Thesis

Participatory design processes: building an evaluation framework

Creator
Rights statement
Awarding institution
  • University of Strathclyde
Date of award
  • 2022
Thesis identifier
  • T16251
Person Identifier (Local)
  • 201483201
Qualification Level
Qualification Name
Department, School or Faculty
Abstract
  • The main aim of this thesis is the development, testing and application of a method for the assessment of participatory projects of urban planning and development. Extending greater opportunities for formal citizen involvement has been a mainstay of service and spatial planning policy in Scotland. However, the monitoring and evaluation [M&E] of a participatory endeavour [PE] is often neglected, which drives a wedge between narratives and actual experiences on the ground. Evaluation is important from several perspectives i.e., from PE sponsors to participants, as it endeavours to better understand whether participatory approaches are superior to other ways of working. This doctoral research addresses the lack of assessment and helps bridge the gap between participation claims and evidence by offering a Five Phase Sequence guiding evaluation of participation. I first asked why the Scottish Government supported a particular method for facilitating citizen and stakeholder participation i.e., the ‘charrette’. Then, I endeavoured to understand how this method had been implemented across Scotland. Finally, I asked what the process and outcome features can reveal about the effectiveness of such participatory initiatives. Answers to these questions are needed for two reasons. First, reflecting on programme implementation will benefit policy makers, commissioners and practitioners in the design and delivery of PEs as I offer a set of procedural recommendations. Second, I present a critique on the way formal citizen participation is currently conceptualised, implemented and passively revered as doing good. Broader literature is accepting there is no panacea for perfect participation; my study helps researchers interested in unearthing conditioning factors that either inhibit and/or support PEs as they play out in their specific contexts. A pause in the pursuit for better participation is needed; otherwise, theory and practice may endlessly centre on better processes to engage citizens in urban development projects to no avail. More practically, time, money and energy will be spent on procedural innovations that continue to fall short -due to unknown conditioning factors- of the anticipated outcomes. My study is framed by three core stages and uses a sequential, qualitative multi-method case study methodology to deliver a) an extensive in-breadth overview of Scotland’s Charrette Mainstreaming Programme [CMP], Activating Ideas [AI] and Making Places [MP] initiative, and b) an intensive, in-depth analysis of two charrette cases. Relying on evaluation theory, critical realism is the paradigmatic framework and an approach inspired by Realistic Evaluation [RE] was used, in the latter stage, to identify conditioning factors that contributed to the charrette cases’ effects. To analyse effectiveness of two charrette cases I conducted an outside, summative evaluation using six process and three outcome criteria (derived primarily from theory) to assess case quality through Client Team [CT], Design Team [DT] and participant perspectives. The Five Phase Sequence developed and tested for charrette evaluation is my main contribution. Findings first show the charrette mechanism has morphed into a more generic community engagement tool since its initial introduction through the 2010 Charrette Series. A national interest in community empowerment has significantly impacted who commissions a charrette-styled project and how it is used. Second, this study shows inherent tensions between national policy advocating more engagement and reaching idealised widespread, inclusive participation through a macro and micro focus of empirical practice. However, this study also shows several gains, which indicates a less an ideal participatory process is not a doomed pursuit.
Advisor / supervisor
  • Porta, Sergio
Resource Type
DOI

Relations

Items