Social Construction of Reality - Bad Request

More documents

Recommendations

Info

seriously. Every stakeholder spoke on some level to this idea; almost all posed the concept in the interrogative, using the form and force of a question. 1. “Are they doing what they are supposed to be doing, getting the results that we expect and are they cost effective?” 2. “Are we using resources efficiently?” 3. “Are we getting bang for the dollar?” 4. “Are we getting good service for the dollar resources expended?” 5. “When I’m spending my money for this program, what is my valued added for the program?” 6. “Are we getting a ‘return on investment?’” In most cases, these comments were connected to services to students. As one stakeholder pointed out, it is critical to stay focused on the number of students actually served by an innovation or program. Another stakeholder returned to the questioning format when he put the concern this way “what is really the direct impact on students and how do we measure it?” (p. 5). Another stakeholder said the bottom line involves doing “a heavy cost analysis on what’s it costing me. If I’m worried about closing the achievement gap, I’ve got to know what this program is producing for me” (p. 1). While the core focus of The School District’s work is students, stakeholders acknowledged programs exist which might serve students in subsidiary capacity; one example of such a program would be a parent involvement program. Therefore, it becomes incumbent upon someone, probably the program manager in concert with the supervising director and bolstered by the full stakeholder contingency, to determine what the unit of investment actually is. The United Way calls this concept “cost per unit” 75
(Budget Training Manual). A stakeholder who has served on United Way review teams as an auditor and has rich experience in this way of thinking explained, there is a “fiscal element to every program….put the numbers on the page… what does it cost us to do this program? and how many children, staff, constituents are being served by the program” (Interview, p. 4). She went on to note that effectiveness and cost per unit must be framed in terms of the definition of the unit of output so that program managers are able to articulate how many, and what type, of people they serve, with a particular amount of money to achieve a particular kind of impact. Clearly defining the scope of these particulars is one important way program managers are able to frame the work of the program and to properly filter how return on investment should be viewed, particularly by those with the discretionary power to retain or eliminate programming. Process-use. This theme emerged multiple times throughout the interviews, despite the fact that the stakeholders did not possess precise definitions nor any professional knowledge of what Patton (1997) deems process use: the “ways in which being engaged in the processes of evaluation can be useful quite apart from the findings that may emerge from those processes” (p. 88). More specifically, it is “indicated by individual changes in thinking and behavior and program or organizational changes in procedures and culture that occur among those involved in evaluation as a result of the learning that occurs during the evaluation process” (Patton, p. 90). Given that both archival data and even a couple of comments within the electronic interview transcripts indicate that at least a couple of stakeholders believed that taking process use into account was tantamount to over-complicating things, it is interesting that the axial coding process turned up a preponderance of comments suggesting process use may well deserve 76
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: This stakeholder went on to say tha
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?