Measuring Participation Clause Samples

Measuring Participation. Taking these three models together and the follow-up studies by the proponents, neither ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ nor ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ created their typology to be used as a tool to measure or indicate an ideal level of participation (▇▇▇▇, 2008; ▇▇▇▇▇, 2001, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1997). Pertinently, both ▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ have acknowledged the cultural bias of their models, which they admit to having created from Western perspectives, unsuited to general application (▇▇▇▇, 2008; ▇▇▇▇▇, 2010). I would argue that ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ model, based on ▇▇▇▇’▇ Ladder (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 1997) also shares this cultural bias, as do many other existing Ladder-based models. It would therefore appear that, to attempt to measure participation using a tool with cultural bias and subsequently ungeneralisable premises would be to arrive at untenable outcomes. From the literature, it can be surmised that measuring participation is not feasible for the following reasons: (1) There is no ‘right’ or acceptable level of participation for comparison. Following ▇▇▇▇’▇ typology, we have either participation or non-participation. Within participation, individuals are to engage at levels they find comfortable, which may vary (UNCRC, 1989). (2) The age and maturity of the child must be considered (UNCRC, 1989). Participation is to suit the capabilities and willingness of the child and there is no single standard for determining this (▇▇▇▇, 2008; ▇▇▇▇▇, 2010). (3) Voice’ or participation may take the shape of refusing to participate - not to be considered absence of participation (▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2006) or confused with non- participation (▇▇▇▇, 1992). It is difficult to see how we can measure elected non- participation. ▇▇▇▇ cedes that the highest ladder level is not ‘the best’ and there is no need, neither is it practical, for all to aim for it (▇▇▇▇, 2008). Neither is participation at a lower level synonymous with falling short; there are gains from all levels of authentic participation (ibid). Rather, ▇▇▇▇’▇ ladder highlights the possibilities and available choices (ibid), central to empowerment. Lansdown (2010) recommends indicators for measuring extent, quality and impact of participation, which is not synonymous with determining how much is ‘enough.’ The literature suggests that ‘enough’ is what suits the child and their best interests (UNCRC, 1989), which may vary from one task to the next (▇▇▇▇, 2008; ▇▇▇▇▇, 2010). In ▇▇▇▇’▇ Ladder review (▇▇▇▇, 2008), he suggests that children are presented with various opportunities, tools and le...