The deferred model of reality for designing and evaluating organisational learning processes: A critical ethnographic case study of Komfo Anokye teaching hospital, Ghana

This thesis was submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and awarded by Brunel University.The study proposed an evidence-based framework for designing and evaluating organisational learning and knowledge management processes to support continuously improving intentions of organisations such as hospitals. It demarcates the extant approaches to organisational learning including supporting technology into ‘rationalist’ and ‘emergent’ schools which utilise the dichotomy between the traditional healthcare managers’ roles and clinicians’ roles, and maintains that they are exclusively inadequate to accomplish transformative growth intentions, such as continuously improving patient care. The possibility of balancing the two schools for effective organisational learning design is not straightforward, and fails; because the balanced-view school is theoretically orientated and lack practical design to resolve power tensions entrenched in organisational structures. Prior attempts to address the organisational learning and knowledge management design and evaluation problematics in actuality have situated in the interpretivist traditions, only focusing on explanations of meanings. Critically, this is uncritical of power relations and orthodox practices. The theory of deferred action is applied in the context of critical research methods and methodology to expose the motivations behind the established organisational learning and knowledge management practices of Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital (KATH) which assumed rationality design conceptions. Ethnographic data was obtained and interpreted with combined critical hermeneutics and narrative analyses to question the extent of healthcare learning and knowledge management systems failures and unveil the unheard voices as force for change. The study makes many contributions to knowledge but the key ones are: (i) Practically, the participants accepted the study as a catalyst for (re)-designing healthcare learning and knowledge management systems to typify the acceptance of the theory of deferred action in practice; (ii) theoretically, the cohered emergent transformation (CET) model was developed from the theory of deferred action and validated with empirical data to explain how to plan strategically to achieve transformative growth objectives; and (iii) methodologically, the sense-making of the ethnographic data was explored with the combined critical hermeneutics and critical narrative analyses, the data interpretation lens from the critical theory and qualitative pluralism positions, to elucidate how the unheard emergent voices could bring change to the existing KATH learning and knowledge management processes for improved patient care

What exactly is research impact? : Exploring the concepts, vocabularies and logics used in evaluating the impact of social research

This article-based dissertation explores the vocabularies of research impact and their logic in evaluating the impact of social science research. The motive for this study stems from the increasing emphasis on social impact in Finnish research evaluation culture and practices. In practice, impact has become a criterion for quality judgements in competitive funding and formal approval for completed research projects, as well as a developmental tool for university faculties and the legitimation of research policies. Broad academic literature have welcomed the cause of impact thinking with practical frameworks for research evaluation, while a small body of literature has taken a conceptual distance from the practical discussion. This dissertation continues the exploration of the latter discussion by collating its crucial arguments and developing them further. This dissertation brings together the previous notions of critical academic discussions and literature by elaborating on their conceptual contributions to the discussion about impact. The dissertation attempts to develop the critical discussion further by trying to understand why the vocabularies of impact appear in such discordant and often simplistic ways in policies, public discussions and evaluations. It also seeks to understand why impact is construed as a diminished version of the complex social relations of knowledge within official evaluation frameworks for funding and research development. This dissertation presents discursive notions of the policy frames used to approach impact and the academic discussion on the concept of impact. In addition, this dissertation investigates the logical aspects of a practical impact evaluation. Conceptually and methodologically, the dissertation contributes to the discussion by developing a critical approach that recognises the discursive accounts behind impact thinking, the in-betweenness in the operationalisation of impact via formalised methodical choices and the logical prospects and limitations to constructing and construing impact evaluation. The conceptual framework of the dissertation relies on previous conceptualisations of research utilisation, public engagement and transdisciplinarity. The dissertation uses these conceptualisations to show which aspects are familiar in the vocabularies of impact and how they construct the concept in various contexts of talk and practice. The dissertation also uses a constructive understanding of evaluation studies to comprehend liminal spaces in impact evaluation. The liminality perspective provides insights into institutional purposes and tensions in evaluation approaches. The methodological approach of the dissertation underlines contextual vocabularies that represent a broader social and cultural understanding of knowledge practices, research evaluation and higher education. The preoccupation with impact is considered a political, social and cultural phenomenon that shapes the understanding of how research knowledge interacts with social agents and how to operationalise it in evaluation. These premises counter purely prescriptive research agendas that attempt to develop ways to construct simulacrums of real research impacts for policy purposes. The three articles in this dissertation investigate the discursive and logical characteristics of research impact and its evaluation. They are based on research material from policy documents/recommendations, expert interviews, funding proposals, mid-term research reports and funding calls in Finland. Article I illuminates the vocabularies of impact in policy and academic discussions. Article II clarifies the guiding principles of impact evaluation and their dilemmas. Article III explores the relationship between researchers’ pre-evaluative strategies of impact depictions and guidance for proposals and evaluation. Each of the articles contributes original typographies, identifying new usages of the concept of impact. They also highlight what the concept of impact means for formal evaluation practices and possibilities for social scientists in expressing the social opportunities of knowledge. This dissertation concludes that it is not possible to comprehensively understand research impact evaluation without a critical meta-evaluative perspective. Although practical-prescriptive studies of impact evaluation have achieved conceptual sophistication, they have not been able to solve the logical problems that lead to profound methodical and practical problems. This is because of their lack of understanding of the notion that impact evaluation is based on divergent ideals of knowledge and knowledge use, which have unbalanced representations in research policy and evaluation. This dissertation contributes to the debate by arguing that impact has become an amorphic concept. This is realised by absorbing divergent vocabularies that construct conceptually entangled understandings of the social capabilities of research knowledge and possible ways to operationalise this understanding in evaluation. However, because the emphasis of impact thinking is on incumbent public policy rationales for rating research productivity and legitimising research as socially responsible, it often relies on a reduced understanding of social science research and its possibilities for social change. This is why impact evaluation is often premised on a formalised logic that identifies similar threads of impact that have been preconstructed in its vocabularies for research priorities and evaluation guidance. The dissertation suggests that the only way to solve the contradictory ideals within impact thinking requires a shift from research impact evaluation towards more open organisational and institutional learning of knowledge use in local communities.Yhteiskunnallinen vaikuttavuus on vakiintunut osaksi tutkimuksen arviointia Suomessa ja monessa Länsi-Euroopan maassa. Väitöskirjassani syvennyn sosiaalitieteellisen tutkimuksen yhteiskunnallisen vaikuttavuuden problematiikkaan tarkastelemalla tutkimuksen vaikuttavuuden käsitteen ja arvioinnin sosiaalisia, kulttuurisia ja poliittisia ulottuvuuksia. Kysyn, miten politiikkatoimien suosittelijat, tiedeasiahenkilöt ja akateemiset asiantuntijat ymmärtävät ja käyttävät vaikuttavuuden käsitettä ja miten vaikuttavuus operationalisoidaan arviointikäytännöissä tämän ymmärryksen pohjalta. Väitöskirjan artikkelien tutkimuslöydökset perustuvat politiikka-asiakirjoihin viimeisen kahden vuosikymmen ajalta, asiantuntijahaastatteluihin sekä strategisen tutkimuksen hankesuunnitelmien ja väliraporttien vaikuttavuuskuvauksiin. Väitöskirja tuo yhteen tutkimuksen vaikuttavuuden arvioinnista käytyä kahtiajakoista akateemista debattia ja julkista keskustelua. Akateeminen keskustelu jakaantuu karkeasti käytännölliseen politiikkavetoiseen tutkimuskirjallisuuteen, joka pyrkii esittelemään parannuksia vaikuttavuuden reaaliseen käsitteellistämiseen ja arviointiin, sekä kriittiseen keskusteluun, joka tarkastelee tutkimuspolitiikan ja arviointikäytäntöjen kulttuurisia piirteitä ja vaikuttavuusajattelun retorista merkitystä tiedepolitiikassa. Väitöskirjani jatkaa kriittistä keskustelua kehittämällä kokonaisvaltaisen kriittisen lähestymistavan, jolla vaikuttavuuden käsitteen ymmärtäminen ja käyttö voidaan hahmottaa kontekstisidonnaisena ja liukuvana käsitteenä. Kriittisen lähestymistavan paino on vaikuttavuuspuheen sisäisten ajattelumallien välisissä suhteissa ja siinä, miten nämä suhteet luovat edellytyksiä ja rajoituksia tutkimuksen arvioinnille. Väitöskirjan tutkimuslöydökset maalaavat vaikuttavuudesta Januksen kaltaiset kasvot, jolla on lukuisia eri naamioita. Vaikuttavuuden ymmärtäminen ja käyttö perustuvat kahtiajakoiseen puheeseen, jonka sanastoa hyödynnetään yhdistelemällä eri tilanteissa limittäisesti. Tutkimuksen yhteiskuntapoliittisiin päämääriin perustuva puhe korostaa muodollista arviointia ja mitattavia tuloksia, kun taas tulkinnallinen ja kriittinen puhe korostaa tieteenalojen suhdetta toisiinsa, koulutukseen ja yhteiskunnallisiin toimijoihin. Puhetapojen erilaisuudesta johtuen tutkimuksen vaikuttavuuden arvioinnin operationalisointi on epävarmaa. Vaikuttavuuden arviointi sijoittuu välitilaan, jossa jokainen arvioinnin ratkaisu on kompromissi. Kompromissit perustuvat arvioinnin sisäisiin tavoitteisiin, joiden paino on erilainen toimijan instituutiosta ja organisaatiosta riippuen. Puhetapojen erilaisuudesta huolimatta vaikuttavuuden arvioinnin paradigmaattista logiikkaa hallitsee pelkistetty ja kliininen hallinnollisen tuottavuuden ja vastuuvelvollisuuden kieli, joka sulkee pois tiedon eettiset, moraaliset ja poliittiset pohdinnat. Koska sekä käytännöllinen että kriittinen lähestymistapa näyttävät olevan kykenemättömiä luomaan edellytyksiä uskottavalle vaikuttavuuden arvioinnille, ehdotan, että tutkimuksen yhteiskuntasuhdetta edistettäisiin arvioinnin sijaan parantamalla tiedonkäytön kulttuuria ja käytäntöjä yhteiskunnan eri osa-alueilla

Applying a Taxonomic Framework to understand Co-Creation as an Approach to Information Systems Development

Our paper investigates how co-creation as an information systems development (ISD) approach is performed. Our empirical practice study of co-creation for and with youths involved in developing a digital game on a social media platform in a not-for-profit environment contributes to broadening the perspective on ISD and co-creation research. We apply an established taxonomy of co-creation and demonstrate how the taxonomy can be used as a framework to understand what co-creation is, how, when and where it can be performed as an instance of ISD practice. As a result we demonstrate the value and the shortcomings of the taxonomy