2.3 CRITERIA FOR
The proposals were written in articles to facilitate
a simple evaluation similar to how legislative texts are evaluated.
Since the articles are conceived and written as self-sufficient
elementary propositions, in terms of their content, it allows a
very wide range of combinations between the articles, it being possible
to obtain in each combination a new text. In this way, through the
isolated evaluation of each article, we will be able, in the end,
to obtain a conceptually coherent synthesis that groups the most
favourably evaluated elementary proposals.
A first synthesis criterion with
respect to the most favourably evaluated proposals has been the
thematic grouping. In this sense, we have made 4 large thematic
groups which are the Alliance’s Poles for a Plural, Responsible
and United World: Humanity and Biosphere; Socio-Economy of Solidarity;
Governance and Citizenship; and Values, Culture, Art, Education
and Soci-ety. The synthesis allows us to obtain 4 new texts of proposals
on the gen-eral problematic of each pole with a large degree of
consensus on the con-tents.
A second synthesis criterion has
been the construction of a cross-proposal for an alternative model
to neo-liberal globalisation. This has been possible based on the
latter article aggregated to all the texts referring to global evaluation.
Following these lists of proposals made in the comments on the latter,
we have managed to extract the most favourably evaluated elementary
proposals for an alternative global proposal.
On the Number of Proposals of each Synthesis
From the point of view of the syntheses presentation, we have considered
it appropriate to make texts of around 30 articles.
Given that, for the time being, we have not managed
to submit for evalua-tion the 57 planned texts but only 35, we are
facing the problem that there is a highly unequal number of evaluated
proposals belonging to each Pole. Consequently, the number of articles
to be selected in each text has varied according to the number of
texts submitted for evaluation in the correspond-ing Pole. Thus,
we have 8 texts from the “Values, Culture, Art, Education
and Society Pole”; 15 texts from the “Socio-Economy
of Solidarity Pole”; 5 texts from the “Governance and
Citizenship Pole”; and 7 from the “Humanity and Biosphere
On the Synthesis of each Pole
A first criterion for the selection of
articles has been to guarantee the greatest thematic scope
of the synthesis of each pole establishing that, in all cases, the
most favourably evaluated article of each text was included in the
A second criterion for the selection of
articles was to take all those most favourably evaluated
texts which did not contain any red evaluation in order to select
articles on which there was no disagreement. In the case of the
most favourably evaluated article having a red evaluation, the previous
criterion has been modified and the second article of this text
has been se-lected in order to guarantee the thematic scope of the
synthesis. This criterion has involved making an exception with
proposal “12. Economy of Solidarity”, which
has been evaluated in red in the totality of its articles. However,
none of these red evaluations has a clarifying comment and even
the red evaluation for the last article of the world evaluation
is accompanied by a approving comment for several articles as valid
for an alter-native global proposal. Moreover, the most favourably
evaluated article of this proposal has 30 green evaluations, none
yellow, none black and one red without explanation. We have no record
of disagreement, either partial or total. It seems as if a participant
has made a mis-take when using the telematic tool and has placed
a red evaluation in all the articles but this does not mean that
she/he was against.
A third criterion for the selection of
articles has been to consider as most favourably evaluated
those which, with an equal number of green evaluations, had been
more evaluated. This also means that a proposal which has yellow
and black evaluations may be more favourably evaluated than another
which has all the evaluations green given that the first has more
evaluations and may even have more green evaluations than the sec-ond.
In this sense, it was necessary to solve the fact that there is
a great imbalance in the number of evaluations between the different
texts, which must be interpreted as a more favourable evaluation
of the proposal that prompted greater participation. Thus, an article
with all the evaluations in green but which amount to a total of
14 must be less favourably evaluated than another article with 5
yellow and 4 black but which has 44 green. The idea is that if the
quantity of evaluations was homogenised for all the texts from the
same pole, taking into consideration the text with the greatest
number of evaluations, then to the articles of the texts which have
less favourable evaluations should be added black evaluations (default
vote in the “Delibera” system).
A fourth criterion for the selection of
articles, applicable in the cases of an absolute tie in
the evaluations, has consisted of selecting according to the content,
in function of the contents of the general synthesis, remembering
to avoid reiteration of contents with other selected proposals.
A fifth criterion for the selection of
articles is related to the selected ar-ticles according
to the former criteria that have a similar content. In this case,
the most favourably evaluated article of the two of equal content
is selected and the other is suppressed and substituted with any
other article which meets the preceding criteria.
A criterion for the selection of new suggested
articles has consisted of selecting those which widen the
thematic content of the text with a concrete proposal which is not
opposed to the articles selected as most favourably evaluated. This
is due to the fact that there was no evaluation by the par-ticipants
of these articles and, therefore, it would have no meaning to in-clude
in the synthesis proposals that in themselves involve disagreement.
In some cases, the selection of a new article has been made by rewriting
or se-lecting a part of a comment by a participant.
Once the 30 most favourably evaluated articles
for each Pole and the new suggested articles that widen the proposal
have been selected, the sequence of presentation in the Cross-Synthesis
of the Pole does not follow an order of evaluations of the articles
or the numeric sequence in which the proposals to be evaluated were
presented but rather an expositive order according to the content
so that the cross-synthesis is coherent. At the end of each article,
on a brief numeric table is the number of opinions collected in
the evaluation when starting the synthesis in July 2003.
On the global cross-synthesis
30 articles from the 35 texts that participants
considered in each text “key proposals for the preparation
of alternatives to the current globalisation model” have been