Understanding Levels of Participation in Research

For social economy organisations, a clear understanding of the different ways communities can be involved in research, and who holds power in that process, is essential. Without this understanding, research risks becoming tokenistic, rather than a tool to support social change and improve services. 

A useful framework for understanding levels of participation is Sherry Arnstein's Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969). This ladder illustrates participation as a spectrum, ranging from tokenistic consultation to shared decision making. When applied to engaged research, Arnstein’s ladder can help organisations reflect on whether the communities they work with are merely being researched about, actively researched with, or empowered to shape research agendas, methods, and outcomes. Supporting social economy organisations to work at this higher end of the ladder – where research becomes truly engaged - is central to the RISE project’s goal.

Below, we break down each rung of the ladder to illustrate how different levels of participation play out in research. You can assess each approach to understand where your organisation's current research practice sits, and where you could progress for greater community engagement. 

 Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein, 1969, 217). 

Non-Participation (aims to control or placate, not empower) 

1. Manipulation: Communities are used to justify decisions they had no part in making. This means research is done to communities, not with them. 

2. Therapy: Communities may be given the illusion of involvement in research, but in practice are treated as subjects to be ‘fixed’ rather than partners in understanding or solving issues. 

Tokenism (communities may be heard but lack real power) 

3. Informing: Communities are told what the research is about or what the results are, but they have no say in shaping the research process or outcomes. 

4. Consultation: Communities are asked for their views (through surveys, interviews etc.), but there is no commitment to act on these inputs. 

5. Placation: Community members may sit on advisory groups or panels, but final decisions remain with researchers or research institutions, not the community. 

Citizen Power (communities hold real influence) 

6. Partnership: Communities and researchers work together, with power equally distributed. They jointly decide the research questions, methods, and how findings are used.  

7. Delegated Power: Communities hold significant formal decision-making or oversight control over research and how results are used. 

8. Citizen Control: Communities lead and manage research activities. External researchers may provide support, but community organisations have full authority. 

Reflecting on these levels can help social economy organisations understand not only where they currently sit on the ladder but also where they want to move to achieve more meaningful participation. Moving up the ladder is not just about changing research methods, it is about advocating for shared power, valuing community knowledge, and ensuring that research contributes to positive change defined by communities themselves.  

This topic, along with many other concepts are explained in depth as part of the RISE course, which will be freely available in the “training” section of this website this summer. 

Áine O'Connor - The Wheel

References: 

• Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225