Insider Research

fourth generation evaluation:on the crest of a wave or heading for the rocks?

Julie Scholes & Alec Grant

Re-engineering

1350 pre reg students

26,000 person training days

116 wte academic

46 wte administrative staff

teachingclinical credibility clinical links

research and practice development

massification

partnerships with Trusts

widened access

learning nursing modeling care

academic support

promoting independent learners

market competitors

Context

pastoral care

Purpose of re-engineering

identify strategies that enable learner centred approaches as the core of our activity

re-define time for scholarly activity

education to facilitate excellence in health care practice

toAims project

develop corporate thinking about re-engineering to embrace different perspectives and use this process as the dynamic force for change

liberate the potential of staff and students so they might achieve academic, professional and personal fulfillment

value diversity but harness these towards the collective goals of the organisation

facilitate transitions for individuals

todemonstrate through realising the

core characteristics of the research (open informed inclusive)

one model of scholarly activity

ensure the research team are consistent and clear and that the process is transparent that allows for multiple perspectives to be heard, acknowledged and understood

empower educate enfranchise

see and understand alternative perspectives and develop

new meaning constructions to define the way forward

fourth generation evaluation

fourth generation evaluation

values clarification

issuesclaims concerns

constructivist paradigm

no such thing as an objective fact

Values Clarification

Claims: favourable assertions made by stakeholders about re-engineering

Concerns: unfavourable assertions made by stakeholders about re-engineering

Issues: topics over which reasonable persons may disagree

Stakeholder groupStakeholder group

Stakeholder groupStakeholder group

CCIs

CCIs

CCIs

CCIs

CCIs

herm

aneu

tic d

ialo

gue iterative process

Stakeholder groupStakeholder group

Stakeholder groupStakeholder group

CCIs

CCIs

CCIs

CCIs

CCIs

herm

aneu

tic d

ialo

gue iterative process

Stakeholder group

CCIs

herm

aneu

tic d

ialo

guenegotiation

unresolved

Stakeholder group

evaluation / audit/ search to

provide evidence to

refute / support contested CCIs

highly idealistic unrealistic expectations

unresolved / contested CCIs force for disintegration rather than inclusion and consensus

enabling unifyingparticipative

the organisation as an emotional arena

too much investment in the process detracts from the purpose or intended outcomes

quiet voices do not get heard

risks

exposes vulnerability (back stage reality)

trivialised defensively - potential for sabotage

role of the evaluator is to orchestrate negotiation and facilitate discussion in a climate of high challenge and context of high support

negotiation is managed in a balanced and constructive way

anonymity and privacyresearch contract

?Questions issues for discussion

what tensions may emerge between manager and evaluator responsibilities

how to resist being seduced into the hero rescuer role

hero or villain at conclusion: our future in the organisation …