JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION - Naspaa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Knowledge Transfer of Educational Programs in Public Management:determine noteworthy transfer-stimulating and transfer-inhibiting conditions.These research results are valuable tools for conceptualizing theoretical modelsand categorizing transfer-enhancing and transfer-inhibiting factors, in theongoing search for a valid transfer-measurement instrument. As a result,several theoretical models emphasize the important sequence of “learning,”“transfer,” and “performance,” and claim that knowledge transfer is a necessary,yet insufficient, condition of increased performance (Foxon, 1994; Thayer &Teachout, 1995; Kontoghiorghes, 2004; Pidd, 2004). In the previously notedsequence, three basic variables were identified and confirmed by a wide rangeof studies as highly influential for transfer: (a) The individual, (b) the trainingprogram, and (c) the transfer climate (Foxon, 1994; Thayer & Teachout, 1995;Kontoghiorghes, 2004; Baldwin & Ford, 1988). These variables represent,respectively, (a) the individual’s competencies and motivations, (b) the program’scoherence with organizational needs, and (c) the organization’s general climate ofsupport for the transfer process. When looking at transfer climate, for example,its five different types (Kirkpatrick, 1994) are preventing, discouraging, neutral,encouraging, and requiring (i.e., transfer can be prevented, discouraged, tolerated,encouraged or required).Even though there is a consensus on the importance of the three-partsequence and the definition of its main independent variables (Broad &Newstrom, 1992; Holton, 1996; Burke & Hutchins, 2007), the list of subfactorsthat are linked to these main variables is extremely large, which,unfortunately, means that the subject runs the risk of theoretical vagueness. Thisarticle seeks to add a new perspective to the scientific state of affairs by studyingthe knowledge transfer of programs that often haven’t been studied in the past.Most transfer studies are limited to short-term training programs in the privatesector (Gilpin-Jackson & Bushe, 2007). Therefore, it would be interesting tostudy the transfer of long-term management programs in the public sector, andtheir main inhibiting and enhancing conditions. The aim is to compare thesignificant variables of transfer in the public sector to those of the private sector.Studying long-term programs in management also could broaden the debate overwhat transfer actually means, because it is likely that the transfer process for whatone has learned differs from program to program.As a result, two objectives are defined in this article: (a) Providing insightinto the knowledge transfer processes of long-term managerial programs inthe public sector, and (b) defining the meaning of transfer in these programs.Consequently, the following explorative research questions are considered:• Is there any transfer of knowledge from management programsfor civil servants, and, if so, what does it look like?• Do variables matter in the public sector the same way they do inthe private sector?232 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Knowledge Transfer of Educational Programs in Public Management:To address these objectives/questions, the article is divided into three majorsections. The first section provides a theoretical framework on transfer, its influencingvariables, and the meaning of the word “use,” as it applies to the use of knowledge.The second section clarifies data collection and data analysis for this study. Itdelineates the starting point as a measurement instrument that has been developedand used since 2000, mainly in private organizations, called the Learning TransferSystem Inventory. In the third section, results are analyzed and discussed.Defining and Framing the Meaning of TransferDefinitionTransfer often is defined as “the effective and continuing application, bytrainees to their jobs, of the knowledge and skills gained in the training, bothon and off the job” (Broad & Newstrom, 1992). Even though this definitiondoesn’t distinguish between different types of training programs, it highlightsseveral important aspects of transfer. First is the importance of time, impliedby the term continuing: If the application was a single-moment phenomenonwithout any change in work methods, one could not speak of transfer as it isdefined here. Second, although not emphasized by this quotation, transfer ischaracterized by the resemblance between learning and work situations: Thegreater the resemblance, the easier the transfer. This is the essence of transfer —translating acquired knowledge from one situation to another. Third, transfermust be considered as a step between the learning process and actual jobperformance. Several theoretical models emphasized this sequence of events, andclaimed that transfer is a necessary condition for increased performance (Foxon,1994; Thayer & Teachout, 1995; Kontoghiorghes, 2004; Pidd, 2004). Fourth,transfer is merely one educational effect among others. A frequently used,though much-criticized, typology for educational effects is Kirkpatrick’s fourlevelmodel (1994; Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett, Traver, & Shotland, 1997).He distinguishes the following levels:1. Reaction Level How satisfied with the program are its trainees? A lowsatisfaction level could affect transfer motivation.2. Learning Level Have the participants learned anything?3. Behavior Level (Also called the transfer level.)4. Result Level Effects on the organization, such as increasedproduction, improved work quality, or cost reductions.Despite the insight that this typology offers for a quality evaluation of programs,the four-level model has fundamental counterarguments (Holton, 1996;Bates, 2005). For example, Kirkpatrick’s model is incomplete. It assumes thatinsight on the reaction, learning, behavior, and result levels makes it possibleJournal of Public Affairs Education 233
Page 2 and 3:
National Association of Schools of
Page 4 and 5:
From the Editor — Special 15th An
Page 6 and 7:
Reflections on theJournal of Public
Page 8 and 9:
Reflections On the Journal of Publi
Page 10 and 11:
Emotional Labor: Why and How to Tea
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Preparing for and Responding toStud
Page 31 and 32:
Preparing for and Responding to Stu
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Safeguarding the Public Trust: Can
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66: Safeguarding the Public Trust: Can
Page 67 and 68: Teaching Administrative Ethics in N
Page 93 and 94: Public Service Education: Adding Va
Page 115: Knowledge Transfer of EducationalPr
Page 119 and 120: Knowledge Transfer of Educational P
Page 139 and 140: Methods Taught In Public Policy Pro
Page 161 and 162: Information Literacy inPublic Affai
Page 163 and 164: Information Literacy in Public Affa
Page 165 and 166: Information Literacy in Public Affa
Page 167 and 168:
Information Literacy in Public Affa
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Conversation StartersLet’s Get Th
Page 191 and 192:
Conversation Starters — Let’s G
Page 193 and 194:
Conversation Starters — Let’s G
Page 195 and 196:
Review ofThe Application of Statist
Page 197 and 198:
Review of The Application of Statis
Page 199 and 200:
Review of The Application of Statis
Page 201 and 202:
Call for PapersThe Innovation Journ
Page 203:
National Association of Schools of
show all

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION - Naspaa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?