Search

The focus of this paper is to share thinking about networks in action research (AR) and to consider their role, purpose, and how networks’ outcomes and impacts might be evaluated. Networks are often a by-product of AR projects, yet research focused on the network itself as part of a project is rare. The paper is one of several associated with the Evaluative Study of Action Research (ESAR) in which we wish to understand how projected outcomes and impacts are realised and why certain approaches are chosen and seen to be effective. Description is provided of the development and function of networks and their connection to, and within, AR. We then explore the first of a series of networks in the ESAR, the core team network, and undertake a formative evaluation of the functioning of this network. The paper concludes with a look ahead to the evaluation of each of the various levels of networks anticipated within the ESAR. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This study addresses a gap in board director research by investigating how individual personal values influence board strategic engagement. The nature of board directors' strategic engagement was examined qualitatively, using 65 in-depth interviews, content analysis, board meeting observations and board workshops. Using an interpretative lens, four differing individual personal characteristics were identified and labeled: 'mission-driven', 'commanding', 'shape-shifting', and 'community-minded'. These concepts coincided with theory of personal value theory, used in previous studies linking managers (but not board directors) to behaviors. Practical implications provide insights into attracting, retaining and developing an appropriate mix of directors to enhance nonprofit board strategic engagement, boosting performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The focus of this paper is to share thinking about meta-level evaluation of action research (AR), and to introduce indicator domains for assessing and measuring inputs, outputs and outcomes. Meta-level and multi-site evaluation has been rare in AR beyond project implementation and participant satisfaction. The paper is the first of several associated with the Evaluative Study of Action Research (ESAR) in which we wish to establish the ways that espoused intents articulated in projects are realized and why certain approaches are adopted and seen to be effective. We seek to increase understanding of outcomes and impact of AR. Description is provided of multiple issues of complexity associated with establishing evaluative criteria and indicators categorized according to inputs, process, outputs, outcomes and impact. We explore theory associated with definition and practice of evaluation prior to presentation of the indicators. We think the time is ripe for deeper examination of AR practice and welcome the associated conversation and critique of our proposed indicators. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]