65,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
"As a practitioner in the field for over thirty years, I have been exposed to endless 'planning' sessions that are prescriptive to the point of being oppressive. Thistext 'gives permission' to the practitioner to allow for emergence, uncertainty, and ambiguity in the planning process. Comparative Approaches to Program Planning provides a guide for the manager, administrator, executive director, strategic planner, and CEO to embrace multiple planning strategies and the understanding of each. This is extremely worthwhile in a dynamic environment and an ever- changing landscape and worldview." --Paul D. McWhinney, ACSW, Director of Social Services City of Richmond, Richmond, Virginia "This is the book I've been waiting for. It provides not only a linear approach to program design, but gives language to the tacit knowledge many planners have of the circular nature of their work. Both linear and circular thinking are important to planning processes and now we have a resource for teaching." --Jon E. Singletary, PhD, MSW, MDiv, Baylor University, School of Social Work The first text on program planning to guide readers in selecting program planning approaches appropriate to setting, culture, and context Valuable for students and practitioners in the social work, public administration, nonprofit management, and community psychology fields, Comparative Approaches to Program Planning provides practical and creative ways to effectively conduct program planning within human service organizations. Written by leaders in the social work education community, this innovative book explores program planning as a multi-layered and complex process. It examines both a traditional linear problem-solving model as well as an alternative emergent approach to program planning, helping professionals to successfully develop and enact effective and culturally competent planning in organizations and communities.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 428
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2015
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title
Copyright
Dedication
Preface
GENERAL APPROACH TO THE BOOK
ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK
Acknowledgments
CHAPTER 1: Differences Between Lines and Circles
LINES AND CIRCLES AS PLANNING METAPHORS
PLANNING THEORY: BOTH LINES AND CIRCLES
A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
SUMMARY
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
CHAPTER 2: Programs: Containers for Idea Implementation
PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS; SERVICES AND INTERVENTIONS
PROGRAMS IN ORGANIZATIONAL CONTEXT
PROGRAM PLANNING
SUMMARY
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
CHAPTER 3: Rational Planning and Prescriptive Approaches
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY OF RATIONAL PLANNING AND PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACHES
DIMENSIONS OF RATIONAL PLANNING AND PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACHES
ACCOUNTABILITY IN A PRESCRIPTIVE APPROACH
RATIONAL PLANNING
STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES OF RATIONAL PLANNING
SUMMARY
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
CHAPTER 4: Interpretive Planning and Emergent Approaches
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY OF INTERPRETIVE PLANNING AND EMERGENT APPROACHES
DIMENSIONS OF INTERPRETIVE PLANNING AND EMERGENT APPROACHES
ACCOUNTABILITY IN AN EMERGENT APPROACH
INTERPRETIVE PLANNING
STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES OF INTERPRETIVE PLANNING
SUMMARY
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
CHAPTER 5: Knowing When to Use Which Planning Approach
SIMILARITIES IN PLANNING APPROACH CHALLENGES
COMPARING PROGRAM PLANNING APPROACHES
DECISION ISSUES FOR APPROACH SELECTION
SUMMARY
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
APPENDIX: COMPARING PLANNING APPROACHES
CHAPTER 6: Program Planning in Diverse Cultural Contexts
CULTURE AND CONTEXT
CHALLENGES TO CULTURALLY COMPETENT HUMAN SERVICE PROGRAMMING
CULTURAL COMPETENCE AND PROGRAM PLANNING
SUMMARY
CONCLUSION
EXERCISES
Glossary
References
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
CHAPTER 1: Differences Between Lines and Circles
Table 1.1 Rational/Nonrational: Comparison of Thought Processes for Planning
Table 1.2 Planning Theories Having Different Approaches
Table 1.3 Hierarchy of Key Concepts
CHAPTER 2: Programs: Containers for Idea Implementation
Table 2.1 Types of Programs
CHAPTER 3: Rational Planning and Prescriptive Approaches
Table 3.1 Hierarchy of Key Concepts
Table 3.2 Dimensions of a Rational Planning Process
Table 3.3 Types of Accountability
CHAPTER 4: Interpretive Planning and Emergent Approaches
Table 4.1 Hierarchy of Key Concepts
Table 4.2 Dimensions of an Interpretive Planning Process
CHAPTER 5: Knowing When to Use Which Planning Approach
Table 5.1 Dimensions of a Rational Planning Process
Table 5.2 Dimensions of an Interpretive Planning Process
Table 5.3 Comparison of Accountability Challenges
Table 5.4 Comparison of Mind-sets and Skills
CHAPTER 6: Program Planning in Diverse Cultural Contexts
Table 6.1 Different Views of Culture
List of Illustrations
CHAPTER 2: Programs: Containers for Idea Implementation
Figure 2.1 Organizational Chart: National Association for Chronic Pain Control (NACPC)
CHAPTER 3: Rational Planning and Prescriptive Approaches
Figure 3.1 A Logic Model for the Children’s Street Education Program
CHAPTER 4: Interpretive Planning and Emergent Approaches
Figure 4.1 Form of an Emergent Approach to Planning
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
cover
contents
iii
iv
v
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
xxi
xxiii
xxiv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
Comparative Approaches to Program Planning
F. Ellen Netting
Mary Katherine O’Connor
David P. Fauri
Copyright © 2008 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Published simultaneously in Canada.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 646-8600, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008 or online at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If legal, accounting, medical, psychological or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. In all instances where John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is aware of a claim, the product names appear in initial capital or all capital letters. Readers, however, should contact the appropriate companies for more complete information regarding trademarks and registration.
For general information on our other products and services please contact our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. For more information about Wiley products, visit our website at www.wiley.com.
ISBN 978-0-470-12641-7
To the courageous planners who are willingto risk the hard thinking necessaryto design human service programs that willtruly better the world for us all
Preface
One of the basic assumptions of the rationalist school is that decisions precede an action, a belief that has entered popular folklore in the exhortation: “look before you leap.” This is, of course, good counsel. But suppose you don’t know how to leap? The inability to leap or, more generally, the ability or inability to implement a decision is rarely taken into account in the process of decision analysis.
—John Freidmann and Barclay Hudson, Knowledge and Action: A Guide to Planning Theory
GENERAL APPROACH TO THE BOOK
“Program planning” is a construct that can make complex situations more manageable. In a world in which change is a constant, program planning approaches that provide an illusion of being in control may be comforting. In fact, the certitude of knowing how to plan something from beginning to end is a desired skill set for those who want to “look before they leap.” This certitude is designed by professionals who want to demonstrate that they have something to offer and who might want to be hired as a program coordinator, grants writer, or manager. Many a professional has carried a copy of a plan or grant proposal with them to a job interview to demonstrate their ability to design a program.
Based on our understanding of students’ aspirations and needs, for years we taught program planning with the assurance that if a goal could be established, and if measurable objectives could be articulated, then somehow or some way their program designs could be implemented in a reasonable manner. Yet many programs that looked doable on paper were anything but doable in real life. Even though our graduates’ facility with “logic models” wowed employers and even potential funders, when it came to implementation many were often surprised to find that program designs did not always unfold in the envisioned manner. In fact, we learned in this process that excellent, precise, evidence-based designs could win accolades from professionals and funders, but that the process of enacting plans revealed unexpected gaps and barriers for staff tasked with implementation. Ironically, while some funded programs were not always creatively designed for addressing complex situations that needed alternative approaches, staff of community-based programs that appeared to work could not always articulate why and how their programs did work. They could not discuss their planning experiences in terms that could be grasped by exacting professional audiences. Our challenge, then, became to prepare our students to think and talk in the established language of program planning, as well as offer them alternative ways of planning, thinking, talking, and surviving. They needed to be facile at entering the established world of program planning while also knowing when to use different approaches. Most of all, they needed to recognize that there was no one best way to plan. With this came a necessity to accurately assess the situation for which they were planning and, from that, determine the appropriate approach for the circumstances at hand. To accomplish this, we had the stimulating challenge of determining how to impart the needed knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Our students have told us that we have been able to meet the challenge.
Therefore, we decided to write this book with the purpose of comparing and contrasting different ways of program planning. We do so out of a belief that there are multiple ways of knowing, and that there are multiple ways of planning and doing. Because these ways are different does not make one superior to others, and we have found that recognizing that there are differences can be freeing. It allows the purpose of the planning process to drive the methods used, rather than the methods driving the design. This goes a long way toward facilitating professional program planners in acquiring resources for planning and having increased flexibility for functioning in varying social, economic, and cultural settings.
Our book is geared to future program planners in master’s programs in social work, public administration, nonprofit management, public health, community psychology, applied sociology, human services, and related fields. It may also be useful in required senior-level courses on large systems change offered in baccalaureate programs. In social work, community psychology, applied sociology, and human services programs, where many students expect to perform “direct service work,” it can increase understanding of direct service programs. Courses in program planning, macro social work practice, program evaluation, organization practice, policy implementation, and related subjects will benefit from using this book for creating expanded applications of program planning strategies, tactics, and skills.
Reasons for all practitioners to become familiar with the skills offered in this book will be central in the pages that follow. All practitioners both impact and are impacted by programming at some stage in their direct service delivery work. They are also sometimes alienated by the language and techniques of traditional planning, thinking that planning has nothing to do with their efforts in relationship building and problem-solving with their clients. We believe that an alternative, nonlinear approach to planning that takes into account intuition and serendipity and creatively capitalizes on complex circumstances is sure to make sense to many students who are turned off by more traditional, prescriptive planning approaches.
We are aware that some people prefer to have a greater sense of order, and that they believe there is a preferred way to plan a program, through precise, linear thought. For these planners, linear reasoning is a priority. This book is designed to show that nonlinear (sometimes called nonrational or circular) thinking is not only useful in reasoning, but that it supports an alternative type of interpretive planning called an emergent approach.
Interpretive planning translates different ways of knowing and understanding into the “doing” aspects of planning human service programs. Linear planning models can be compared with alternative, nonlinear approaches, and it is possible to assess the costs and benefits of each approach. Ideas about when differing approaches are used most effectively are offered here as a guide for program planners faced with situations that do not always resemble the clean, clear opportunities for which rational, prescriptive planning is usually discussed. Ways to systematically approach messy situations (e.g., when you are called on to begin to plan in the middle, not at the beginning, of a project; or when you are asked to help in situations in nontraditional or non-Western cultures with differing approaches to logic) will be addressed while applying reasonable ways of assuring and accounting for quality in human service programming, regardless of the context. Our emphasis is on planning and design, with implementation and evaluation of the results of planning also recognized. This is a flexible conceptualization of the planning process that can be useful regardless of the culture, mission, or goals of the human service setting or organization within which planning occurs. Through different approaches, alternate ways of knowing are introduced into planning processes, facilitating programs targeted to meet needs in traditional or alternative contexts.
ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK
The book is composed of six chapters, successively building both understanding and competence for good program planning. End-of-chapter discussion questions and exercises focus on skills development derived from material in each chapter. Practical application of planning concepts is made through real-life case examples intended to be of help in thinking about the issues and the way they are presented, and to assist those not yet engaged with the challenges and opportunities of complex problem-solving in program planning. A glossary is offered to aid thinking along the way and to clarify our use of terms.
Conceptually, we examine two types of planning based on different worldviews: rational and interpretive. These worldviews are joined by two approaches to planning: rational planning, which is tied to what we are calling prescriptive approaches; and interpretive planning, which is connected to what we are calling emergent approaches. Throughout the book we refer to problem-solving as a process that can be undertaken through prescriptive approaches, in which a goal is predetermined, or through emergent approaches, in which plans unfold in an unpredictable manner. We have carefully chosen our terms, in hopes that they will provide the reader with viable conceptual frameworks and languages in which to communicate about program planning.
In Chapter 1, we introduce the possibility that the need identification for a social program intervention may come from choices raised by different ways of conceptualizing an opportunity or problem, that there are choices in program design. Some of these choices are strongly cognitive, but others have affective and power dimensions. Through an exploration of the difference between a line and a circle, Chapter 2 also seeks an evenhanded understanding of the differences in these choices and the processes by which programs are designed and planned. This subsequently takes us into how to know and understand differences between induction and deduction and positivist/rational and interpretivist ways of knowing. We think aspects of rational and nonrational thought (as opposed to irrational thought) are at the basis of the acceptance of both traditional and nontraditional ways of planning. Through the discussion of induction and deduction, as well as positivist and interpretivist ways of knowing, we present in detail the different assumptions that are part of linear and more circular thinking problem-solving processes and how those differences are important to the planning process. While these different notions may be based in rational and nonrational thought processes, the intent is to distinguish both from irrational thinking.
Chapter 2 provides an overview of the elements that constitute a program; it introduces planning terms and identifies categories of stakeholders that will appear throughout the text. Here we describe how programs differ from projects, services, and policies. The various sources of needs identification and the programming ideas developed to meet those needs are discussed. The chapter also emphasizes that social programming is dependent on authorizing and funding sources, from policy enactment to needs assessment to government or other funder mandates to grassroots demands, all of which reflect how differently programs can be thought about, designed, and planned.
Chapter 3 is devoted to traditional rational program planning, based on the prescriptive approaches such as planned change and logic models. Building on the work of well-known scholars in planning and administration, we review the logic model that moves from needs assessment and problem analysis through hypothesis development, goals and objectives setting, and designing programs that are monitored and evaluated using traditional methods. The pros and cons of using prescriptive approaches are introduced, as are the specifics of how these approaches work and in which situations they would likely be most valuable.
Chapter 4 focuses on interpretive program planning, based on emergent approaches to problem-solving. To date, textbooks on program planning have focused on rational planning and prescriptive approaches, stopping there, assuming that program planners would not need alternative models and might not draw on creative, fluid aspects in their work. Using an interpretive view of planning, the chapter outlines a collaborative, less reductionistic, approach to decision-making in program planning. Politics, goals, problems, solutions, and political reasoning and pragmatic thought focus and guide the reader into opportunities and challenges of using an emergent approach, as well as the specifics of how it works and in which situations it would be valuable.
Together, Chapters 3 and 4 outline the details of the traditional planned change or logic model approach based on rational thought and the more interpretive methods of an emergent approach to planning based on nonrational thinking. Both chapters use a critical lens to discuss when each approach is most useful, so that in Chapter 5, the reader can engage in an assessment of both the costs and benefits of each approach in order to develop the skills necessary to determine when and how each works best. The comparative aspect of the textbook is pursued in Chapter 5. We invite readers to critique the two planning approaches, based on what they learned in Chapters 3 and 4, helping them to clarify the questions that should be asked and answered in determining when each approach works best. We also elaborate on critical thinking and ethical decision-making, and explain how to assess the unintended consequences of planning choices in program implementation and evaluation. Examples from practice experience are used to compare the different approaches.
Using a global, culturally sensitive perspective on the program planning process, Chapter 6 assists the reader in exploring the sociopolitical benefits of having more than one approach to planning, regardless of cultural context or organizational tradition. In this chapter, we briefly return to the philosophy of science dialogue introduced at the beginning of the book as a way to choose appropriate responses to cultural needs, so that the planner can demonstrate skills in cultural competency. The goal is to signal the possibility of considering an alternative way. Our hope is that the reader will take advantage of the opportunity to consider and evaluate alternative planning approaches and not assume that some situations only reflect a lack of competence for engaging in planning. Chapter 6 is intended to assist the reader in identifying consequences of cultural context aspects of planning and recognizing both the challenges and possible benefits of embracing alternative approaches for successful program planning.
The material in this text is intended to help readers manage the difficulties of teaching and learning a linear process of planning while they are experiencing the serendipitous, sometimes nonlinear, nature of the human service environment. It also helps them address planning in a systematic way when the actual process is not strictly a linear one. All of us should all want to encounter, manage, and enjoy planning in varying cultural settings, and compete positively and effectively in a global human service marketplace in which designing culturally sensitive programs means being able to adapt to the ways of varying cultures. It should also aid us in creating and maintaining human service organization cultures that continually evolve standards for operationalizing cultural competence within our organizations (see, for example: NASW, 2001; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2001).
At the beginning here, we indicated that, conceptually, program planning may be employed to cast an illusion of being in control of a process that is often not as linear as it is often conceptualized. Professionals can be comforted by that illusion, as we have at times. In this book, we hope to convince the reader that comfort can also come from recognizing the inevitabilities of difference and from having a repertoire of skills to be used as needed, rather than using only one established way. In our classes, students are heard to exclaim, in effect, “This is hard, and my head hurts!” Our response is usually something like: “This is not an easy cookbook approach, and your head is hurting because you are thinking so hard. If program planning were easy, it could be done without skills, and you wouldn’t be in school. If you master the variety of program planning skills allowing you to work in diverse situations, then you will make a real difference in the real world of social program design and implementation.” Thus, we hope the following pages will make your head hurt in good ways!
Acknowledgments
We are indebted to colleagues and former students around the country and in various parts of the world who have talked and debated with us throughout the years about program planning. We are especially indebted to colleagues and former professors who have guided us and who are the real pioneers in writing the books on program planning that have provided incredible insights into the planning process. We are particularly thankful for Peter M. Kettner who has always supported our efforts to push beyond rational approaches, to Roger Lohmann, Edward J. Pawlak, Donald E. Chambers, and Bob Vinter who taught us or worked with us on program planning in the early days. We appreciate as well the efforts of a number of anonymous reviewers who provided careful and thoughtful assessments of our ideas, including Felice Davidson Perlmutter, Kathy Byers, Paul D. McWhinney, and Jon E. Singletary.
To our editor, Lisa Gebo, we do not have words to express our appreciation for the faith you have put in us as collaborators. You are an inspiration to us in so many ways. To our dear friend and former editor, David Estrin, we are grateful to you for always listening to our ideas, smiling appropriately, and then carefully giving us advice about who might be willing to listen to what we have to say.
To Frank R. Baskind, our Dean, we thank you for always supporting us in whatever direction we have decided to go, for being interested in our work, and for your willingness to read (and even use!) what we have to say. To our colleagues at Virginia Common-wealth University School of Social Work, we thank you for your continual support and for your enthusiasm when we chatter about what we are writing.
Most of all we thank our students and our graduates/community practitioners who have inspired us to write this book. It is through the many classroom experiences we have had with you that we have truly learned what it means to plan for practice. You have asked the tough questions and helped us conceptualize what alternative planning would look like when we did not have text-books to guide us. Your willingness to push the envelope has provided us with rich examples of what can happen when one trusts emergence.
F. Ellen NettingMary Katherine O’ConnorDavid P. Fauri
CHAPTER 1Differences between Lines and Circles
Our romance with deliberate strategies has blinded us to the reality that all strategy is a pattern in a stream of actions involving both intensions and emergence.
—Henry Mintzberg, as paraphrased in Getting to Maybe: How the World Has Changed
Chapter Outline
Lines and Circles as Planning MetaphorsA Brief History of Lines and CirclesScience and ReasonPositivism versus InterpretivismRational and Nonrational ThoughtRational and Nonrational Problem-Solving and Decision-MakingPlanning Theory: Both Lines and CirclesExamples of Planning ApproachesThe “Surety” of the Line and the “Tentativeness” of the CircleA Conceptual FrameworkSummaryDiscussion QuestionsAssumptions upon which the chapter is built:
Reason can be linear and nonlinear (or circular).
Circular reasoning, sometimes called nonrational thought, is different from irrational thought.
Both rational and nonrational thought have a basis in the history of decision-making and planning.
Both rational and nonrational thought bring strengths and challenges to the program planning process.
Practitioners have many different experiences with planning programs. Starting new programs from the beginning is often the task of founders, and provides a unique set of creative challenges. Many programs are inherited, making it necessary to simultaneously redesign or make changes at the same time that one is carrying out current plans. Smaller organizations may have only one program, which means that planning the program is organization-wide, whereas within larger organizations various programs are units representing a range of sizes. These programs are siblings within a larger setting. Public programs are typically mandated by law and come with various regulatory strings attached. Yet other programs come to life from the grassroots up, being designed to address felt needs. Programs come in all sizes and forms, and some are considered models, demonstrations, or pilots as various constituencies watch to see if and how they “work.” Others are planned as replications of existing or earlier efforts. Programs can be described as being mainstream, alternative, hybrid, direct service, advocacy, and a host of other terms.
Thus, planning programs is not one unique set of activities that move in one specific way. For example, in a study of fourteen social programs, Goldberg (1995) found that no single approach to practice could be found and that “effective programs were developed with a variety of methods” (p. 614). We see program planning as an unlimited number of possibilities for creative thinking. For example, have you ever been in a situation in which someone said, “We’re spinning our wheels,” yet in the process something new and interesting emerged? What was that about? Conversely, have you ever participated in something that was highly planful, in which a very specific set of goals and objectives was guiding the effort, but it simply did not work no matter how close one stuck to the plan? In the former situation, “spinning our wheels” is a metaphor for going in circles. In the process new ideas were emerging even though it felt redundant and unfocused. In the latter situation, having a detailed plan and placing it over a changing context might have meant that no one (no matter how skilled) could have preidentified how things would unfold. The program planning process unfolds in different ways, depending on its unique context. One approach does not fit all situations. We believe that both are useful and that the skilled practitioner must learn when to use different approaches. Both can be based on evidence in a world that is smitten with evidence-based practice. As you will see, the evidence used may be somewhat different in what, where, and when data are collected and analyzed.
Over a period of years a case management project was funded by a large private foundation. A health administrator, a social worker, a physician, and a nurse collaborated in responding to the request for proposals (RFP) to evaluate the project. There were eight project sites around the country, all of which had received funding to implement their case management interventions in physician practices in their respective locations. Each site was embedded in highly respected health care systems with dedicated, competent staff. The evaluation team began traveling to each site to assess these projects—each designed within its specific contexts. Each had measurable objectives, and on paper every project looked feasible. However, given local preferences, different practitioners performed case management.
Some were nurses, others were social workers, some were physician assistants, still others were nurse practitioners, and some had mixed disciplinary teams. Every site used a different assessment tool, based on the current instruments used in its health care environment. The work location of the case managers were different, given that some were colocated in physician offices, others were in adjacent buildings, and still others were in a central location from which they moved between physician offices on a regular basis. As the evaluation team interviewed various participants in these projects, it became increasingly clear that the projects were “apples and oranges,” and the interventions were not the same, even though all were doing case management. Each project had its own culture, structure, and norms of intervention.
The team recognized that each project had to be evaluated based on its own objectives, not the overall objectives of the foundation because the projects were really not comparable. This was fine; but what they soon realized was that each project had its own challenges. A few were moving toward their objectives in what seemed to be a consistent way; however, the majority of sites were in constant flux given the changing nature of the health care field. Staff came and went; physician practices merged; patients’ needs shifted; interorganizational relationships changed—and on and on. Original objectives became obsolete as project needs altered. Further, patient input during the intervention revealed a whole set of needs that had not been originally identified. Yet the foundation held the projects accountable to the original plans they had proposed in their grant applications because that was what the projects had contracted to do. The evaluation team had difficulty remaining detached. In fact, every time the team made a visit and asked questions, new issues and concerns emerged about how a project had or needed to change to make it responsive to patient needs.
In this example, very well-written plans were still on file in the foundation offices, but many of them had become obsolete in the process of implementation. Being tied to these plans became a dilemma for staff and for the evaluation team. Without the latitude to change in midstream, it became clear to the evaluation team that these projects were propelling forward, actually “doing” things differently but “pretending” that the plans they had submitted were what they were carrying out. How many times have practitioners found themselves in situations where they remain tethered to obsolete plans because the plans did not allow for flexibility? How many times do experts write plans that do not consider client needs or the views of various stakeholders, feasibility, or context? How often do program coordinators inherit plans that look logical on paper only to find that they do not hold up in “real life?” How often do funders require a particular format that demands up-front outcomes when the “real” outcomes have to emerge in process? If any of these questions ring a bell with you, then you may find what follows to be useful.
LINES AND CIRCLES AS PLANNING METAPHORS
Some scientific thought distinguishes no difference between a line and a circle. This is supported by the idea that if you make the line long enough, it ultimately becomes a circle. Senge asserts that, “Reality is made up of circles but we see straight lines” (1990, p. 71). In this book we are concerned with lines and circles and what they have to do with how one thinks about and does program planning.
Metaphorically, lines and circles conjure up different images. Being linear includes moving in a concerted direction: upward, downward, backward, forward, or sideways. Circles also have directionality, but they go round and round, reconnecting with themselves. While linearity implies the ability to move in different directions, circularity means reiteration. Some things work better using lines, whereas other things work better using circles, and yet others work better using lines and circles at different times. For example, seams need to be straight. The seamstress who sews only in circles cannot make a seam! Yet wheels need to be circular in order to roll. A linear wheel could not exist or work, yet a circular wheel propels one forward in a splendid manner. Sometimes to roll things forward, the attention needs to move from the wheel to the axle (a line) that connects two wheels. The basic premise of this book is that program planning can be linear, circular, or a combination of the two—lines and circles. The key is recognizing when it is appropriate and feasible to plan in which of these ways.
It is helpful to look at the differences between lines and circles based on what they can represent symbolically in Western thought and what they have to do with program planning. To understand the choice-making patterns in decision-making that go into seizing opportunities and/or problem-solving of any sort, it is necessary to understand differences between linear (deductive) thinking and circular (inductive) thinking. Reasonable thinking can include either and may include both.
To make the distinctions, we will take a quick look at the history of reason in Western thought and how it has influenced what is considered acceptable rigorous thinking for knowledge building. This history reveals what has happened in the tension between induction and deduction, as ways of coming to know. It may also help clarify the basis of the scientific controversy between positivism and what has come to be known as interpretivism (in postmodern research). This discussion should provide the building blocks for the focus of the chapter, the differences between rational and nonrational thought in the influence of planning theories and the resulting need to distinguish approaches to program planning.
Now hold your breath a moment because we are going to take you on a brief but complicated historical journey. When you come up for air we hope you have a deeper understanding of how lines became privileged over circles. You will see differences between a line and a circle when it comes to planning, the costs and benefits of deduction and induction, and rational and nonrational thought. This will also lead to distinguishing differences between nonrational and irrational thought approaches and identification of when rational or nonrational approaches to problem-solving will best serve your needs. If there is bias in our presentation, it is that both rational and nonrational approaches need to be privileged in order to skillfully plan quality programs.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF LINES AND CIRCLES
Science and Reason
As early as the 1700s, debates raged about human nature and the development of knowledge. Philosophers known as Continental Rationalists took the position that what is known about nature could be reasoned by using one’s intelligence, while other philosophers, British Empiricists, took the position that knowledge about the environment came from experience, or sense data. Philosophers such as Locke, Berkley, and Hume struggled with ideas about what constituted science. Was it based on physics and mathematics, or did the true basis of scientific knowledge rest on empirical verification rather than personal experience?
At the turn of the twentieth century, the Vienna Circle composed of scientific thinkers like Schlick, Hahn, Carnap, Ayers, and Wittgenstein extended the thinking of the early empiricists in influencing the development of logical empiricism and logical positivism. Logical empiricism asserted that the true basis of knowledge rests in empirical or evidence-based verification rather than on personal experience. The Logical Positivists believed that the task of science is to clarify basic concepts, rejecting the abstractions of metaphysics and meaning in favor of findings grounded on empirical evidence. Keys to this position are familiar aspects of the natural sciences: logic, methodology, and validation procedures.
Thanks to Comte and other Positivists active in the nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries, these methods were transferred almost without question (for an exception, see the life work of Karl Popper) and applied to human agency, later known as social science. It was Comte in The Positive Philosophy (1855, trans 1974) who first coined the term “sociology” and saw it as being the most complex of sciences, a naturalistic one that can both explain the past development of humankind and predict its future course. With this, the application of positivist ideals to social phenomena was almost complete. The belief that all true human knowledge is contained within the boundaries of science became the accepted norm in Western thought. Humanity was to be studied in the same scientific manner as the world of nature, through observations, development of hypotheses, and experimentation.
Induction, defined as making inferences of a generalized nature from particular instances, became the preferred method of consolidating the observational link between science and reality, not only for the natural, but also for the social sciences. This is in contrast to deduction, a method by which knowledge, inductively generated, is applied to situations not yet observed. Induction, going from the general to the specific, became preferred over deduction, going from the specific to the general.
Embedded in this philosophy about what constitutes science, including the study of human nature, is the assumption of the role of reason in human behavior and human understanding. For the most part, the Empiricists and Positivists were also Rationalists who, according to Fay (1996) explain human actions by providing their rationale; “to show how [these actions] were the rational thing to have done given agent’s beliefs and desires” (p. 92). From this, it should be clear that the belief about human agency is that humans engage in certain inferential processes (think induction) and act on that basis. Rationalists, then, assume that any act based on a reasoning process where the premises do not warrant the conclusions (think deduction), is a product of irrationality. The idea is to use reason to reduce information to its most elegant or simplest form. Based on the reductionistic goals that developed as positivism developed, the only “real” reasoning became linear reasoning. Rational thinking became understood as linear thinking and, thus, became accepted as reason. Linear thinking became the “gold coin” of thinking until the more recent postmodern critique of positivism gained momentum. With that critique came an opening for more interpretive approaches to human understanding. Mid-twentieth-century postmodern philosophy of science with its roots in continental rationalism has embraced nonlinear thought as a valid way of systematically coming to know.
Positivism versus Interpretivism
As we develop the idea that there are a variety of respectable ways of reasoning, it is also important to understand the difference between positivist and interpretivist ways of knowing. Traditional positivistic scientific thought favors exclusively rational (think linear) conduct of research and data analysis through carefully defined variables, sample frames, and data collection mechanisms based on the belief that prediction and control of events and variables are of interest and are possible. Good science will result in powerful generalizations about human behavior comparable to those found in natural science. This positivist frame assumes that any social phenomenon has real existence outside the individual and that knowledge is hard and measurable. What is of interest is the objective nature of social reality and relating to what is (Rodwell, 1998).
The modern approach to positivism, including Post-Positivists, tends to be realist, determinist, and nomothetic, or attending to the rule-governed nature of reality. Positivism seeks to provide rational explanations of social affairs. While being pragmatic and problem-oriented, it continues to apply the reason, models, and methods of the natural sciences to the social sciences out of an assumption that the social works, like the natural works. Both are seen as composed of relatively concrete empirical facts and relationships that can be identified (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Once identified, these facts or artifacts can be studied and measured through reductionistic approaches, providing an etic or outsider’s/expert’s perspective. For positivists, a more linear reasoning would be most appropriate to accomplish their goals.
In contrast, the interpretive approach seeks understanding, rather than description or generalization (Imre, 1991; Tyson, 1995). Systematic inquiry is used to develop rich understandings of a situation. Mainstream, objective, controlled, or experimental quantitative methods are not preferred, as they are unsuited for deeply probing into sociobehavioral phenomena. Objective social reality is rejected in favor of deep, contextualized understandings from the participants’ or actors’ emic, or insiders’ points of view. Interpretivist approaches to knowledge building are acknowledged to be a mix of the rational, serendipitous, and intuitive—allowing many learning opportunities in the effort to understand. This perspective assumes that while producing accurate but not objective (in the positivistic sense) information, processes and products can be warm, full, and artistic with meaning for both the planner and the user (consumer) communities.
Operating from an interpretive perspective asserts that the world, as it is, can be understood, but that understanding happens at the level of subjective experience. Individual consciousness and subjectivity are basic to understanding (Dilthey, 1976; Polanyi, 1958), and reality is actively created from this understanding (Gadamer, 1989; Merleau-Ponty, 1994). The social world is an emergent social process created by the participants. Universal laws are rejected in favor of highly individual, unique, and emergent logic. Social reality is little more than a network of assumptions and intersubjectively shared meanings among those participating in the social construction. Multiple realities or truths, rather than a single reality or truth, replace that which can be known, making reductionism an impossible goal for interpretive approaches. There is no generalizable truth, so the point of reference is toward understanding ongoing, ever changing processes (Burrell & Morgan, 1979). Realities, then, can only be studied holistically, making prediction and control impossible. For Interpretivists, a more circular approach to reason is appropriate and useful.
Essentially, the basic ontological (what is real) and epistemological (how we come to know it) assumptions of the positivist and interpretivist perspectives are fundamentally at odds. History would suggest that the perspectives do not so much differ as they compete (Deising, 1991), making it impossible to hold certain positivist assumptions while also holding interpretive assumptions without living in a state of paradox. One cannot assume both single and multiple realities at the same time without experiencing a paradox; nor can the planner and the object of inquiry both be at an objective distance while also entering into supportive interaction. One cannot produce both nomothetic (rule governed and generalizable) knowledge while also viewing knowledge as idiographic or individualized. Unfortunately, for many who are comfortable with a more holistic, intuitive approach to knowledge building, in the philosophy of science competition regarding “real science,” positivist approaches favoring controlled experiences involving quantitative data collection have become the gold standard for good science, over the more emergent and more qualitatively oriented interpretive approaches. Positivism, reason, and linearity have shaped the scientific discourse.
In terms of the program planning process in the foundationfunded medical case management project described earlier in this chapter, the issues are no different. Differing assumptions were present in varying ways of problem-solving, based on different assumptions in each project about reality or Truth. The foundation embraced the objectives in the proposals submitted by each of the eight sites as “Truth,” and whatever outcomes were developed became the only outcomes to be pursued. Such linear, rational thinking is more congruent with the positivist position. The sites, on the other hand, experienced the need for engaging in circular, nonrational thinking, which is more congruent with interpretive approaches. This does not mean they would not have eventually come up with new outcomes and different plans, but they needed the flexibility to take what was learned in process and mull it over (spin their wheels) until new, feasible, context-based directions emerged. However, due to the positivist/interpretivist science competition, these alternative approaches to rational thinking are rarely discussed or recognized as legitimate for program planning, and the foundation was not open to entertaining them. Thus, the various participants in this large multisite project felt they were not using their energies well when they were not able to move forward in a linear way. In actuality, we think this was productive planning. It was just different from the dominant view of how planning should occur.
Rational and Nonrational Thought
A basic premise for this chapter is the existence and use in problem-solving of both linear and circular thinking, both of which can be important to the planning process. To understand how both rational and nonrational thought serve the planning process, it is important to understand the basic premises of each. It should not be surprising to see that rational thought is congruent with the positivistic assumption that there exists a single, immutable truth that can be discovered. Based on this, rational thought extends to include the idea that most decisions can be made through a series of well-defined steps that follow a predictable or fixed linear sequence, moving toward a predetermined goal. Decisions are made through a reductionistic assessment of the most benefit for the least cost. The decisions conform to objective and determinant rules to forecast costs and benefits after completing assessment of alternatives, including their positive and negative consequences. Linear reason helps to make appropriate selections among alternatives geared to minimizing objections while maximizing benefits. A comparison of rational and nonrational thinking is provided in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Rational/Nonrational: Comparison of Thought Processes for Planning
Rational
Nonrational
Single truth
Multiple, competing truths
Thoughts constructed through series of well-defined steps
Thoughts must include multiple understandings
Steps follow fixed sequence
No fixed sequence of analytic steps
Process linear
Process nonlinear
Based on market (biggest bang for the buck)
Based on power and politics
Most benefit, least cost
Context is everything
Decisions based on objectivity and determinant rules
Decisions based on influence
Goal: prediction based on objectives, alternatives, consequences
Goal: getting what is “good” and avoiding what is “bad”
Decisions from selecting alternatives and minimizing objections
Making sense of paradox and politics
Reason as the basic building block
Reasoning by metaphor and analogy
Decisions made with assumptions of precision and linearity
Decisions made with clarity and reason, but more fluid and circular
Adapted from Fauri, Netting & O’Connor, 2005, p. 105.
The nonrational approaches, in keeping with interpretive assumptions, recognize a multiplicity and complexity of truths where understanding, rather than control, is possible. The thought process is context-embedded. It is attentive to all things, including power and historicity, that serve to influence processes, so that no fixed design or set of analytic steps can be predetermined or asserted to be useful at all times. Instead, a fluid notion of thought, one using both analogy and metaphor through both induction and deduction, allows a holistic view of the situation to emerge. This provides clarity about what might be best in a particular situation while avoiding what might be bad. Reductionism is not appreciated here because everything and anything may be important and should be considered and questioned in order to make the best decision for the moment. This sort of satisficing conclusion can only be achieved through a comprehensive, amorphous, circular thought pattern.
Though rational thought might be seen to be more appropriate for controlling unexpected influences in problem-solving in a hierarchical, expert-driven manner, the nonrational, emergent approach has the capacity to attend to the political and the contextual in a more collaborative or hermeneutic way. In cultures steeped in rationality and positivism, rational thinking for problem-solving may be assumed to be the only way to achieve good decision-making. In other cultural contexts with linguistic and cultural patterns that are more circular, the nonrational thought patterns may be assumed to be more natural. Looking at the differences that accrue when rational or nonrational thought is applied to problem-solving, we move closer to articulating an alternative to the traditional prescriptive program planning approach currently dominating accountability standards throughout the world. Our concern is that without considering the possible need for alternative approaches to problem-solving and decision-making, we unthinkingly would be using rational planning, regardless of the ontological, epistemological, and linguistic assumptions undergirding thought patterns within the environmental or organizational contexts in which planning occurs. This would create challenges for culturally relevant and technologically appropriate programming worldwide. It is our suspicion that even when there is a high degree of positivistic influence, nonrational approaches to problem-solving and decision-making are enacted in secret, with a sense that they are not quite legitimate. This is what happened when the eight health care sites in our earlier example did one thing, but pretended to be doing another.
