Typologies of Participation

Participatory engagement often leads to community participants having ownership of a direction, course of action or decision, and its implementation, where previously power groups, such as governments or corporations may have had sole carriage and ownership. This can cause tensions between the groups seeking participation and the participatory decision makers, who may have significantly different interests or opinions to the former. In addition, the greater the degree of participation in the decision making process, the higher the level of perceived ownership of the decision.



In designing an engagement process, we should be careful to consider the implications of the proposed level of participation so it doesn't promise a level of power and ongoing participation that wont be acted upon. It is important also to design processes that are empowering, and don't merely offer ‘token’ levels of participation - this can lead to participant apathy and cynicism.

Robinson (2002) notes the the level or participation must also be suited to the level of complexity and risk inherent in the situation, or otherwise participants will not trust the process. That is, if a situation is very complex and has a large amount of risk (perceived or otherwise) involved (for example, rad waste disposal or new power station development), you must give over more information and more power through participation for participants to feel in control of a potentially scary situation.

Public trust and participatory involvement (Robinson 2002)

The two typologies below outline various levels of participant power and engagement in participatory processes.

Pretty and Hine Typology of Participation
Pretty J & Hine R (1999) Participatory appraisal for community assessment Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex


The Pretty and Hine typology of participation differentiates participatory processes according to the level of power agencies wish to devolve to participants in determining outcomes and actions. It ranges from "manipulative participation" (that designed to give the impression of participation to a group, with no power or decision making ability attached) to "interactive participation" (participation in joint analysis, with groups taking control over decisions and having a stake in maintaining outcomes) and "self-mobilisation" (participation outside of institutions to change systems, and collective action).

Adapted Briggs Typology of Participation
Probst, Hagmann, Becker, and Fernandez (2000) reported in McDougall & Braun (www.idrc.ca/en/ev-43432-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html)

Briggs' typology of participation originally posited four modes of research participation which covered processes in which control over the research process moved from scientists to non-research people. Probst and Hagmann then generalized Biggs’ typology modes to encompass more general participatory engagements. The typology outlines the four modes as sitting on a scale which progresses from all power residing with a single actor to a distribution of power over all the participating stakeholders:

• Contractual participation: One social actor has sole decision-making power over most of the decisions taken in an innovation process, and can be considered the ‘owner’ of this process. Others participate in activities defined by that stakeholder group – ie, they are (formally or informally) ‘contracted’ to provide services and support.
• Consultative participation: Most of the key decisions are kept with one stakeholder group, but emphasis is put on consultation and gathering information from others, especially for the identification of constraints and opportunities, priority-setting and/or evaluation.
• Collaborative participation: Different actors collaborate and are put on a more equal footing, emphasizing linkage through an exchange of knowledge, different contributions and a sharing of decision-making power during the innovation process.
• Collegiate participation: Different actors work together as colleagues or partners. ‘Ownership’ and responsibility are equally distributed among the partners, and decisions are made by agreement or consensus among all actors.