國立虎尾科技大學 |

Ways of Knowing in Participatory Program Evaluation.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,手稿 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Ways of Knowing in Participatory Program Evaluation./
作者:	Mumford, Steven W.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (400 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-05(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International79-05A(E).
標題:	Public administration. -
電子資源:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9780355593587

Ways of Knowing in Participatory Program Evaluation.
Mumford, Steven W.

Ways of Knowing in Participatory Program Evaluation. - 1 online resource (400 pages)

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-05(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)

Includes bibliographical references

The study investigated the potential role of individual "ways of knowing" in participatory program evaluation. Ways of knowing refer to individual styles and preferences for creating and testing knowledge in a group setting. These implicit preferences were hypothesized to influence perceptions of credible research methods, appropriate meeting discourse approaches, and prioritized learning outcomes of evaluation. Researchers have identified three ways of knowing most directly relevant to the study: "separate knowing," or playing "devil's advocate"; connected knowing, or playing the "believing game"; and "constructed knowing," or combining both approaches according to context. To identify participants' preferred "ways of knowing," the study applied Q methodology, guiding participants to rank a series statements according to which are most descriptive of them. These rankings were analyzed through by-person factor analysis to group participant preferences. The application of Q methodology took place early on within a broader action research case study, in which the researcher facilitated a participatory program evaluation with a team of five stakeholders from a non-profit organization. Results of the case study were compared with Q findings to explore the Q tool's usefulness for understanding participants' actual behaviors and perceptions of the evaluation process.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2018

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9780355593587Subjects--Topical Terms:

562473
Public administration.
Index Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

Ways of Knowing in Participatory Program Evaluation.
LDR:03724ntm a2200373Ki 4500 001 909070
005 20180419104825.5
006 m o u
007 cr mn||||a|a||
008 190606s2018 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9780355593587
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10682557
035 $a (MiAaPQ)gwu:13869
035 $a AAI10682557
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ
099 $a TUL $f hyy $c available through World Wide Web
100 1 $a Mumford, Steven W. $3 1179599
245 1 0 $a Ways of Knowing in Participatory Program Evaluation.
264 0 $c 2018
300 $a 1 online resource (400 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-05(E), Section: A.
500 $a Adviser: Kathryn E. Newcomer.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.) $c The George Washington University $d 2018.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a The study investigated the potential role of individual "ways of knowing" in participatory program evaluation. Ways of knowing refer to individual styles and preferences for creating and testing knowledge in a group setting. These implicit preferences were hypothesized to influence perceptions of credible research methods, appropriate meeting discourse approaches, and prioritized learning outcomes of evaluation. Researchers have identified three ways of knowing most directly relevant to the study: "separate knowing," or playing "devil's advocate"; connected knowing, or playing the "believing game"; and "constructed knowing," or combining both approaches according to context. To identify participants' preferred "ways of knowing," the study applied Q methodology, guiding participants to rank a series statements according to which are most descriptive of them. These rankings were analyzed through by-person factor analysis to group participant preferences. The application of Q methodology took place early on within a broader action research case study, in which the researcher facilitated a participatory program evaluation with a team of five stakeholders from a non-profit organization. Results of the case study were compared with Q findings to explore the Q tool's usefulness for understanding participants' actual behaviors and perceptions of the evaluation process.
520 $a The Q tool developed and refined for use in the study served to differentiate the three theoretical ways of knowing among participants, in a more nuanced fashion than extant Likert-scale surveys. The results of the tool were useful for understanding case study participants' discursive preferences, particularly between argumentative and narrative styles. Hypothesized relationships between ways of knowing and evaluation design and learning outcomes were not supported in this study; rather, the evaluation context was paramount in shaping these decisions. The Q tool represents the primary practical contribution of the study, and it may be adapted and applied to future studies, and to the practice of participatory evaluation. The study also revealed potential relationships between ways of knowing and other phenomena of interest that might be investigated further. The conceptual distinction among the three ways of knowing can inform our understanding of group dialogue, and how best to promote it among diverse participants.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2018
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Public administration. $3 562473
650 4 $a Organizational behavior. $3 557544
650 4 $a Cognitive psychology. $3 556029
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0617
690 $a 0703
690 $a 0633
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a The George Washington University. $b Public Policy & Administration. $3 1179600
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 79-05A(E).
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10682557 $z click for full text (PQDT)