Social Construction of Reality - Bad Request

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Again, the interview was tape-recorded, to “ensure everything said [was] preserved for analysis” (Merriam, 1998, p. 87). A research assistant not affiliated with The School District then transcribed the tape verbatim. The transcript was returned immediately upon completion to the interviewee who confirmed its accuracy; in this way, member-checking was performed. The second long interview was preceded by a presentation of data highlights collected during the research. An organic reporting tool (Figure 12) was used to guide the presentation and ensure that important information was shared with the primary intended user. This step took ninety minutes. The interview was then driven by three questions: (a) What is your reaction to the data? (b) How do patterns within the data cause you to confirm or revise your current vision for program evaluation in The School District? (c) In terms of the organizational knowledge creation paradigm you set forth in your 2007 research, what new knowledge do you value most in this data? Why? This interview yielded several significant concepts. “I think it is my job to pare out sacred cows and unsuccessful programming” (Interview, May 27). However, the superintendent was intrigued and slightly troubled by the summarization of programming examples (Appendix I). She furrowed her brow and said, “obviously, we need to make a list of programs and not just those that legislation stipulates we evaluate, whatever those are, but ones we believe we need to evaluate for our own reasons” (Interview, May 27). At this point in the interview she expressed the view that The School District is about “people” not just “stuff.” This point surfaced in response to her thinking regarding how her views of program evaluation have changed as a result of this study. She said that before this, her thinking was very focused upon the logistics of the UFE model. She 87
explained, “that was all I knew….I don’t think I really understood the people side of this” (Interview, May 27). It was this side that came out very strongly in the coding processes used upon the data. She was surprised by the significant emergence of the importance of process use, especially since these ideas came up from people who have no formal training in evaluation. Given a definition of empowerment evaluation, she responded that she could actually conceive of scenarios where such an evaluation might be commissioned, particularly given the fact that the other stakeholders in this study were responsible for the emergence of the concept of process-use. She went on to study the data reporting tool and argue that really only two main themes emerged from the stakeholders, emphasis on return on investment and emphasis on process use, because engendering collaboration is actually a process use itself. Moreover, it was very significant to her that the coding substantiated The School District commitment to the culture of collaboration. She spoke about her own learning as a result of participating in this process and viewing the archival data from the perspective of a participant. She believes she witnessed two things: emergence of voice and emergence of leadership. She acknowledged these were unintended outcomes and wondered rhetorically, “How can you begin to put a price on that?” (Interview, May 27). Original Research Questions Data were collected and analyzed which resulted in the aforementioned findings that are relevant to the original research questions: 1. Can a site-specific model for program evaluation be generated? 88
Page 1 and 2:
UTILIZATION-FOCUSED EVALUATION OF T
Page 3 and 4:
The undersigned, appointed by the D
Page 5 and 6:
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The lessons I have
Page 7 and 8:
fearlessness, and reminded me of wh
Page 9 and 10:
Research Questions Research Methods
Page 11 and 12:
LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Strong
Page 13 and 14:
UTLIZATION-FOCUSED EVALUATION OF TH
Page 15 and 16:
process-use within future evaluatio
Page 17 and 18:
One leader trained by this program,
Page 19 and 20:
Objectivation. Objectivation is the
Page 21 and 22:
developing, innovating, or changing
Page 23 and 24:
logical or sequential links among r
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 1. The School District’s p
Page 27 and 28:
Objectivation. This is the process
Page 29 and 30:
evaluation in general) is evaluatio
Page 31 and 32:
CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF LITERATURE In
Page 33 and 34:
Objectivation Legitimation OVERVIEW
Page 35 and 36:
the profession: systemic inquiry, c
Page 37 and 38:
5. Eclectic Evaluation (1 approach
Page 39 and 40:
however, it is important to remembe
Page 41 and 42:
Figure 3. The Utilization-Focused E
Page 43 and 44:
eginning an evaluation this way ser
Page 45 and 46:
producing commonly understood evide
Page 47 and 48:
Institutionalization. A second proc
Page 49 and 50:
Legitimation. Legitimation, the thi
Page 51 and 52: evaluation report was made to the s
Page 53 and 54: experiences in finite provinces of
Page 55 and 56: played into the use of electronic s
Page 57 and 58: interaction and particular context:
Page 59 and 60: to achieve federal compliance (Ross
Page 61 and 62: as a valid, legitimate contribution
Page 63 and 64: principles (Patton, 1997) in order
Page 65 and 66: with other stakeholders (Appendix E
Page 67 and 68: Short interviews. Development of qu
Page 69 and 70: multidirectional thinking to integr
Page 71 and 72: Summary The School District had not
Page 73 and 74: experience. The topic for this case
Page 75 and 76: study; each signed an agreement of
Page 77 and 78: hoped the model would provide a pat
Page 79 and 80: according to page number, section,
Page 81 and 82: The School District’s vision, mis
Page 83 and 84: Figure 8. Step 1- Important concept
Page 85 and 86: Figure 10. A picture of “outgoing
Page 87 and 88: Short Stakeholder Interviews The ne
Page 89 and 90: This stakeholder went on to say tha
Page 91 and 92: (Budget Training Manual). A stakeho
Page 93 and 94: institutionally…very difficult to
Page 95 and 96: This argument, the focus of years o
Page 97 and 98: published meeting schedule. Another
Page 99 and 100: needs to be established and publish
Page 101: Figure 12. An organic reporting too
Page 105 and 106: CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION WITH CONCLU
Page 107 and 108: Discussion of Findings Three resear
Page 109 and 110: Figure 13. The level of involvement
Page 111 and 112: 5. Organizational culture can be ch
Page 113 and 114: evaluator, but also the program sup
Page 115 and 116: Table Two. The research findings ca
Page 117 and 118: 3. The School District should compl
Page 119 and 120: 2. A follow-up study of the impleme
Page 121 and 122: The chief research question was whe
Page 123 and 124: Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (200
Page 125 and 126: Nelson, M. & Eddy, R. M. (2008). Ev
Page 127 and 128: Starratt, R. (2003). Centering educ
Page 129 and 130: 22. Accreditation and certification
Page 131 and 132: Researcher’s Name: Laura Nelson R
Page 133 and 134: The Campus Institutional Review Boa
Page 135 and 136: Short Interview Protocol Appendix E
Page 137 and 138: Second Long Interview Protocol Appe
Page 139 and 140: Appendix I Affinity Diagram 124
Page 141 and 142: Appendix K NCLB Content Analysis Di
Page 143 and 144: Appendix M School District Vision,
Page 145 and 146: Appendix O Examples of Programs- Da
Page 147 and 148: Interviewee Effective (ness) (effec
Page 149 and 150: Interviewee Perceive perception Sup
Page 151 and 152: Program Mission CSIP Value Appendix
Page 153:
VITA Laura Nelson earned a B.A. in
show all

Social Construction of Reality - Bad Request

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?