Over the course of this term I have learned a lot about the process and procedural parts of ORAE. As someone who lives in higher education academic settings I find that much of what we covered is centered around K-12 learning and assessment. I have found that many of the assessments that are used are inherently biased due to the students and systems that they are assessing. Utilizing assessments that are created to assess white, upper middle class children and their institutions to assess schools where food insecurities, low SES, and even homelessness and violence are everyday occurrences seems viscerally wrong. From a higher ed perspective I see where these types of assessments could be more applicable but in being more applicable we see the inherent homogeneous characteristics of certain professions and educational schools.
I would like to see new assessments created through ORAE which looks more closely at the contextual environments in which the assessments take place. I would like to see the assessments utilize, more abundantly, qualitative and quantitative measures. I would like to see people from the groups whom are frequently assessed have some say in how the assessments are created, implemented, and disseminated.
As we continue to push forward in occupational therapy education we see how the stakeholders are considered as well as how the current programs are evaluated and how changes are implemented because of the findings.
References
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2018). ACOTE update on entry-level education.
Retrieved from
https://www.aota.org/~/media/Corporate/Files/EducationCareers/Accredit/Announcements/ACOTE- Update-on-Entry-Level-Education.pdf
Thursday, November 8, 2018
Wednesday, October 3, 2018
Fall From Grace
One of the worst things to happen within an organization is to have one of it's leaders "fall from grace." To have a leader lose the respect, and moreover, the trust of his or her employees and clients. This process of potential mistrust is emotionally, psychologically, and potentially physically damaging to an organization.
Most recently the president and executive board of the AOTA were under fire and their motives were questioned regarding the recent mandated move towards the doctoral single point of entry. The entire global community of occupational therapists felt that their leader, of their paid professional association, was somehow in cahoots with those seeking to change the point of entry. Overwhelmingly there was dissent among the ranks of OT's regarding this change. The ebb and flow of constituents being for or against this proposition oscillated wildly. When the organization came out with their official stance many members felt that their needs were not heard. That they had not been adequately consulted and there were feelings of mistrust and hurt abounding.
Dr. Amy Lamb, the president of the AOTA, along with her executive board quickly formed townhalls, online meetings, and statements which tried to control the damage, both real and perceived (AOTA, 2018). One of the first steps that might have prevented this discourse was clear, consistent, and transparent communication between the board, Dr. Lamb, and the OT stakeholders. Another strategy would have been to survey the constituents through multiple channels to ensure that many opportunities were available to gather stakeholder opinions. Both of these strategies would have been infinitely more easing and informative than the periodical "updates."
In learning about this week's post I have learned that leaders, rightfully or wrongly, carry a lot of the burden when programs or associations are being assessed. The leaders wield a tremendous amount of power and responsibility.
References
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2018). A Message From AOTA’s Board of Directors on the OTD and OTA Mandates Retrieved from http://www.aota.org/AboutAOTA/Get-Involved/BOD/News/2018/Message-From-AOTA-Board- Directors-OTD-OTA-Mandates.aspx
Most recently the president and executive board of the AOTA were under fire and their motives were questioned regarding the recent mandated move towards the doctoral single point of entry. The entire global community of occupational therapists felt that their leader, of their paid professional association, was somehow in cahoots with those seeking to change the point of entry. Overwhelmingly there was dissent among the ranks of OT's regarding this change. The ebb and flow of constituents being for or against this proposition oscillated wildly. When the organization came out with their official stance many members felt that their needs were not heard. That they had not been adequately consulted and there were feelings of mistrust and hurt abounding.
Dr. Amy Lamb, the president of the AOTA, along with her executive board quickly formed townhalls, online meetings, and statements which tried to control the damage, both real and perceived (AOTA, 2018). One of the first steps that might have prevented this discourse was clear, consistent, and transparent communication between the board, Dr. Lamb, and the OT stakeholders. Another strategy would have been to survey the constituents through multiple channels to ensure that many opportunities were available to gather stakeholder opinions. Both of these strategies would have been infinitely more easing and informative than the periodical "updates."
In learning about this week's post I have learned that leaders, rightfully or wrongly, carry a lot of the burden when programs or associations are being assessed. The leaders wield a tremendous amount of power and responsibility.
References
American Occupational Therapy Association. (2018). A Message From AOTA’s Board of Directors on the OTD and OTA Mandates Retrieved from http://www.aota.org/AboutAOTA/Get-Involved/BOD/News/2018/Message-From-AOTA-Board- Directors-OTD-OTA-Mandates.aspx
Saturday, September 22, 2018
For this week's post I want to discuss the importance of standard A8 Communication and Reporting (Yarborough et al, 2011). Two of the most important aspects of evaluation have to be communication and reporting, this being because without reporting of the findings, what is the point of the study? Communication is such an important factor because without appropriate and truthful communication the purpose and integrity of the study can be compromised. When we do not allow for the flow of communication between researchers and stakeholders to be free and open, we allow for the potential of misunderstandings and compromised values to take root.
As a future researcher I would insist that communication between myself, other investigators and stakeholders be open. To allow stakeholders the freedom and trust to communicate with the investigators we find ourselves in the midst of trust and informed data. I really appreciate how Yarborough et al (2011) explain how this standard is necessary to valid and insightful research and assessment.
As a professor the ideas of communication and reporting are never far from my mind. I am evaluated regularly by my students. I emphasis how communication between myself and them builds trust on both sides and allows for us to work cohesively as a team. Without their feedback and honest reporting I would not be able to grow as an instructor. Without my feedback and reporting via their grades they would not be able to grow as future practitioners. Each of these parts of the process of learning is vital to the continued success of our shared profession.
References
Yarbrough, D. B., Shulha, L. M., Hopson, R. K., & Caruthers, F. A. (2011). The program evaluation standards: A guide for evaluators and evaluation users (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wednesday, September 12, 2018
One of the most important groups within an organization and an assessment or evaluation of an assessment are the stakeholders. Without stakeholders organizations would cease to have purpose. Through our readings this week we take a look at several processes or standards which help us to understand various aspects of evaluation. As we continue to look at the way the OT profession continues to march towards a single point of entry, it is more crucial than ever to look at two of these standards, attention to stakeholders and negotiated purposes (Yarbrough et. al, 2011).
Attention to stakeholders implies how we analyze and study stakeholders within our given systems. As part of this particular project some of the most important stakeholders are the student clinicians, faculty, and consumers. By giving each of these stakeholders an opportunity to speak their opinions in a forum that can be free from retribution, we give our evaluation an opportunity to to be less skewed. As we continue to look at how the mandate will effect our profession as a whole, we will continue to look at and pay attention to the stakeholders in our community.
Negotiating purposes, when I see this immediately I think of how each of the various stakeholders relates to their purpose and ultimate goals. All of business and life is negotiating. Within our context each of the stakeholder groups have their own vested interests and to come to a solid and equitable compromise there will have to be negotiations. Their purposes will have to be shifted slightly to reach a common goal, what will best serve the public and continue to promote the profession.
When looking to the literature I found that most frequently I had to move away from directly related articles and utilize common themes across many disciplines. When we look at attention to stakeholders we see a large emphasis on businesses and non-profit organizations that have been researched in the peer-reviewed literature. Crilly and Sloan (2012) talk about how we gain significant knowledge about the inner workings and influence of stakeholders when we pay attention from the inside out. The authors infer that the best information can be extracted when we look at the organization and it's stakeholders with an inside perspective and allow that to logically inform or movements. Chung, Lin, and Yang (2012) come at the same target from a slightly different angle. The authors seek to understand how deeply entrenched stakeholders can come to meet the needs of other less invested stakeholders to make productive progress. This idea is quite fascinating as I have seen this very problem stall entire projects because two factions cannot find a plane of agreement. This article gives the reader multiple techniques to help bridge those gaps. Lastly when we look directly to education for a view on how curriculum reform affects stakeholders and the process of evaluation. Reis (2018) suggests that by looking at the stakeholder position intimately we can benefit in the longer term by being able to look back at the respective changes and track their success or failure along with those who helped form the curriculum.
When deciding on a second standard I chose the idea of negotiated purposes. As stated above, I believe this happens in all organizations, and in fact all of life. Karsh et. al (2016) discuss how negotiation relates directly to motivation. Often times we are faced with certain factors which push us in one direction over another. Now when we multiply those motivations by all the various stakeholders within an organization we suddenly find ourselves in a quandary. This ability to recognize and utilize our various motivations to productively move decisions forward towards common goals can be realized if we are willing to negotiate with and among our various purposes. Lastly I wanted to explore how we utilize our understanding of our sources of purpose and power within a stakeholder group. Almost every group has a defined power structure, either formal or informal, how do those members utilize their power? Stein et. al (2016) explain how powerful groups within organizations and stakeholder groups can judiciously and consciously utilize their strengths to benefit the group.
Each of these standards is near and dear to my core beliefs and ethics as a therapist. I see my clients and their families as stakeholders in occupational therapy. I also understand that my very position as their therapist puts me at a distinct advantage. I have the knowledge, they expect me to know things. As my profession moves towards everyone having the title Dr. we and I must be cognizant of how that title carries a certain unnamed assumption. We must respect all of the stakeholders to whom we serve and serve under. We must recognize the power that title holds and use it judiciously and respectfully for the betterment of all we treat.
References
Attention to stakeholders implies how we analyze and study stakeholders within our given systems. As part of this particular project some of the most important stakeholders are the student clinicians, faculty, and consumers. By giving each of these stakeholders an opportunity to speak their opinions in a forum that can be free from retribution, we give our evaluation an opportunity to to be less skewed. As we continue to look at how the mandate will effect our profession as a whole, we will continue to look at and pay attention to the stakeholders in our community.
Negotiating purposes, when I see this immediately I think of how each of the various stakeholders relates to their purpose and ultimate goals. All of business and life is negotiating. Within our context each of the stakeholder groups have their own vested interests and to come to a solid and equitable compromise there will have to be negotiations. Their purposes will have to be shifted slightly to reach a common goal, what will best serve the public and continue to promote the profession.
When looking to the literature I found that most frequently I had to move away from directly related articles and utilize common themes across many disciplines. When we look at attention to stakeholders we see a large emphasis on businesses and non-profit organizations that have been researched in the peer-reviewed literature. Crilly and Sloan (2012) talk about how we gain significant knowledge about the inner workings and influence of stakeholders when we pay attention from the inside out. The authors infer that the best information can be extracted when we look at the organization and it's stakeholders with an inside perspective and allow that to logically inform or movements. Chung, Lin, and Yang (2012) come at the same target from a slightly different angle. The authors seek to understand how deeply entrenched stakeholders can come to meet the needs of other less invested stakeholders to make productive progress. This idea is quite fascinating as I have seen this very problem stall entire projects because two factions cannot find a plane of agreement. This article gives the reader multiple techniques to help bridge those gaps. Lastly when we look directly to education for a view on how curriculum reform affects stakeholders and the process of evaluation. Reis (2018) suggests that by looking at the stakeholder position intimately we can benefit in the longer term by being able to look back at the respective changes and track their success or failure along with those who helped form the curriculum.
When deciding on a second standard I chose the idea of negotiated purposes. As stated above, I believe this happens in all organizations, and in fact all of life. Karsh et. al (2016) discuss how negotiation relates directly to motivation. Often times we are faced with certain factors which push us in one direction over another. Now when we multiply those motivations by all the various stakeholders within an organization we suddenly find ourselves in a quandary. This ability to recognize and utilize our various motivations to productively move decisions forward towards common goals can be realized if we are willing to negotiate with and among our various purposes. Lastly I wanted to explore how we utilize our understanding of our sources of purpose and power within a stakeholder group. Almost every group has a defined power structure, either formal or informal, how do those members utilize their power? Stein et. al (2016) explain how powerful groups within organizations and stakeholder groups can judiciously and consciously utilize their strengths to benefit the group.
Each of these standards is near and dear to my core beliefs and ethics as a therapist. I see my clients and their families as stakeholders in occupational therapy. I also understand that my very position as their therapist puts me at a distinct advantage. I have the knowledge, they expect me to know things. As my profession moves towards everyone having the title Dr. we and I must be cognizant of how that title carries a certain unnamed assumption. We must respect all of the stakeholders to whom we serve and serve under. We must recognize the power that title holds and use it judiciously and respectfully for the betterment of all we treat.
References
Chung, Lin, & Yang. (2012). How do entrenched managers
handle stakeholders interests? Journal of Multinational Financial Management,22(5), 263-277.
Crilly, D., & Sloan, P. (2012). Enterprise logic:
Explaining corporate attention to stakeholders from the ‘inside‐out’. Strategic Management Journal, 33(10),
1174-1193.
Karsh, N., Eitam, B., Mark, I., Higgins, E., & Gauthier,
Isabel. (2016). Bootstrapping Agency:
How
Control-Relevant Information Affects Motivation. Journal of
Experimental Psychology:
General, 145(10), 1333-1350.
Reis, S. (2018). Curriculum reform: Why? What? How? and how
will we know it works? Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 7(1),
1-4
Stein, T., Siebold, A., Van Zoest, W., & Enns, J. T.
(2016). Testing the Idea of Privileged Awareness
of Self-Relevant Information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception and Performance, 42(3),
303-307.
Tuesday, August 28, 2018
Social and Ethical Responsibilities: In the beginning
Hello everyone!
My name is Dr. Jerilyn Callen, OTD, OTR/L. I am an occupational therapist, a professor, an active member of the American Occupational Therapy Association, and a researcher. I am interested in maintaining and elevating my profession and improving the lives of the clients that I serve.
I am interested in looking at the forth coming OTD mandate from a critical and balanced perspective to determine how this mandate came to be, what the history of the mandate tells us, and what the public thinks about the profession and what they would like to see. I believe to be fair and impartial takes transparency and a willingness to accept the good and bad about yourself, your research, and your profession.
As I am new to ORAE (organizational research, assessment, and evaluation I will use a set of guiding principles put forth by a long-standing organization, the American Evaluation Association (AEA). Their mission includes standardization in practice and representation of findings, diverse and ethical practices and evaluators/evaluations, and overall transparency in all the services it provides.
As an occupational therapist (OT) we are bound by a set of ethical standards which closely mirror those of the AEA. We believe and are committed to fidelity, ethical behavior, veracity, reliability, and transparency.
When we look at evaluation of a particular organization or group we must first understand the basic tenants of the group. We must understand the reasoning and motivation behind it's membership and the reason it exists. What is it's purpose? Both the AEA and the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA) adhere to these same sorts of questions and provide opportunities for therapists/evaluators, consumers, and the general public to understand and easily find their mission.
As I continue to take a critical look at the mandate that is coming towards the profession of OT, I intend to adhere not only to the ethical standards defined to me as an OT but also as an evaluator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)