For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
CAROL WEISS'S THEORIES.
Term Paper ID:26795
Essay Subject:
Analyzes her sociological ideas, focusing on program & policy evaluation. Methodology, influences, feminism, ideology, major works, community initiatives, school reform, more.... More...
20 Pages / 4500 Words
12 sources, 28 Citations,
APA Format
$80.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
Analyzes her sociological ideas, focusing on program & policy evaluation. Methodology, influences, feminism, ideology, major works, community initiatives, school reform, more.
Paper Introduction:
A Critical Evaluation of the Work of Carol Weiss
Introduction
There has been enormous change in the social sciences during the past few decades, particularly in respect to acceptable research methods and understandings of social reality. The knowledge claims of social science have come under attack from feminists and minority groups who contend that these knowledge claims have most often represented the social reality of a limited minority group of white, elite males. This has brought under discussion the relationship between empirical and normative aspects of inquiry practices and created a problem of evaluation in social inquiry (Schwandt, 1997).
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
On the other hand, it may be that foundations have failed withcommunication and that members of Congress genuinely seek out informationregarding the issues facing them, regardless of ideology and interests.From what we know of Congress, however, it seems that Weiss's position isthe more likely one. Weiss (1993) did not blame teachers, however. Contemporary sociology, 27(5), 435-438. Foundations' impact on policy making:results from a pilot study. Her work has developed overtime into a more refined consideration of all aspects of the situation,including the perspectives of all of the actors in the situation and theirinteractions. Comparing publicadministration and policy analysis approach. Inother words, shared decision-making was not really occurring. People live theirlives according to ideologies that they have presumably established asadolescents, they are influenced by their own interests, and they arealmost impervious to information that does not fit well with each ideologyor interest. For her,there are clear standards that must be followed in order to create anevaluation program with integrity. Program Evaluation (199 s) Carol Weiss is both a creator and a critic. She is also concernedwith evaluation research, which is the effort to make the process ofevaluation ever more systematic and accurate. In the199 s, she emphasized the importance of social science theory, ideas, andconcepts. For her, the mostimportant aspect of social science is abstraction, rather than numbers.She noted that people are influenced by the work done in the socialsciences, but that they are more influenced by the theories, the concepts,and the new ideas disseminated by the social sciences. Instead, if there was change, it wasvaried. Weiss, 1999). That may be an accurate perception, but it may not allow for enoughmovement in what is perceived as the individual's interests. In other words, she didnot support the objectivist position, nor view evaluation as an effort inwhich objective individuals', without bias or special interest, were ableto determine the effectiveness of programs and decide policy. Thetwo sets of interests develop naturally from the differing value systems ofthe participants in the process. Reading the "problem of evaluation" insocial inquiry. Even information was not value-neutral. Palumbo (Ed.) The politics of program evaluation. The circuitry of enlightenment. (1983). Her province, however, is aparticular kind of evaluation that relates to programs and policies thatare designed to help people improve their lives. Wilson, W.J. (1992). In this next set of papers, she built upon her earlier work indistinguishing researchers from practitioners by looking at the forces andfactors that operate at the policy-making level. (1989). And Weiss, C.H. The evaluator mustacknowledge the use to be made of the work (Weiss, 1998). Trouble in paradise: Teacher conflictsin shared decision making. On the other hand, when the decision-making process is clearly collaborative and teachers feel supported by theadministration, decisions are more likely to be supported. The effort to achieve a value-neutral evaluation process,according to her work, is a wasted effort. A Critical Evaluation of the Work of Carol WeissIntroduction There has been enormous change in the social sciences during the pastfew decades, particularly in respect to acceptable research methods andunderstandings of social reality. The knowledge claims of social sciencehave come under attack from feminists and minority groups who contend thatthese knowledge claims have most often represented the social reality of alimited minority group of white, elite males. It is also wherepolitics and evaluation research meet, as Weiss (1987a) noted. When she looked at policy analysis, she found a cluster of factorsthat influenced what was determined. It is not only, or even primarily,information for scholar's research; it is work that has an impact on thewell-being of people in need. And Knott, J.H. What is even more useful about Weiss' work is that she has a fullconcept of the evaluation process. When this happens, thepotential exists for creating evaluative approaches that can supportknowledge creation and knowledge application that is satisfying for allinvolved in the process, including the community as a whole. This individual seems tobe uncommitted and without personal loyalties to a specific program ororganization. Weiss, C.H. Again, this served as areinforcer of their initial positions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 35-67. Untilrecently, however, he or she has not perceived this to be the case. Finally, Wilson (1998) contributed to the discussion of the role ofthe social sciences in public policy formation in terms of the ideas it hasto offer. In terms ofinformation, the individual was likely to use information to support bothideology and interests, and that information was, in itself, determined byother factors. Weiss, C.,Cambone, J. Instead, it hadseveral problem features. (1992) noted that SDM oftencreated more conflicts between teachers, because polite agreements toignore problems were no longer in effect. Her current research focuses on therelevance of research knowledge to educational policy-making and schoolimprovement. (1997). He discounts much of therecent work on new forms of process, rather than outcome, evaluation,indicating that this might be empowering to the participants, but does notnecessarily provide administrators or the community with good answers aboutthe effectiveness of specific programs. Essentially, the 4-I tool uses the factorsof individual interests, ideology, information, and institution to look athow individuals respond to reform efforts and to specific situations.Through her use of this tool, Weiss concluded that the SDM model was not aspromising for school reform as its adherents had hoped. For Weiss (1995), however, thiswas not necessarily so. For example, she noted that SDM schools often created significantinitial reform efforts, but that these were usually topdown. In somerespects, her world seems almost fixed in its conduct. Also, even if the evaluation focuses on process, ratherthan on formal outcomes, it is still looking at what happens with theorganization's procedures and the recipient's lives. As indicated in her definition, part of the purpose ofevaluation is to help local programs improve their work (Weiss, 1998). Methods have beendevised, and refined, to take into account some of those problems, such asobserver bias and the reliability and credibility of various techniques andtools for measurement. (1993). Carol Weiss is currently Professor of Education at HarvardUniversity, with a Ph.D. Instead, like Weiss, he preferred a social scienceapproach that offered ideas to influence the public agenda, even though thepublic was likely then to concurrently offer ideas to influence theacademic agenda. In a statement that is the foundation of her theory-based evaluation concept, she noted that social science can "challengeassumptions that have been taken for granted and give credibility tooptions that were viewed as beyond the pale (Wiess, 1993a, 48). She servesas chair of the task force on evaluation of the Harvard Project onSchooling and Children and teaches courses on evaluation, research methods,and organizational decision-making. The practitioner is concerned with people, specifics,the present, and possible actions. Congressional committees as users of analysis.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 3, 411-431. Unfortunately what they concluded is that what they needed was moreresearch. Weiss et al. What wassupportive of ideology and special interests was the information which waslikely to be used (Weiss, 1983). Change brings to visibility all the problems thatthe system already contains. American Review of PublicAdministration, 24(1), 25-4 . And Wyeth, A. On the other hand, the practitioner is likely to be warm where theresearcher is cool, interested in practical help for accomplishing programgoals. (1998).Evaluation. (1998). These areunderlying assumptions which may not be identified by the researcher, butwhich influence the way in which the research conducts the work. Using an analytical tool that she referred to as the "4-I" analysis,Weiss explored the SDM model. It ispolitical. Thsapproach allows for tracking effects so that individuals can clearlyidentify which results come from program activities and which resultsderive from outside influences. This is the individual interested in application, rather thanknowledge creation. Callahan and B. NY: Plenum. Stufflebeam, D.L.(1994). Weiss, C.H. (1995). Morality enters into the equation as the consideration of values, andconflicting values and interests, becomes more important to the discussion. Weiss, C. Thebasic interest of the policy analyst or researcher is in knowledgecreation, rather than application of knowledge. Developing critical evaluation, Evaluation Practice, 15(2), 1-15. Ifthe practitioner believes that certain policies and programs are having apositive impact on some people, then the practitioner will support thosepolicies and programs. On the other hand, for the practitioner, the ethical or moralapproach is that approach which directly aids people in the present. Weiss, C. She noted thatteachers have learned to be wary of new ideas, primarily because they arethe ones expected to put the ideas into effect, but usually have littlesupport in accomplishing this. Instead, she startswith the recognition that practitioners want their programs to work andwant to hear that they are being effective. Knowledge:Creation, diffusion, utilization, 8, 274-281. Ideology, interest and information: the basis ofpolicy decisions. Teacherparticipation was limited to eroding change, or stopping it in its tracks. Weiss, C. Evaluation must also be balanced, and express good judgment on thepart of the evaluators. (1995). Still, SDM creates problems for the entire system. Correspondingly, the practitioner does not have aninterest in knowledge creation, except insofar as that knowledge can beapplied to the program to assist in the furtherance of program goals. Weiss indicated that the social sciences have fresh perspectives tooffer public policy, if the social sciences are able to take advantage ofthat opportunity. 8). It does, afterall, represent change. This applies to all evaluation research and all types of programs.Weiss noted, for example, that whether the research is quantitative orqualitative, it must be conducted with formality and rigor, according toaccepted practice. The balance of power shiftedamong the teachers, with less premium placed on longevity and experience.In addition, time and energy were utilized, and sometimes wasted, by theeffort to learn an entirely new way of doing things. This is the beginning of Weiss' work in exploring the importance ofvalues, and value conflicts, in program development, operation, andevaluation. This was the primary need. One of her major articles explored an important school reforminitiative, the shared decisionmaking (SDM) model. Where politics and evaluation research meets.In D.J. Although generalizations are always dangerous, Weiss determined thatthere were significant personality differences between the two types ofindividuals. If the ways of conceiving the moral life, and if the values ofany group, differ from that of normative practice, then this is a problemfor social science (Schwandt, 1997). The problem may not be with the communication techniques of thefoundations, but with the receptivity of members of Congress. Lowery, D. In some respects, it seems that Weiss' work in the 199 s represents adeparture from her earlier work. Weiss, C. She began in the 197 s by distinguishing between those who doresearch and those who practice, noting that the former are more detachedand interested in knowledge creation, while the latter are more interestedin people and practical applications. This includes all the actors in thesituation, including the general public (1993a). Her research interests are policy analysis and evaluation,policy formulation, and policy implementation, along with decision-makingmethods and evaluation methods (Carol H. In these early works, she identifiedthose as ideology, interests, and information. She demands that the evaluatorsknow the program they are working with, not only through officialdocuments, but through an understanding of daily, ordinary program life.She insists upon a high degree of technical quality, and relevance to thelocal situation. She offered the followingdefinition of evaluation, which is a provisional one which she elaboratedthroughout her book: Evaluation is the systematic assessment of the operation and/or the outcomes of a program or policy, compared to a set of explicit or implicit standards, as a means of contributing to the improvement of the program of policy (Weiss, 1998, 4).There are five key elements in that definition for her. Congressionalmembers took that information which was supportive of their stances andused it in Congressional debates, or in trying to influence other membersabout the issues. Ideology, interests, and information (198 s) Carol Weiss began her career by looking at both knowledge creationand knowledge claims. In order to do this, they explored four aspects of public servi eeducation, looking at the student pool for each program, the norms ofprofessional socialization in each program, career paths for graduates ofeach program, and program graduates' career satisfaction. Faculty Resource Guide. In D. Wilsonnoted that some professionals believe that social science should stay outof the public realm, remaining academically-oriented, objective, andneutral in some fashion. It can, in other words, be both popular and serious.Evaluation In looking at the body of Weiss' work, and at the critiques of thatwork, it appears that she has made a significant contribution to the fieldof program evaluation and policy analysis. Instead, the effort here is to think about how good theory can bedeveloped that allows something to both sides. Feminist philosophy, critical theory, and hermeneutics have providedmuch of the grounding for the new discussion about the conduct of socialscience research and the evaluation of its results. It is not that the practitioner needs to do withouttheory, going simply by anecdotal evidence or felt senses, nor that theresearcher should be detached from the reality of people's lives. The four I's of school reform: How interests,ideology, information and institution affect teachers and principals.Harvard Educational Review, 6(4), 571-592. Researchers and practitioners (197 s) In her earliest work, Weiss set the foundation for her later thinkingabout policy analysis and program evaluation. Qualitative Inquiry, 3(1), 4-25. Weiss did not find that members ofCongress utilized policy analysis findings to change their positions, nordid they tend to receive that kind of policy analysis (Weiss, 1989). The interaction of the sociological agenda andpublic policy. Weissert,C.S. The researcher, as well as the practitioner, has anideology, interests, and a particular view of the nature of reality. There were forward movements and relapses, rather than constantprogression. And Whitaker, G.P. Congressional members were not looking for the truth, or thefacts of the matter, but for information that would enable them to feelgood about their positions. The intent is the advancement of knowledge, or truth, which isautomatically presumed to benefit humanity, as a whole. This might seem to support Weiss' position that members of Congressonly seek out those policy analyses that are reinforcing to their position. This seems to be a deliberate, and conscious, effort to meldthe interests and values of the researcher and the practitioner that she soearly identified. Even more, there have been questionsraised about the morality of certain aspects of social science, includingits questions, its methods, and its evaluation procedures. Thus,participants in the process of developing, implementing, and evaluatingpolicy all can benefit from understanding this sociological perspective,including forces that shape events (Weiss, 1993). Her initiatives in programevaluation and policy analysis are designed to support that desire, ratherthan be detached from it. She has provided importantinformation about program development, decision making, and programevaluation. Interestingly enough, according to Weissert and Knott (1995), membersof Congress tended to view foundations as partisan, which is probably areflection of their own view of the world. They also noted, however, thatone of the problems with foundation work was the inability of foundationsto communicate effectively, thus constraining their influence onpolicymakers. Weiss, C. For her, then, there are certain fundamental ideas about how toconduct evaluation in the next century. In her typology, the researcher was most likely to be adetached person interested primarily in ideas and abstractions. It forces both the administration andteachers to deal with some of these problems which have often existed underconditions of benign neglect. Shared decision making about what? Principalsinitiated the efforts, often in direct opposition to the teachers. One of the current professionals noted for her work in programevaluation is Carol Weiss. She started by exploring thedifferences between researchers (or those who did the analysis andevaluation) and practitioners who served as managers and implementers(Weiss, 1972). It has oftenemphasized more qualitative measures, denying empiricism its "objectivity". Although they believe that the hypothesesthey developed are testable, they did not do the testing, suggestinginstead that these models be developed in order to make some practicaldecisions about the results. Yet, there are those who contend that this attitude, or stance, isflawed and that the problem remains the same basic one that Schwandtreferred to. The practitioner and the researchergenerally are not congenial, because they have different values. What might be fruitful in the future is to look further into hertheory-based evaluation process and into her assertion that it is socialscience ideas, rather than statistics, which really impact the publicprocess. The researcher needs tohave means for credible knowledge creation and dissemination and thepractitioner needs to have influence on the evaluation process from apeople-oriented, here and now perspective. It cannot be made totally rationalist and objective. Second, the research focuseson the operations of a program and, third, on the outcomes of the program.The fourth important element is that there are standards for comparison,while the fifth element is that the purpose of the evaluation is making acontribution to the improvement of program and policy. For Stufflebeam, it is clearly possible to develop criticalevaluation practices that can be applied universally to programs andpractices, giving results that can be used to measure effectiveness anddetermine funding and continuation of programs. This is congruent with Weiss' basic thinking about the way in whichsocial science actually influences public policy. They noted that there hasbeen a split in public service education during the past 25 years, withpolicy analysis developed in reaction to perceived failures in publicadministration. It is this perspective, above all, thatWeiss brings to the conduct of evaluation and it is an importantcontribution of attitude.Summary, recommendations, and conclusions Weiss has a substantial body of work with some consistent threads orviewpoints. Basically, he agrees with Weiss' position that the socialsciences can fundamentally affect public policy through offering freshperspectives and new ideas and, further, that they should do so. Basically, this already occurs, and the interactionexists. For example, in her discussion of community initiatives for childrenand families, Weiss (Connell et al., 1995) emphasized the importance ofbeginning with good theory in order to develop the most effectiveevaluation. In her theory-based approach, the emphasis is on exploring how andwhy a particular program is supposed to work. Wilson also noted that it is possible to create social sciencework that is both accessible to the general public - influencing the publicagenda and public policy - and that increases knowledge within the realm ofthe social sciences. Another possible critique of Weiss's work is that she mightunderestimate the influence of outside forces in producing change. For her, the domain ofevaluation is fairly wide. (1987a). The job of the foundations, then, is to locate those Congresspeopleand other policymakers who are fundamentally receptive to their positionand provide them with the information they need to reinforce thosepositions. Policy analysis served as a reinforcer for predeterminedpositions. Weiss, C.H. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. It covers judgments of many different sorts,and judgments of many different phenomena. While numbers maybe bandied about in short-term conflicts over particular programs andprogram funding, in the long-term, it is sociological ideas that influencethe conduct of public policy. Weiss (1983, 1987, 1998) has contributed to that work with a longseries of publications dealing with the politics of evaluation itself.Evaluation itself, like the thing being evaluated, is not a neutralprocess. Wilson (Ed.) Sociology and the public agenda.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. According to Weiss' evaluative efforts (Weiss et al., 1992; Weiss,1993), the SDM model did not create a smooth process in which school reformproceeded in a linear fashion. In sociology from Columbia University. For example, in her study of Congress, Weiss (1989) learned that themost often cited way in which studies and other forms of policy analysiswere used in Congress was in supporting existing positions. A comparisonof schools with and without teacher participation. Wilson noted there was some merit to that argument, but that itwas shortsighted. (1995).New approaches to evaluating community Initiatives. Again, referring back to her definition ofevaluation, evaluators must recognize that the program takes priority, nottheir analytical needs nor the state of the research. Her work is a significant contribution to thinking about the socialsciences in general, as well as the evaluative process. Schwandt, T.A. In yet another look at Weiss' work, Lowery and Whitaker (1994)attempted to discover if there are indeed significant differences betweenpolicy analysis and public administration approaches to public service bylooking at the students in each type of program. It appears, then, that the politics in the interaction arises withthe interests of the practitioner who has the more overtly emotionalinterest in the activity. (1987). Schwandt (1997) noted that one of the most significant lessons learned inprogram evaluation recently is that programs are not neutral; instead, theyare "social, political, and moral constructions that embody the different(and often conflicting) interests and values of stakeholders" (p. Jennings (Eds.). However, her workis not limited to program evaluation. Although she still emphasizes the sameforces that she identified in her earlier work, it seems as though she hasbecome more rigorous in her critiques and her theory development. This has brought underdiscussion the relationship between empirical and normative aspects ofinquiry practices and created a problem of evaluation in social inquiry(Schwandt, 1997). For example,in looking at the impact of foundations on policy-making, Weissert andKnott (1995) discovered that foundations were often in advance of Congressin studying and publicizing issues, but that in some instances Congresseventually came around to holding its own hearings about those issues.Thus, Congress was not instantly amenable to influence, but it wasgradually influenced over time to perceive the issues raised by foundationsas relevant to its work. In W.J. For the researcher, the moral, or ethical, approach is to find outthe facts. Washington, D.C.: TheAspen Institute. Presumably they will also use this informaiton to try toinfluence other members of Congress, and this may gradually make a change.In general, however, this supports Weiss' view of Congress (and otherorganizations) as veritable cauldrons of emotional interests and values,rather than as dispassionate institutions designed to do some form ofpublic good. (1994). This also appliedto their interests, and special interests influencing them. She started from a hermeneutic that viewed withsuspicion claims of neutrality and universality. It is at the interesection of the interests of these two actors andvalue clusters that most program evaluation occurs. Not only does she define evaluation andprovide background on the many different ways it can be conducted, sheestablishes standards for a moral use of evaluation in programs. It does represent a clash of interests, values, and ideologies. Although it hasbeen critiqued, fundamentally her work is sound, and her thinking seemscogent on the subject of the real process of program evaluation. Stufflebeam favored the more traditionalmethods of developing rational, objective criteria with which to judgeprograms and practices, rather than the new methodologies of empowermentevaluation. (1999). In the 198 s, she developed her workfurther by looking at how Congress used policy analysis, which wasessentially to support and reinforce already-held viewpoints. If the researcher focuses on the statistics of thesituation which may indicate limited effectiveness, the practitioner isbound to defend what he or she perceives as a vital and important program. Program Evaluation Since the emphasis of this paper is program evaluation, let us lookat Weiss' understanding of what that means. References Connell, J.P., Kubisch, A.C., Schor, L.B. These both offer promise in working to resolve the clash ofvalues represented by her original dichotomy of researcher/practitioner.If this split can be brought together more completely in public policydevelopment and evaluation, it would likely lead to less conflict, greaterproductivity, and less frustration as problem-solving becomes moreeffective. However, she also noted that the best results seemed to beobtained in those schools in which schools began with explicit discussionsof the school's mission and vision for the future.Critiques As Schwandt (1997) noted, work in the social sciences has always beentroubled by problems with the evaluation process. This isthe generalizer, the one who establishes categories and universals. In searching the literature, they did not find answers, justpotentially testable hypotheses. Teachers CollegeRecords, 95(1), 69-92. Internet: (http://gseweb.harvard.edu/~3garden/faculty/bio/weissca.html). Secondary to thatwas the desire to have policy analysis papers that they could use toeducate other members to support their positions. It is not that one set of actors is moremoral than another - along differing sets of academics will make thoseclaims - but that each sees themselves as pursuing a fundamentally moremoral course than the other. However, this is a narrow definition ofpolitics, which is always concerned with ideology, interests, and differingviews of reality. Ethics, socialsciences, and policy analysis. Nor isit the case that the two types of people should spend their energy andresources doing battle over what set of interests and values will rule theday. One of the particular problems has been the problem of values, bothin professional practice and in terms of social inquiry, includingevaluation. Weiss noted that evaluation is a verydifficult, but important job. She emphasized that this is ademocratic society, and that requires certain emphases. They favor this at least partly to avoid thepressures that full involvement in practical application would mean foracademics. The person's ideologicalstance was likely to influence the questions that they asked and theanswers that they received in terms of policy analysis. They sought to test whether Weiss was accurate when shecharacterized the analysts and the practitioners as very different people. Health Affairs, 14(4), 275-284. Finally, the evaluator must behave ethically throughout, and surviveand reap the rewards of a good job. However, more recently there has been an attack onthe distinction between descriptive/explanatory types of inquiry and morenormative/empirical types of inquiry. It also makes explicit the assumptionsand goals of the program, while addressing theoretical assumptions whichmay be influential on both policy and public opinion. Her focus is on thinkingabout how organizations work effectively, and all the different ways thatpolicy-making, decision-making, and implementation can go right, or wrong. Engaging publics in sociologicaldialogue through the media. The intent in the following pages is to explore the work of CarolWeiss in the field of evaluation, look at some of the critiques of thatwork, and evaluate its contribution to the field.The Work of Carol Weiss One of the focal points of this paper is the work that Carol Weisshas done in developing concepts of program evaluation. Still, the need for evaluation has remained. Weiss (Connell et al., 1995) noted that theory-based evaluation isimportant and useful because it narrows the focus of evaluation andevaluation of results is easier. It is there, she concluded, that social science can make itsgreatest contribution to the public policy debate and the public policyagenda. (1993a). The data shouldalso provide information about why particular assumptions break down. This is the problem of developing social science methods,including methods of evaluation, which are apolitical, objectivist, andrationalist (Stufflebeam, 1994). This is the start of the politicalclash which involves values and interests and affects policy development,implementation, and evaluation. It isinevitable, given this arrangement, that other forces will come into playduring the evaluation process. First, evaluationresearch is systematic, rather than random. Weiss, of Harvard University, has emphasizedthat although good data is useful and builds credibility, the sociologicalperspective on processes, events, and entities is equally important. Evaluating the programrequires looking at the assumptions which underly the program and startingwith those to develop data collection methods that identify the assumptionsthat are supported, as well as those which break down. Again, it is clear thatthere are different sets of interests and values. Newbury Park,CA: Sage Publications. This model has beenadopted by many who assume that changing the venue of decision-making tothe local school, and making it a shared work of different articles at thelocal level, will lead to improvements. Weiss, C. Withthe feminist critique, it has been identified as such, with theresearcher's ideology defined as normative in the modern world until quiterecently. If there are two different types of people involved in theprocess, with two opposed sets of values, the likely result is conflict.The researcher does not have a vested interest in the success of thepractitioner's program, nor the well-being of the people the practitioneris concerned with. She is theory-oriented, but not to the exclusion of anorientation to the needs of program practitioners.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject