Hart's Ladder of Participation
Critically analyse Hart’s Ladder of Participation.
What are the types of decisions children and young people can be involved in, and what is the link between the children and the adults when the participatory approach is put into practice? When should adults be more active in guiding children, and when should they step back and allow the children to work autonomously? Roger Hart (1992) developed a model, the Ladder of participation, which is made up from eight steps, each step indicate increasing degrees of pupil participation and dissimilar forms of cooperation with adults. The three lowest steps on the ladder of participation are called the “non-participation” steps , and they strongly state that many projects claiming to engage children could be characterised as non-participation rather than as belonging to the higher steps on the ladder or what he calls “real participation’’. Under the category of non participation there are 3 subcategories. Manipulation which is the lowest rung in the ladder of participation which states that children do as directed without understanding of purpose for the activities. Secondly is decoration where children understand the purpose but have no input in how they are planned. Last at the non participation category, Tokenism, shows an increase in participation where children may be consulted with minimal opportunities for feedback.
Moving on to the category of the degree of participation we are faced with rung 4 which is called assigned, but informed. At this rung adults led the activities but children understand the purpose having a decision-making process and a role. As you move on, on the ladder, you will come across rung 5 which is the consulted and informed face which states that youth are consulted and informed about how their input will be used and the outcomes of adult decisions. As I stated, as you go up the ladder the degree of participation increases. At rung 6 at the activities, decision making is shared with youth,
What are the types of decisions children and young people can be involved in, and what is the link between the children and the adults when the participatory approach is put into practice? When should adults be more active in guiding children, and when should they step back and allow the children to work autonomously? Roger Hart (1992) developed a model, the Ladder of participation, which is made up from eight steps, each step indicate increasing degrees of pupil participation and dissimilar forms of cooperation with adults. The three lowest steps on the ladder of participation are called the “non-participation” steps , and they strongly state that many projects claiming to engage children could be characterised as non-participation rather than as belonging to the higher steps on the ladder or what he calls “real participation’’. Under the category of non participation there are 3 subcategories. Manipulation which is the lowest rung in the ladder of participation which states that children do as directed without understanding of purpose for the activities. Secondly is decoration where children understand the purpose but have no input in how they are planned. Last at the non participation category, Tokenism, shows an increase in participation where children may be consulted with minimal opportunities for feedback.
Moving on to the category of the degree of participation we are faced with rung 4 which is called assigned, but informed. At this rung adults led the activities but children understand the purpose having a decision-making process and a role. As you move on, on the ladder, you will come across rung 5 which is the consulted and informed face which states that youth are consulted and informed about how their input will be used and the outcomes of adult decisions. As I stated, as you go up the ladder the degree of participation increases. At rung 6 at the activities, decision making is shared with youth,
References: Boyden, J. (1997) 'Childhood and the Policy Makers: A Comparative Perspective on the Globalization of Childhood ' in James, A Cairns, E. (1992) ‘Society as child abuser: Northern Ireland’ in W. Stainton Rogers, D. Hevey and E Cantwell, N. (1998) ‘The history, content and impact of the Convention on the Rights of the Child’, in E CVT (2002) Monitoring and evaluation in psychosocial programmes: principles of methodology, produced in the meeting of The International Working Group on Monitoring and Development FOCUS International, Hicodef, Action Aid Nepal, ELRU, National Working for Water Programme, Immediate Development Communications (2001) Rights Through Ghana Red Cross Society and the Scout Association of Ghana (1993) Action for Youth: Reaching Working Adolescents with HIV/AIDS Prevention – Evaluation of a Youth-to-Youth Hannam, D. (2001) A Pilot Study to evaluate the impact of student participation aspects of the citizenship order on standards of education in secondary schools Harris, J. (1998) The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out The Way They Do London:Bloomsbury. Hart, R. (1992) Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship, Innocenti essays No.4, UNICEF International Child Development Centre, Florence, Italy. Hart J. (2002a) Participation of Conflict-Affected Children in Humanitarian Action: Learning from Eastern Sri Lanka draft report prepared for CIDA. Hearn, J. (1989) 'Child abuse and men 's violence ', in THE VIOLENCE AGAINST CHILDREN STUDY GROUP, Taking Child Abuse Seriously: Contemporary Issues in Child Protection Theory Kirby, P. with S. Bryson (2002) Measuring the Magic? Evaluating and Researching Young People’s Participation in Public Decision Making, The Carnegie Young People Initiative, London. Kitzinger, J. (1997) 'Who Are You Kidding?: Children, Power and the Struggle Against Sexual Abuse ' in James, A Lansdown, G. (2003) ‘Youth Participation in Decision-Making’ Chapter 10 in World Youth Report, Advance Version, October. Lee, K. A. (2001) Child Participation in PLAN International: An Internal Benchmarking Document, PLAN ROCCA. Liebel, M. (2000) Working Children’s Protagonism Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin. O’Kane, C. (2002) ‘Key Reflections and Learnings from Children’s Participation and Children’s Organisations in South and Central Asia: Moving Towards Partnerships with Adults’, Phillips, B. (2000) The End of Paternalism? Child beneficiary participation and project effectiveness The Hague: ISS Rajbhandari, J., R. Hart and C. Khatiwada (1999) The Children’s Clubs of Nepal: A Democratic Experiment, Save the Children Norway/US, Kathmandu, Nepal. Santos Pais, M. (2000) 'Child Participation and the Convention on the Rights of the Child ' in R. Ranjani (ed.) The Political Participation of Children Harvard Center for Population and UNICEF (2000) The Participation Rights of Adolescents: A Strategic Approach, Final Consensus Draft, November 2000. Van Beers, H. (2002) Children’s Participation – Experiences in capacity building and training, Save the Children Sweden.