However, considerable previous work from other
disciplines makes the case that the concept of participation
must be handled with care. Participation
has become a loaded term that is prone to
unrefecting usage. Differing degrees of participation
are in evidence in the broader literature of development
as well as in HCI (Dearden & Rizvi, 2008).
Michener (1998) distinguishes between two forms
of participation: strong, which involves partnership
and shared control of the research project, and
weak, which involves only consultation of those being
researched.1 Oakley (1991) offers three degrees
of participation. Cooke & Kothari (2001) offer a
comprehensive critique of participatory approaches
in development, examining it as a possible “tyranny.”
Heeks (1999) has been critical of participation
in its present incarnation, listing myriad ways in
which the rhetoric and reality of participation can
differ, resulting in injurious ignorance of various
sorts
However, considerable previous work from otherdisciplines makes the case that the concept of participationmust be handled with care. Participationhas become a loaded term that is prone tounrefecting usage. Differing degrees of participationare in evidence in the broader literature of developmentas well as in HCI (Dearden & Rizvi, 2008).Michener (1998) distinguishes between two formsof participation: strong, which involves partnershipand shared control of the research project, andweak, which involves only consultation of those beingresearched.1 Oakley (1991) offers three degreesof participation. Cooke & Kothari (2001) offer acomprehensive critique of participatory approachesin development, examining it as a possible “tyranny.”Heeks (1999) has been critical of participationin its present incarnation, listing myriad ways inwhich the rhetoric and reality of participation candiffer, resulting in injurious ignorance of varioussorts
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..