Who's framing who? Some experimental evaluation criteria for DIPs (PLA 40)
It has been noted how few independent evaluations there have been of past attempts at DIPs. To an even greater extent, there have been few attempts to critically compare different DIPs. In this paper, the author carries out a comparative evaluation of the case studies presented in this edition of PLA Notes, using as evaluation criteria: diverse control; framing and scope; interactivity and interrogation; reference timeframe; transparency; and empowerment and/or advocacy.
At the workshop that led to this edition of PLA Notes, several~contributors noted how few independent evaluations there had been~of past attempts at DIPs. To an even greater extent there have been few attempts to critically compare different DIPs. To attempt this at all with incomplete information is perhaps foolhardy, especially since I bring my own biases towards the DIPs of which I have most knowledge. But as editors we believed it too important a task to be shrunk from. We hope readers, especially those who have been part of the DIPs analysed here, will take the following analysis in the spirit of heuristic debate.
This article was published in PLA 40: Deliberative Democracy and Citizen Empowerment (February 2001). Participatory Learning and Action (PLA, formerly PLA Notes) is the world's leading series on participatory learning and action approaches and methods. PLA publishes articles on participation aimed at practitioners, researchers, academics, students and activists. All articles are peer-reviewed by an international editorial board.
Click on ‘More information’ to visit: www.planotes.org~Click on 'Additional information' to download the whole issue or individual articles for this issue of PLA.