Occupational communities- link to professional judgement

The concept of occupational community was applied by Dahler-Larsen to evaluation settings (1998: 141) and is drawn from the work of Van Maanen and Barley (1984). Van Maanen and Barley recognised groups who, within a phenomenological cultural perspective, are recognised as an occupational community when seeing themselves as engaged in similar work, identity and fellowship based on a set of shared norms, values and interpretations. Such an understanding is affected by individual identity and also influences the wider organisation developing identity. Cox (2005) notes that the idea of occupational communities may often be considered similar to the concept of ―community of practice‖ developed by Lave and Wenger (1991). Within a concept of occupational communities, however, focus is rather on the ―power of common work situations and structures – as opposed to directly joint practices – to create commonality… and immediate mutual understanding… and underpin social networks‖, which can be problematic for research in communities of practice (Cox, 2005: 530). These issues were additionally noted by Gronn (2003: 30-31) who recognised firstly the difficulty of defining ―fluid‖ communities of practice as well as the accounting for likely problems of conflict when considering allegiances of members, particularly with regard to rival groups.

Dahler-Larsen (1998: 146) notes that ―occupational communities‖ are observed to react negatively to the demand to evaluate but this reaction is tempered by, amongst other factors, their position in the wider organisation, their perceived relative degree of autonomy / heteronomy and degree of acceptance of the

170

evaluation criteria to be operationalised. These reactions to evaluations, which according to Dahler-Larsen, often come after results have been published, are thought based upon a perception of mismatch with norms, values and standards, and are typically more belligerent to more concrete criteria that appear not to reflect that which they consider intrinsically special with their programme, as well as that which is based on human contribution. Such reactions will call more particularly for an internally designed and led evaluation focused on processes rather than structures and outcomes¹³⁸, which reflects the fact that an occupational community does not always know why its members act as the sum of their actions will also draw more widely on more ‗immeasurable‘ societal norms, values and demands. Thus Dahler-Larsen constructs an image within his institutional perspective on evaluation, of greater demands from mandators for accountability over implementation of programme goals in terms of results, which draws a response consisting of ideological self-defence of the occupational community but which is complicated by the normative problem of attempting to assess the accomplishments in such a short space of time after delivery (1998: 149). The author therefore constructs a useful typology to inform how the occupational community‘s reaction to evaluation is based upon its perception of relative autonomy/heteronomy and how well evaluation criteria match their own cultural understanding. This typology outlined in the table below is thought useful to illuminate the question of domains in which choices about evaluation are made. If occupational communities can be identified, they may be considered to reflect the characteristics presented in the table. Although based within an institutional perspective, this typology is also considered to be useful to illuminate the other models.

138 Dahler-Larsen draws again here on the work of Scott (1977).

171

Table 6: Occupational community reactions to evaluation demands (after Dahler-Larsen, 1998) not agree with but do not have the autonomy to ignore¹⁴⁰. They can

139 According to Dahler-Larsen, while this approach sounds ‗attractive‘ in terms of logical consistence, it makes learning processes and searching for new goals difficult within the evaluation process.

140 According to Dahler-Larsen, while this approach sounds ‗attractive‘ from a leadership perspective, it can lead to ―cynicism, irony, decreased engagement, and self-supporting patterns of grumpiness and shifting of responsibility‖ (2001: 92 my translation). Such behaviour can split the occupational community under evaluation (1998: 154).

172

Challenges associated with this model could relate to the degree of internal / external agreement over criteria. What if some in the organisation agree with the premises while others do not? This will necessarily affect, as we see above, the overall relationship to criteria, but it is unclear what kind of variation there will be. This is therefore likely affected by organisational position and role. For example how do those in internal higher positions with more control over the decision influence the process in relation to those implementing the evaluation?

In addition, investigation should hopefully consider how the context affects evaluation design e.g. between different educational frameworks and their different demands for evaluation of programme input. As will be seen in the data chapters, I have tried to approach the issue of response to demands within the interviews with different providers. It is of course a sensitive issue and few strong conclusions are drawn, but ideas drawn together from the different groups spoken to.

The table below adapts the decision models of Dahler-Larsen (incorporating Thompson and Tuden) and Allison, while adding perceived type of evaluation utilisation. This offers a framework for understanding evaluation decision processes and practices within the subunits under study.

173

Table 7: Occupational community reactions to evaluation demands related to responses¹⁴¹

141 From Dahler-Larsen (1998: 149ff; 2001) (and drawing on Allison and Peterson)

142 See footnote 139

143 See footnote 140.

174 5.8 Discussion

In this chapter I have outlined briefly models of decision-making in organisations, with an emphasis on naturalistic approaches that attempt to explain how decisions are actually made. The intention is to use these models as analytical framework when investigating decision making in relation to programme evaluation. It is acknowledged that areas will be illuminated differently under different models of decision behaviour and policy formation;

hence a multi lens framework for analysis is considered necessary.