How can we understand PM?

Home Forums Thoughts About Participatory Modeling How can we understand PM?

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by Nagesh Kolagani Nagesh Kolagani 1 week, 3 days ago.

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #653
    Nagesh Kolagani
    Nagesh Kolagani
    Keymaster

    From:
    Beatrice Hedelin (beatrice.hedelin@kau.se)

    What perspectives are useful for understanding (analyzing/assessing/discussing) PM? Can the absence of basis for analysis be useful? Is there a such thing – the absence of perspective? How is it useful to explicitly report the underpinning perspective of a PM study? Is there a PM perspective that is “true”/”generic”? Perhaps perspectives can be more or less generic? Widely approved?, dominant? Objective?

    Should we as academics strive to define a ”true” basis for PM analysis/assessment or would it be important to start comparing different ones? E.g. what would the consequences be of implementing a certain way of understanding PM in practice? – In terms distribution of resources, for democracy, for coordination between geographical scales… etc.

    A PM study perspective can be characterized as theoretical, PM practitionner’s, or PM participant’s (and there is not one homogenous participant group, and one theoretical perspective…). How can the underpinning perspective of a PM study be described, other than theoretical/practical?

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.