Evaluating participation processes in community development

doi:10.1016/0149-7189(95)00030-5

Evaluation and Program Planning

Volume 18, Issue 4, October–December 1995, Pages 371-383

https://doi.org/10.1016/0149-7189(95)00030-5 Get rights and content

Abstract

In this study evaluation methodology is discussed in the context of a participatory community health development project. The paper presents a study of the participatory dynamics of the project and explores the implications thereof for the evaluation of participation. The principal source of data is interviews conducted with 13 selected participants in the project. Analysis of interview data is done using a structured hermeneutic method specifically developed for the purpose. The methodology and findings of this study are discussed in relation to the need to find ways of evaluating participatory processes. The authors develop a set of objectives which they suggest should be central to the evaluation of participatory processes in such contexts.

References (39)

A. Butchart et al.
Within and without: Images of community and implications for South African psychology
Social Science and Medicine
(1990)
S.B. Rifkin et al.
Primary health care: On measuring participation
Social Science and Medicine
(1988)
R. Tandon
Participatory evaluation and research: Main concepts and issues
R.B. Addison
Grounded hermeneutic research
F.J. Bennett
Community participation in Primary Health Care
D. Billis
Welfare bureaucracies: Their design and change in response to social problems
(1984)
D. Billis
Organising public and voluntary agencies
(1993)
A. Bjaras et al.
A new approach to community participation assessment
Health Promotion International
(1991)
A. Boeren
Getting involved: Communication for participatory development
Community Development Journal
(1992)
L.D. Brown
People centred development and participatory research
Harvard Educational Review
(1985)

L.M. Brown et al.

Reading for self and moral voice: A method for interpreting narratives of real-life moral conflict and choice

J.M. Cohen et al.

Rural development. Participation: Concepts and measures for project design, implementation and evaluation

(1977)

R. Elliott

Comprehensive process analysis: Understanding the change process in significant therapy events

E. Ellsworth

Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy

Harvard Educational Review

(1989)

K. Erasmus

Saints or sinners NGO's in development

D.M. Fetterman

Ethnography: Step by step

(1989)

M. Feuerstein

Participatory evaluation: An appropriate technology for community health programmes

Contact

(1980)

P. Freire

Pedagogy of the oppressed

(1972)

R.K. Genganje et al.

People's image of development: Development implications

Journal of Rural Development

(1991)

Cited by (28)

Towards understanding participatory processes: Framework, application and results
2015, Journal of Environmental Management
Citation Excerpt :
Allison and Hobbs (2006), Bellamy et al. (2001), Chess and Purcell (1999) and Cumming (2000) refer to the social context broadly and Foley et al. (2003) refer to social “natural resources”. Others more specifically mention variables linked to conflict and mistrust as hindering contextual effects for participatory processes (Beierle and Cayford, 2002; Beierle and Konisky, 2000; Bellamy et al., 2001; Branch and Bradbury, 2006; Brocklesby, 2009; Jackson and Keys, 1984; Kelly and Van Vlaenderen, 1995; Ong, 2000; Ostrom, 2005; Perez et al., 2011; Webler and Tuler, 2002). The COPP Frameworks adopts the options suggested by Beierle and Cayford (2002) to describe the pre-existing relationships among participants: no pre-existing relationship, high degree of mistrust and conflict, moderate trust and conflict or good pre-existing relationships and trust.
Many scholars point out that in complex and contested decision-making and planning situations, participatory processes have clear advantages over “traditional” or non-participatory processes. Improving our understanding of which participatory process elements or combination of elements contribute to specific outcomes demands a comparative diagnosis of multiple case studies based on a systematic framework. This paper describes the theoretical foundation and application of a diagnostic framework developed for the description and comparative analysis of participatory processes. The framework for the Comparison of Participatory Processes (COPP) is composed of three dimensions: context, process, and outputs outcomes and impacts. For each dimension, a list of variables is provided, with associated selectable options. The framework also requires clarification of three monitoring and evaluation elements. The COPP framework is then applied to five participatory processes across five different contexts: three located in the Mekong basin in Southeast Asia and two in eastern Africa. The goal is to test first if the framework facilitates the development of a comprehensive and clear description of participatory processes, and second, if a diagnostic step can be facilitated by applying the descriptions in a cross-comparative analysis. The paper concludes that despite a few challenges, the COPP framework is sufficiently generic to derive clear and consistent descriptions. A sample of only five case studies restricts the derivation of robust insights. Nevertheless, three testable hypothesis were derived, which would need to be tested with a much larger sample of case studies in order to substantiate the efficacy of process characteristics and attributes. Ultimately, such hypotheses and subsequent analytical efforts would contribute to the advancement of this increasingly prominent research domain.
Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods
2013, European Journal of Operational Research
Citation Excerpt :
In making criticisms of attempts to take a controlled or quasi-experimental approach, some authors have advanced alternatives. Kelly and Van Vlaenderen (1995), McKay (1998), Jenkins and Bennett (1999), De Vreede and Dickson (2000), Gopal and Prasad (2000) and Allsop and Taket (2003) advocate ‘emergent’ methodologies: i.e., ones where criteria for evaluation emerge through engagement with stakeholders. Eden (1995) makes the important point that most interventions are complex, and researchers can rarely anticipate everything that will become important, so the evaluation approach needs to be able to respond to the unexpected.
Operational researchers and social scientists often make significant claims for the value of systemic problem structuring and other participative methods. However, when they present evidence to support these claims, it is usually based on single case studies of intervention. There have been very few attempts at evaluating across methods and across interventions undertaken by different people. This is because, in any local intervention, contextual factors, the skills of the researcher and the purposes being pursued by stakeholders affect the perceived success or failure of a method. The use of standard criteria for comparing methods is therefore made problematic by the need to consider what is unique in each intervention. So, is it possible to develop a single evaluation approach that can support both locally meaningful evaluations and longer-term comparisons between methods? This paper outlines a methodological framework for the evaluation of systemic problem structuring methods that seeks to do just this.
Public participation in regional health policy: A theoretical framework
2005, Health Policy
How best to involve the public in local health policy development and decision-making is an ongoing challenge for health systems. In the current literature on this topic, there is discussion of the lack of rigorous evaluations upon which to draw generalizable conclusions about what public participation methods work best and for what kinds of outcomes. We believe that for evaluation research on public participation to build generalizable claims, some consistency in theoretical framework is needed. A major objective of the research reported on here was to develop such a theoretical framework for understanding public participation in the context of regionalized health governance. The overall research design followed the grounded theory tradition, and included five case studies of public participation initiatives in an urban regional health authority in Canada, as well as a postal survey of community organizations. This particular article describes the theoretical framework developed, with an emphasis on explaining the following major components of the framework: public participation initiatives as a process; policy making processes with a health region; social context as symbolic and political institutions; policy communities; and health of the population as the ultimate outcome of public participation.
We believe that this framework is a good beginning to making more explicit the factors that may be considered when evaluating both the processes and outcomes of public participation in health policy development.
Participatory program planning: Including program participants and evaluators
2002, Evaluation and Program Planning
Many evaluators have written about the usefulness of including stakeholders and program participants in the design and implementation of program evaluations. Policy makers are also beginning to see benefits of including those most affected by policies in their work. However, there has been little attention paid to program planning and how future program participants can assist in the process. Because of their knowledge of program design and their experience with participatory evaluations, many evaluators are well equipped to conduct participatory program planning. Including future program participants and evaluators in program planning could not only improve programs, but also allow for evaluative measures to be included and utilized in the design and administration of new programs. Presented in this paper is a generalizable program planning model that includes participants in eight planning components. Some of the pitfalls of participatory work as well as examples of how participatory planning could be used in various contexts are provided.
How family firms use governance mechanisms to mitigate the risks of ecosystems: a case study from healthcare
2023, Small Business Economics
Policy, Program Evaluation, and Research in Disability: Community Support for All
2023, Policy, Program Evaluation, and Research in Disability: Community Support for All

View all citing articles on Scopus

^☆: This study was conducted with financial assistance from the Rhodes University Joint Research Committee.

View full text

Evaluation in South AfricaEvaluating participation processes in community development☆

Abstract

Social Science and Medicine

Social Science and Medicine

Grounded hermeneutic research

Community participation in Primary Health Care

Welfare bureaucracies: Their design and change in response to social problems

Organising public and voluntary agencies

A new approach to community participation assessment

Health Promotion International

Getting involved: Communication for participatory development

Community Development Journal

People centred development and participatory research

Harvard Educational Review

Reading for self and moral voice: A method for interpreting narratives of real-life moral conflict and choice

Rural development. Participation: Concepts and measures for project design, implementation and evaluation

Comprehensive process analysis: Understanding the change process in significant therapy events

Why doesn't this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy

Harvard Educational Review

Saints or sinners NGO's in development

Ethnography: Step by step

Participatory evaluation: An appropriate technology for community health programmes

Contact

Pedagogy of the oppressed

People's image of development: Development implications

Journal of Rural Development

Evaluation in South Africa
Evaluating participation processes in community development☆