Participatory evaluation: an action research intervention to improve training effectiveness

Abstract

Abstract Author: Gosim Martin Onu Chukwu Title of Thesis: “Participatory evaluation: an action research intervention to improve training effectiveness” Background: The managers of Zenith Medical Centre, a Nigerian hospital, desired to experiment a change to a process of evaluation that could improve training effectiveness for all stakeholders. Concern about evaluating training for effectiveness is not new. The past 50 years have witnessed a growing number of evaluation methods developed by scholars and practitioners to provide human resource development (HRD) professionals with alternatives for measuring training outcomes. However, investigation on the uses of evaluation data to improve training outcomes from the perspectives of divergent stakeholders is limited. Participatory evaluation (PE) through action research (AR) intervention was particularly considered as a viable means of improving training effectiveness by increased use of evaluation data. Aims of the Investigation: The aims of the intervention were to deepen insight and understanding of PE from the perspectives of stakeholders, practically implement a change of the evaluation system and produce new knowledge for the action research community. Design/Methodology/Approach: The action research approach was used from a social constructionist perspective to engage training stakeholders in the organization as participants. This perspective required working in the participatory action research (PAR) mode. Therefore, the project followed a cyclical process model (CPM) of the AR iterative process of constructing, planning, acting and evaluating. The CPM model was to accommodate the quality principles for using theory to both guide issue diagnosis and reflection on the intervention. Data on participatory evaluation were generated through focus groups and one-on-one interviews and analyzed using template analysis. Findings: By identifying and discussing their stakes, contributions and inducements in training, participants were able to reflect on their own learning, gain insight into their own work situation by sharing experiences and these facilitated peer and management support. The results were deeper insight into training evaluation; change in behavior and perceptions; and the use of quality data to improve training design, delivery and participation. The participatory process also enabled participants to learn self-direction and self-management by becoming aware of discussing problems or issues of concern to them in the workplace, group coherence and social support. Profoundly, all levels of stakeholders tried actively to change their working conditions by participating in action research activities. Implications: The study has implications for research and practice in three perspectives: First-person implications of deepening the researcher’s understanding and knowledge and providing professional development for his practice; second-person implications of deepening understanding and knowledge and providing improved day-to-day practice for the participants, practical solutions to the issue and organizational learning for the client; and third-person implication of providing specific knowledge for the wider action research community. Limitations: The research does not cover the political implications of the findings and opportunities they create for further research. It is limited to evaluation process while leaving out organizational decision making which is another factor affecting the utilization of evaluation data. Future studies should consider the question of what happens if the process of evaluation is right but the organizational politics or decision making structures hinders evaluation use. Word count: 50,881 (excluding appendices and references) Abstract: 503 Keywords: Action research; focus group; participatory action research; participatory evaluation

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 1 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.