Using Retrospective and Prospective Frame Elicitation to Evaluate Environmental Disputes

Evaluation of intervention in environmental disputes has largely relied on retrospective approaches. These are summative in nature, usually conducted at the conclusion of the intervention effort, and sometimes after one or two years. Retrospective analyses can offer insight into whether or not an intervention process was successful on a number of important dimensions. For example, success can be assessed according to whether or not an agreement was reached and whether it was feasible and sustainable; how the decision-making process compared with other alternative processes; whether the agreed-upon actions were taken; whether adversarial relationships changed; to what extent parties were satisfied with process, representation, and outcome; whether parties' relationships improved, or at least did not worsen; and whether or not learning took place. 1 All of these kinds of assessments can be particularly beneficial to the stakeholders should they participate in subsequent intervention or consensus-building efforts. They provide cumulative insights for agencies and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) practitioners, and even for stakeholders who meet again. However, they do not offer participants an opportunity for reflection about a process in which they are currently engaged, and which could benefit from the evaluative information. In this paper, we propose a more contemporaneous approach to evaluation that interjects opportunities for " on line " sense-making 2 about the intervention or consensus-building process and about participants' own views of the issues while the conflict interactions are unfolding. The proposed evaluation approach utilizes frame elicitation, an analytic technique based primarily on interviews with the participating stakeholders, that reveals how the participants are interpreting critical aspects of the dispute. Evaluators then provide feedback to participants about their frames and how they may be influencing their views about the issues and the process, as well as how their frames might unnecessarily reduce the realm of possible agreements. The goal of providing parties with framing information is to help them and any intervenors reflect on the ADR process while it is still underway, so they can profit from it (rather than get the information after the process is over). Ideally, this reflection enhances the participants' overall chances of reaching consensus. At the very least, it reveals the implicit choices parties often make through the frames they choose to apply to a dispute, and thereby points to avenues for improving current and future dialogue. We offer two case examples of how frame elicitation techniques have been used for prospective evaluation …