Social Construction of Reality - Bad Request

Evaluation was needed so the district could obtain a site-specific model for program
evaluation. During the course of the interview, she emphasized why she believed it was
critical for the stakeholders to agree upon a model of program evaluation for The School
District. She said, “what I’m finding is, we don’t have very often, intense focus or
purposes and we definitely in this organization don’t have agreed upon processes.
Definitely don’t. And if I were to define what I think one of the greatest weaknesses of
this organization right now is we don’t have agreed upon processes, which means we are
still in reactive mode. Until we get out of reactive mode, we’re going to make haphazard
decisions that are not going to be hitting the target” (Long interview, March 18, p. 14).
Two types of coding, open and axial, were used. Open coding of the long
interview revealed several priorities. Words that appear often included mechanism,
components, comparative data, stakeholders, ownership, knowledge creation, conflict
resolution, systemic, logic modeling, purpose, process, right reasons, data, efficient, and
effective. The impassioned delivery of these words within context illustrated the weight
the superintendent put on the concepts. Axial coding of the long interview was organized
according to several strands: outcomes for this particular program evaluation, outcomes
for a fully operational program evaluation operation, and a vision for the role program
evaluation could play in transforming organizational culture.
She verbalized her anticipation regarding outcomes from this particular program
evaluation. She hoped that the UFE would bring about the creation of a mechanism to
make informed programming decisions. She also believed this mechanism would be in
the form of a consistent model, probably containing three sections: part one to contain
“commonalities of expectations of any program” (Long interview, March 18, p. 3). She
61