Social Construction of Reality - Bad Request

More documents

Recommendations

Info

mission and vision. This raises the process to the symbolic level. Bolman and Deal (2003) explain “the more complex a role structure (lots of people doing many different things), the harder it is to maintain a focused, tightly coupled enterprise” which raises the dilemma of “differentiation versus integration” (p. 69). The symbolic processes of level four legitimation offer a mechanism to redress the dilemma. It is on this level that ideas are integrated within organizational culture. Implementation of the evaluation tools developed as a result of this research would be one indication that The School District has reached the fourth phase of legitimation. Double-loop learning. Morgan (1997) argues that a true learning organization must provide for double-loop learning. The UFE design of this research provides an avenue for stakeholders to strengthen the organization’s self-questioning behaviors and, thus, “detect and correct errors in operating norms and thus influence the standards that guide detailed operations” (p. 86). According to Morgan, many organizations are good at single-loop learning, but few have developed the capacity for double-loop learning. Discourse in Social Construction of Reality. Because objectivation, institutionalization, and legitimation are all dependent upon words and dialogue, and because the UFE design of this research is dependent upon discourse in a variety of settings, it is important to review the nature and role of language in the social construction of knowledge. Reason and Bradbury (2001) “suggest that the human world as we know it is produced and reproduced by the innumerable acts and conversations that we undertake daily” (p. 449). Bergman and Luckmann argue language grounds reality: “the common language available to me for the objectification of my experiences is grounded in everyday life and keeps pointing back to it even as I employ it to interpret 37
experiences in finite provinces of meaning….[ie] I translate the non-everyday experiences back into the paramount reality of everyday life” (p.26). Moreover, Bergman and Luckmann provide an overview of language which elucidates the connection between language and social construction of knowledge within context: “because of its capacity to transcend the here and now, language bridges different zones within the reality of everyday life and integrates them into meaningful whole. The transcendences have spatial, temporal, and social dimensions” (p. 39). The importance of dialogue and conversations is widely noted in the literature (Baumgarter, 2001; Berger & Luckmann, 1967; Bruffee, 1999; Lencioni, 2002; Merriam, 2001; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Patton, 1997; Preskill & Torres, 1998; Starratt, 2003). Bruffee believes “conversation…is of such vital importance to learning that with it, any of us has a shot at doing whatever we want to do. Without it, few of us stand a chance” (p. 14). He advocates for individuals, teams, and organizations to become truly collaborative and innovative in their approach to problems they will “have to learn to trust the power of conversation” (p. 18). Merriam writes that with dialogue and reflection, organizations can not only work toward solutions, but in so doing, produce sustained change. Baumgartner notes the “learning process involves questioning, critical reflection, and the need to engage in rational discourse [in order] to gain consensual validation for a new perspective” (p. 21). Nonaka and Takeuchi iterate the importance of articulation. It is in finding ways to express the inexpressible that language pushes the boundaries of thought into the realm of innovation. Bruffee explains the “reacculturative, conversational process, direct and indirect, by which bearers of intellectual tradition [for example teachers and other professionals] construct knowledge in the langue of their 38
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: evaluation report was made to the s
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 and 102: Figure 12. An organic reporting too
Page 103 and 104:
explained, “that was all I knew
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?