Participation, power and boundaries

Participation is more than one thing

Projects may involve people in many different ways:

Choose the level that fits the project, then be honest about what people can genuinely influence.

Strong LX work does not always mean full co-production or LX-led work. It means being honest about what people can genuinely influence.

Many people use Arnstein’s ladder to distinguish non-participation, tokenism and higher levels of participation such as partnership, delegation and citizen control.

It also notes that consultation or informing can sometimes be an honest description when full co-production is not feasible.

The IAP2 public participation spectrum is also useful because it distinguishes different levels of public impact, from informing and consulting through to involving, collaborating and empowering.

The LX Lens uses this simple principle:

Choose the level of involvement that fits what the project needs to learn, decide or change. Then be clear about what people can genuinely influence.

Quick honesty check for your project Before naming the participation approach, ask:

1. What are we inviting people with LX to influence?

Ideas, scope, design, data collection, analysis, recommendations, decisions or implementation?

2. What is already decided?

What is fixed, out of scope, constrained by law, policy, funding, time or governance?

3. What will happen with what people share?

How will input be considered, checked, used and fed back?

Consultation is not the problem. The problem is calling consultation co-design and inviting people to shape decisions that have already been made. Or asking them to share deeply personal knowledge without a pathway for influence.

Power, influence and boundaries

Meaningful LX work is not just about inviting people into a project. It is about being clear what power, influence and support they actually have.

People with LX may be asked to contribute to projects where organisations, funders, clinicians, researchers, policy teams or consultants already hold most of the decision-making power.

If this power is not named, it still operates. It simply becomes harder to challenge.

This does not mean every project can offer unlimited influence. Boundaries are often real. Law, policy, funding, procurement, governance, contracts, safety and ethics all matter.

But hidden limits cause harm.

Strong LX projects are honest about:

• what is already decided and what is still open
• what contributors can and cannot influence
• why limits exist
• who will make final decisions
• how contributors will hear what happened with their input

For example, a six-month local service improvement project may only be able to name the need to change drug laws without being able to achieve that. But it may still be able to involve people with LX in shaping the project purpose, naming risks (including if drug laws stay the same), designing engagement, interpreting findings, strengthening recommendations and influencing local practice.

Clarity about limits is not a failure of LX work. It is one of the conditions that makes LX work safer and more meaningful.