Comparar métodos
Examine os métodos selecionados lado a lado; as linhas que diferem ficam destacadas.
| Citizen Participation Assessment× | Realist Evaluation× | |
|---|---|---|
| Área≠ | Public Administration | Public Policy |
| Família | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Ano de origem≠ | 1969 | 1997 |
| Autor original≠ | Sherry R. Arnstein | Ray Pawson & Nick Tilley |
| Tipo≠ | Survey- and rubric-based participation assessment | Theory-driven, generative evaluation approach |
| Fonte seminal≠ | Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. DOI ↗ | Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation. London: SAGE Publications. ISBN: 9780761950097 |
| Outros nomes | Public Participation Assessment, Ladder of Participation Analysis, Citizen Engagement Measurement, Participatory Governance Assessment | Realistic Evaluation, Theory-Driven Realist Evaluation, CMO Configuration Analysis, Pawson-Tilley Evaluation |
| Relacionados | 4 | 4 |
| Resumo≠ | Citizen participation assessment is a method for evaluating how, and how genuinely, members of the public are involved in government decisions that affect them. Its conceptual backbone is Sherry Arnstein's 1969 'ladder of citizen participation,' which arranged forms of involvement on eight rungs ranging from manipulation and therapy (non-participation) through informing, consultation and placation (tokenism) up to partnership, delegated power and citizen control (degrees of citizen power). The assessment combines this ladder with surveys of participants and documentary review to classify a participation process by its level of real power-sharing, judge who is included, and diagnose whether engagement is substantive or merely symbolic. | Realist evaluation is a theory-driven approach to evaluating programs and policies that asks not simply 'does it work?' but 'what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and why?'. Developed by Ray Pawson and Nick Tilley in their 1997 book Realistic Evaluation, it treats interventions as theories incarnate: programs offer resources or opportunities that trigger underlying mechanisms of reasoning and response in participants, and those mechanisms only fire in particular contexts. The unit of analysis is the Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) configuration, and the goal is to build and refine middle-range theory that explains differential outcomes across settings. |
| ScholarGateConjunto de dados ↗ |
|
|