TABLE 1.

Coding scheme drawing on the seven postulates of the communicative methodology.

Postulate	Definition	Code	Use in psychological research
Universality of language and action	Language and action are inherent capacities of all human beings (Habermas, 1984; Chomsky, 1996). There is no hierarchy between cultures, ages or genders to develop cognitive and communicative capacities that allow them to interpret the world.	ULA	This postulate implies that professionals in psychology, patients, therapists, counselors, caregivers, families of patients, patients’ associations, and other members linked to psychology have the capacity to interact with others to express their views, including the evaluation of an intervention or program.
Individuals as transformative social agents	Individuals have the capacity to interpret the world and undertake actions addressed to its transformation and change.	ITA	Vygotsky (1978) argued that language is the symbolic tool that aids cognitive development, allowing individuals to interact toward change. In this vein, Bruner (2012) posited that transformation addresses human nature, instead of biological adaptation.
Communicative rationality	According to Habermas (1984): “the concept of communicative rationality has to be analyzed in connection with achieving understanding in language. The concept of reaching an understanding suggests a rationally motivated agreement among participants that is measured against criticizable validity claims” (p. 75).	CR	The postulate of communicative rationality in psychology suggests that researchers or other members enter into a scaffolding dialogue to improve the assessment processes and methods. The ultimate aim is to benefit the whole impact evaluation community.
Common sense	Individuals acquire diversity of knowledge and beliefs that influence their comprehension of the world and common sense (Schütz, 1967). This background influences the interpretation of reality, and the cultural contexts provide meaning to thoughts and actions (Rogoff, 2003).	CS	The link between the CM and social impact evaluation on the basis of the postulate of common sense includes open channels of dialogue and interactions that embrace different views and background knowledge of very diverse agents, from practitioners to researchers or patients.
Disappearance of the premise of an interpretative hierarchy	Beck addresses how the desmonopolization of experts’ knowledge occurs in the context of a risk society, paying special attention to the role of reflexivity (Beck et al., 1994). In the analysis by Lash of Beck’s conception of reflexivity, the author states that “reflexivity and modernity entail a growing freedom from and critique of expert-systems. Structural reflexivity thus involves freedom from the expert-systems of dominant science. Self-reflexivity involves a freedom from and critique of various psychotherapies. Reflexivity is based not in trust but in distrust of expert-systems” (Beck et al., 1994, p. 116).	DIH	The interpretations of academic and non-academic audiences have the same value. Therefore, in the evaluation of social impact framed by the CM, the best arguments from users or scientists can improve the assessment processes.
Equal epistemological level	Participants and researchers are at an equal epistemological level to understand the social reality and participate in a research process. The contributions that researchers and non-academic make to research are different since the knowledge that they have is also diverse. The knowledge coming from the individuals is experience and daily life learning, while researchers provide scientific knowledge.	EEL	The equal epistemological level of the CM implies a more precise analysis and understanding of psychological and social problems. In the field of social impact assessment in relation to this postulate, the evaluative arguments from non-academic audiences are equally valid and useful for developing and improving them.
Dialogic knowledge	The CM of research includes the objectivity and subjectivity perspectives to advance toward a dual perspective of the world that recognizes at the same level the structures (systems) and the life world. The intersubjective perspective underlines the interpretation of reality and generation of new knowledge, which are influenced by the people’s environments and meanings of reality (Flecha, 2000; Mercer, 2000). The construction of evaluation knowledge is grounded in dialogue since individuals accumulate knowledge using dialogue (Howe and Abedin, 2013).	DK	Impact assessment methods linked to the CM can achieve more accurate results in the evaluation processes since dialogue includes diverse views, reflections, voices, needs, and perspectives from different agents.