Skip to navigation Skip to content

Is co-creation more than participation?

Subscribe to our blog postings by entering your email address:

Co-creation, and related terms like co-design, co-production, co-construction and co-innovation, are becoming increasingly popular. Upon closer scrutiny they share many characteristics with participatory processes. Is there a difference between the two – co-creation and participation – and if yes, what is it?

Let us first look at participation. Not all participatory processes are the same. They differ with regard to who is involved, who initiated the process and for what reason, the anticipated outcomes, the duration, the context in which it takes place, and who has control over the process and outcomes. A well-known classification of participation is the ladder depicted below (from Arnstein 1969), which was developed for citizen participation, but applies equally to any stakeholders. The ladder has eight rungs, associated with increasing shifts in power towards the participants. A succinct description of Arnstein’s ladder is provided in The Citizen’s Handbook.

Manipulation and therapy are not actually forms of participation although sometimes justification is sought for them by labeling them as participation. Informing, consultation and placation are weak forms of participation, since they allow only token stakeholder contributions, with those ‘running’ the participatory process retaining power over which pieces of information influence their decisions. Power sharing and joint decision making, which I suggest constitute genuine participation, only occur at the level of partnership and above (rungs 6-8).

                                              Arnstein’s ladder

Arnstein’s ladder focuses on the distribution of power in policy discourses and distinguishes the powerful from the ‘have-nots’, albeit lacking a recognition that neither are homogeneous groups. The typology is helpful in analysing and understanding outcomes of processes that are initiated by an entity that is perceived as powerful and authoritative such as a government agency, university or church. It is helpful because it draws attention to the importance of power relations, and who holds decision making power and the funds to implement policies and plans.

Now let’s compare genuine participation and co-creation. Both denote a process that involves active doing. Co-creation involves a collaborative process in which diverse stakeholders take part. Just as the involvement in a participatory process is voluntary, so too is partaking in a co-creation effort. Both involve the participants learning from each other. The aim of the learning is to produce “actionable knowledge” – decisions about what needs to be done about the problem and how to do it. These can include a joint action plan or an agreement to redistribute funds, for example. Neither co-creation nor genuine participation are, therefore, ends in themselves; both processes aim for an outcome that is the product of the collaborative effort of those involved.

As with participation, co-creation is more likely to be successful if there is a shared problem that:

  • has some degree of urgency,
  • stakeholders have an interest in solving, and
  • stakeholders feel they can do something about and cannot solve on their own.

There are, therefore, many similarities between genuine participation and co-creation. What are the points of difference? We have already seen that genuine participation is only one category of participation and that not all forms of participation are appropriate for co-creation.

The main difference is that co-creation does not stop at actionable knowledge. As Arnim Wiek points out in his blog post ‘Eight strategies for co-creation’, co-creation also requires practical outcomes and this is a step that is not necessarily part of genuine participation (although there are participatory processes that also go beyond actionable knowledge, eg. where stakeholders participate in the implementation of decisions). Wiek describes these practical outcomes as “emotional, behavioral, physical and other changes in the real world”. They move from actionable knowledge to real change, for example from developing a joint action plan to implementing it or from agreeing to redistribute funds to actually redistributing them.

In conclusion, genuine participation is a precondition for co-creation, with co-creation taking a further step in producing practical outcomes.

This blog post originally appeared in the Integration and Implementation Insights blog ( as “Is co-creation more than participation” and is reposted with the author’s permission.”


Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 4: 216-224.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog post are the views of the author(s), and not an official position of the institute or funder.



Just to note this is a repost of the blog originally published on in July 2016. The "Integration and Implementation Insights" site is building research resources for action-oriented team science through syntheses of practices and theories.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

We moderate comments on our blog posts so there may be a short delay before your comment is posted: whilst we welcome a range of points of view and wish to foster debate, we reserve the right to delete those comments which are abusive, off-topic, or use foul language, or that appear to be spam.
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Enter the characters shown in the image.


Printed from /blogs/segs/co-creation-more-participation on 24/02/24 01:23:26 PM

The James Hutton Research Institute is the result of the merger in April 2011 of MLURI and SCRI. This merger formed a new powerhouse for research into food, land use, and climate change.