JOURNAL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS EDUCATION - Naspaa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Knowledge Transfer of Educational Programs in Public Management:ResultsThe results described here are general conclusions from the interviews foreach topic. Differences between the two categories of respondents are highlightedwhen necessary. Because this article has an explorative nature, it is moreimportant to focus on the perception of the majority than on the individualdifferences between respondents. Of course, when the majority is small, an indepthview of individual perceptions is necessary.Transfer-Inhibiting and Transfer-Stimulating ConditionsLearner Readiness: Though both PUMP and MPP graduates enrolled ontheir own initiatives, more than 90 percent said they lacked a clear idea aboutthe utility of the program towards their work. In other words, they weren’tcompletely ready to enter the program, because they didn’t know what theywould do afterwards.Performance Self-Efficacy: No respondent doubted his/her personalcapacities to transfer knowledge. This self-confidence is strengthened by the factthat they all had high grades or obtained their graduation certificates quite easily.Nevertheless, most of the respondents doubted whether they would receive theopportunity from their organizations to transfer their acquired competencies.Motivation to Transfer Learning: Each MPP graduate had a modesttransfer motivation: There was transfer willingness, but they also were consciousabout the fact that transferring these kinds of programs isn’t straightforward. ThePUMP graduates were extremely motivated to transfer, but once they returnedto the workplace, some of them were confronted with organizational resistance,which decreased their initial motivation.Transfer Effort-Performance Expectations & Performance-OutcomesExpectations: Both MPP and PUMP graduates believe that transfer will lead toincreased job performance, and that it also may lead to career growth or change.Though the respondents are aware of the fact that transfer isn’t a guarantee tosuccess, they all expect some kind of positive consequence from their knowledgetransfer.Feedback/Performance Coaching & Supervisor/Manager Support andSanctions: One MPP respondent claimed to have no support at all from hissupervisor to enroll in the program. Though not obligatory, the other MPPparticipants had supervisor support. However, only a few were asked to providefeedback to their supervisors about the program and how things were going.Generally speaking, providing feedback to a supervisor was limited to jobperformance for both programs. This suggests that actual work performancereceives more attention than transfer. Some PUMP graduates did receive morestrategic tasks, which they perceived as a reward, but these merely were added toexisting tasks and created extra work.Peer Support: Peer support is non-existent in the MPP. In the PUMP,244 Journal of Public Affairs Education
Knowledge Transfer of Educational Programs in Public Management:peer support is limited to one’s closest colleagues, even though there is someskepticism among the colleagues about the program’s utility.Resistance/Openness to Change: Fifty percent of the respondents in eachprogram perceived their organizations as innovative, the other fifty percentperceived them as conservative towards change.Personal Outcomes – Positive and Negative: For most of the MPPgraduates, there was no outcome at all. Three of them declared that they wouldreceive a premium, due to their graduation, but not because of any knowledgeor expertise transfer. As for PUMP, the higher-ranked civil servants perceived theprogram as having a positive influence on their careers, which was contrary toperceptions in the lower ranks.Opportunity to Use Learning: Almost nobody from the MPP graduateswas subjected to a change in the responsibilities or tasks linked to their positions.The benefit of the program seemed to be limited to gaining extra insight intotheir personal jobs. PUMP graduates received more opportunities, because someof them were asked to do more strategic tasks, and others voluntarily changedtheir job content in order to use their newly achieved knowledge. However,generally speaking, it can be concluded that opportunity mostly comes bycoincidence, rather than because it is specifically designed for a person’s job. Thismeans that the link between the program and the career is not structured.Personal Capacity to Transfer: The graduates had to find their ownnecessary time and energy to apply newly acquired knowledge in the workplace.Even if they were asked to change their job content, they were fully responsiblefor knowledge transfer. The PUMP graduates were confronted with increasedtasks, which gave them less time to try to transfer new knowledge.Perceived Content Validity/Transfer Design: Though all participantswere satisfied about the quality of the MPP, most of them (with the exceptionof one respondent) perceived a gap between theory and practice. The PUMPparticipants were unanimously positive about the program and perceived no gap.TransferAs stated above, the perception of the respondents towards transfer wasquestioned during the interviews: Did they sense that the program had aninfluence on their jobs? Did they sense a use of their knowledge?Two MPP graduates stated that they actually used the program: One ofthem worked for the study group of a political faction, where advice had to beformulated on topics like administrative reform and governmental relations.Obviously, a Master in Public Management and Policy would have added valueto this kind of work. The other person worked for a public sector educationalinstitute. What she transferred was more focused on what she had learnedabout the academic educational system, rather than on course contents, which,ironically, is not an expected type of transfer. All other respondents from bothJournal of Public Affairs Education 245
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:
Page 67 and 68:
Teaching Administrative Ethics in N
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78: Teaching Administrative Ethics in N
Page 93 and 94: Public Service Education: Adding Va
Page 115 and 116: Knowledge Transfer of EducationalPr
Page 117 and 118: Knowledge Transfer of Educational P
Page 127: 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 179 and 180:
Information Literacy in Public Affa
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?