in a very instrumental way by participants, as means to gain access to benefits or to improve their own access to services." Stakeholder categories are often treated as unproblematic and bounded, but they raise a number of questions about legitimacy and can undermine economically and socially significant relationships between various social strata within the community. Being involved in a process is not equivalent to having a voice, and participatory approaches can also have negative consequences. While those who initiate participatory processes at the community level may create space for people to speak up and out, they have no control whatsoever over what may happen as a consequence. Mukasa (2000), for example, reports the indignance of older men as women involved in a participatory rural appraisal (PRA) process began to challenge them; she also reports beatings and other forms of abuse that came in the wake of efforts to empower women and enable them to exercise voice. Furthermore, there is an understanding that if the technical tools are right, then full participation will occur. Less attention has been directed towards self-exclusion which can be associated with simple practicalities, such as timing and duration, a lack of confidence, and participation fatigue from those who lack faith in the process due to previous experiences.

Related to the question of who participates is what they participate in, and, as a corollary, who participates in which activities and at which stages in the process. Going back to the typologies of participation outlined earlier, Cornwall notes that different kinds of participation imply significantly different levels of engagement. Distinctions need to be made about how and on what basis different people engage in order to make sense of what "participation" actually involves in community development initiatives. To speak of "involving people in decision-making" implies that all and any decisions are up for grabs. Yet, it is important to be clear about exactly which decisions the public have the opportunity to participate in, and indeed which members of the public participate in different kinds of decision-making fora. On closer inspection, claims to have "involved the public" may boil down to having a few conversations with a couple of community leaders or calling people to a public meeting, which only the most active members of a community attend. Equally, a participatory process approach might advocate for the public to be involved "at all stages in the process". But greater clarity is needed to discern what is contained within the process, and what is beyond its bounds.

For these reasons, Cornwall argues, understanding the complex dynamics of community engagement in various contexts requires an approach that views participation as an inherently dynamic process, not a technique. Spelling out with specificity the what, who, and how of participation helps clarify distinctions between various forms, distinguishing between superficial and more genuine forms. Enabling voice and influence via "invited participation" - as well as providing support to popular mobilisation, which seeks to influence policy through advocacy rather than negotiation, without taking over and tutoring "the people" to speak to power in "acceptable" ways - is the challenge for community development.