Part 1: Worksite.
To continue from last week, I am on
the search committee for a tenure-track position. We have now whittled down the
list of candidates to interview to 16. Sixteen down from 71. Our chair is
working on getting them all scheduled for this week. I am not sure how we will
be able to do it with our schedules, but the plan is to have at least three of
us conducting each interview. I am relieved that we have at least gotten to
this point. I do feel like there will be a bit of relativism from this point
on. Meaning, our interpretations of the candidates will be tainted, both in
good and bad ways, with our experiences coming into this situation. There are
many lessons to be valued and utilized so we can select a good candidate, but
at the same time, we are likely not going to find consensus. This concerns me as
there is the potential for people to dig in their heels and not compromise or
worse. People may not care enough to fight for things. Many of us are already
feeling stressed and tired of this process because of the time constraints. I
relate this back to my research. How will I be able to create an environment
that will encourage participation, collaboration, and prevent burnout?
Part 2: Observation.
On April 18, I observed a book club,
Coffee, Tea & Books, through the City of Tempe Library. They were
discussing What She Left Behind by Ellen Marie Wiseman. It was held in the
Connections Café. Six women attended this discussion. During first fifteen
minutes, the women chatted in small groups in a social manner. One woman called
the discussion to start since it did not appear that anyone else would be
joining the group. The first part of the discussion were general impressions of
the book. Women took turns, though it was clear that two of the women tended to
be more vocal than the others, often interjecting. Discussion about the
author’s first novel in comparison to this one ensued and this caused a lively
debate between a couple of the participants. They also shared their opinions on
the different time settings within the book. The discussion lasted an hour and
a half, ending with a confirmation of next month’s book selection.
Part 3: Readings.
Lewis, C. (2015). What Is
Improvement Science? Do We Need It in Education?. Educational Researcher,
44(1):
54-61.
Need basic knowledge from the discipline and how to enact the
knowledge to organizations.
Knowledge includes generalizable and organizational-specific
knowledge.
Basic knowledge is built through traditional research.
Organizational-specific is built through action research. Need both to
understand the interactions.
Organization knowledge – system of profound knowledge
To advance improvement science, there needs to be
recognition of differences between experimental and improvement sciences,
different types of generalizable knowledge, be able to take practical
measurements, and collaborate between the “sides”.
Part 4: Integrations. Use this course journal part to track big ideas, bullet points,
and questions. A fine length for this type of entry is just 50 words.
Be careful of some members of groups
dominating over other members and the discussions. Encourage participation from
all members.
Informal discussions are good;
however, a lot of socializing does occur. Having one “leader” may be beneficial
to keep people on tract. Perhaps questions to bring to the discussion would
help guide the group.
References
Lewis, C. (2015). What Is
Improvement Science? Do We Need It in Education?. Educational Researcher,
44(1):
54-61.