Social Construction of Reality - Bad Request

More documents

Recommendations

Info

to take center stage. Stakeholder thinking along these lines fell into roughly four categories: assailing elephants and sacred cows; increasing ownership; reifying The School District’s vision, mission, goals; changing the organizational culture. One unexpected process use which emerged was the ability of the sheer process of program evaluation, when done in depth, to assail truths or situations that have, up until that point, been ignored such as “a belief or system that is treated with much respect and is not usually criticized” (Heacock, 2003, p. 405). One stakeholder termed this “attack[ing] the sacred cows” (Interview, April 8). Another stakeholder conceived of the situation in terms of elephants and cows. His entire response, though lengthy, merits consideration. [Program Evaluation is] a way to ferret out dysfunction…..by bringing stakeholders to the table, it kind of puts the elephant in the middle of the room and either everyone kind of testily agrees to continue not to see the Emperor has no clothes or you have to address it. And so….therefore you can either continue the culture if it’s bad or you can all agree, and I think that’s what would happen, is that everyone would agree. Let’s address this issue and by addressing the sacred cows knock down the silo walls, increase communication, convince people that things aren’t just the preserve of Mr. X because it’s always been his program or her program and therefore there’s a sanctity and it’s inviolate…you dare not trespass into that program. I think that’s one of the things, one of the good things that could come out it that might not show up in the box score necessarily. [Program evaluation] can change the culture of an organization by breaking down barriers and silos and by identifying the elephant in the room that sometimes is 77
institutionally…very difficult to admit …..most programs are not that dysfunctional that there is an elephant but maybe there’s a bunch of little elephants (Interview, March 20, p. 3). Archival data supports this, and other stakeholders recognized the benefits of opening up channels of communication. The axial coding process illuminated the significance of elevating this particular process by consecrating it with a stated legitimacy; in other words, stakeholders believed there is value in getting things out into the open. A second process use that turned up via axial coding was that of increasing ownership. One stakeholder particularly echoed the others when she noted that participating in an evaluation gave people the opportunity “to get to sit at the table and provide input” which therefore “increases level of involvement…buy-in aids in collaboration and the sense of knowing we are all in this together” (Interview, March 19, p.2). Another stakeholder explained that the process generates a feeling of validation among stakeholders at all levels within the organization- particularly for those who are not specifically in charge (p.4). He went on to say he believed it aids in building rapport within the organization and allows program managers to feel like the district is giving them information, which, in turn, generates ownership in the direction the program and the district is heading. Ownership can be generated via voice. One stakeholder particularly emphasized the importance of validating a person’s right of expression. He said it is all about having real voice and getting to use it. He categorized the benefits of this type of voice in three ways: (a) It generates belief in the program and the district (b) It creates buy-in regarding 78
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: (Budget Training Manual). A stakeho
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?