this discussion forum, read Chapter 5: Knowing When to Use Which Planning Approach in Comparative Approaches to Program Planning.

"Decision Issues for Approach SelectionSummaryDiscussion QuestionsAppendixAssumptions upon which this chapter is based:Ethical considerations are at the heart of decisions about plan-ning.Ethics guide appropriate actions on the part of the planner andchoices about the appropriate vehicle for developing the plan.Useful to ethical decision-making is critical thinking, to deter-mine whether ethical absolutism or ethical relativism is calledfor in the situation.Planners may prefer one approach over another or be moreskilled in one program planning approach; thus, using differentapproaches may require professional growth and develop-ment.Both prescriptive and emergent planning approaches representstrengths and challenges, depending on the context for plan-ning.You, the reader, are likely a practitioner (or soon to be practi-tioner) wishing to be an effective program planner. You may be aclinician who implements programs and wants them to ‘‘work.’’You may have experienced the unfortunate situation in which youhave been tasked with carrying out programs that were poorlydesigned or so rigidly prescribed that they restricted the workyou were trying to accomplish. Perhaps you need the skills to dosound rational planning for the purpose of accessing funding fora program to which you are very committed. You "program coordinator in a human service agency, forced to carry outinitiatives that use approaches insensitive to cultural needs. What-ever your circumstance, chances are you want to be a professionalwhose work has integrity and who has the capacity to use appro-priate tools for problem-solving, decision-making, and planning.In Chapters 3 and 4, we examined two approaches to planningbased on different sets of assumptions. In Chapter 3, we focused onthe logic of rational planning in which prescriptive approaches arelinear layouts of plans of action to solve a social problem based onthe assumptions that when planning, one knows where one isgoing. Planners who use these approaches generally do so asexperts with predetermined goals developed from an expert per-spective. This approach has been termed ‘‘reverse-order planning’’(Brody, 2000, pp. 77–78) where the results to be achieved areidentified early and the planner pursues a logic model or a problem-solving model to bring them about.In Chapter 4, we examined interpretive planning, an emergentapproach, focused on understanding stakeholders’ perspectives as ameans of continual information gathering and analysis for problem-solving. The logic of this planning process is a nonlinear process ofengagement, sense-making, and discovery, interacting continually asa program design unfolds. In this approach, goals emerge in process,and may change, revealing ‘‘forward-sequence planning,’’ whichbegins wherever one can start (Brody, 2000, pp. 77–78).We believe that there are places for both rational program plan-ning and interpretive planning. When to use which approach isdistinguished by context and by what one is trying to achieve, basedon what it takes to articulate and develop solutions. Sometimes theselection of an approach is straightforward and clear. Other times,as Quinn (1988) says inBeyond Rational Management, it requires the‘‘complex, holistic, and fluid—a kind of thinking that distinguishesthe master from the novice’’ (p. 7). This is when critical thinking" may be the" "steeped in solid ethical decision-making is needed—when whatis necessary for competent, appropriate planning is less clear.This chapter has been designed to help you not only distinguishthe differences between the approaches, but also to engage in thecomplex thinking necessary to determine which should work bestin a given situation.Persons skilled in dealing with complexity and critical thinking,who can live with paradox and ambiguity, are likely candidates fordesigning and developing emergent human service programs; butthose without those natural and acquired skills must also be able touse this sort of planning when appropriate. Cultures in whichinterpretive or nonrational thinking occurs as a matter of coursemay be particularly receptive to interpretive planning, and evenhelpful in educating those needing the skills to face these challengesof emergent approaches. Other cultures steeped in rationality maybe receptive to rational planning and helpful in incubating plannerscompetent to enact prescriptive approaches. In either case, an alter-native way of planning may be necessary to reach needed goals.Both approaches are important and necessary for planning. Some-times, one approach should be preferred over another. Other times,a strategic combination is appropriate. Determining the appropriateapproach requires a consciousness and criticality about contextualconstraints and opportunities that is only possible if the plannerbrings ethics and critical thinking to the decision-making process.In this chapter, we begin with another case example. Now thatyou are familiar with both prescriptive and emergent approaches toplanning, we will also do a brief analysis of a case to demonstratehow the approaches are used. We then explore program planningapproaches in terms of their similarities regarding gaining entryand becoming oriented. Next in that section, we investigate theimportance of critical thinking and ethical decision-making in theplanning process as guides to all planning practice, with emphasison nuanced differences between the approaches. This is followed by" "steeped in solid ethical decision-making is needed—when whatis necessary for competent, appropriate planning is less clear.This chapter has been designed to help you not only distinguishthe differences between the approaches, but also to engage in thecomplex thinking necessary to determine which should work bestin a given situation.Persons skilled in dealing with complexity and critical thinking,who can live with paradox and ambiguity, are likely candidates fordesigning and developing emergent human service programs; butthose without those natural and acquired skills must also be able touse this sort of planning when appropriate. Cultures in whichinterpretive or nonrational thinking occurs as a matter of coursemay be particularly receptive to interpretive planning, and evenhelpful in educating those needing the skills to face these challengesof emergent approaches. Other cultures steeped in rationality maybe receptive to rational planning and helpful in incubating plannerscompetent to enact prescriptive approaches. In either case, an alter-native way of planning may be necessary to reach needed goals.Both approaches are important and necessary for planning. Some-times, one approach should be preferred over another. Other times,a strategic combination is appropriate. Determining the appropriateapproach requires a consciousness and criticality about contextualconstraints and opportunities that is only possible if the plannerbrings ethics and critical thinking to the decision-making process.In this chapter, we begin with another case example. Now thatyou are familiar with both prescriptive and emergent approaches toplanning, we will also do a brief analysis of a case to demonstratehow the approaches are used. We then explore program planningapproaches in terms of their similarities regarding gaining entryand becoming oriented. Next in that section, we investigate theimportance of critical thinking and ethical decision-making in theplanning process as guides to all planning practice, with emphasison nuanced differences between the approaches. This is followed by" "steeped in solid ethical decision-making is needed—when whatis necessary for competent, appropriate planning is less clear.This chapter has been designed to help you not only distinguishthe differences between the approaches, but also to engage in thecomplex thinking necessary to determine which should work bestin a given situation.Persons skilled in dealing with complexity and critical thinking,who can live with paradox and ambiguity, are likely candidates fordesigning and developing emergent human service programs; butthose without those natural and acquired skills must also be able touse this sort of planning when appropriate. Cultures in whichinterpretive or nonrational thinking occurs as a matter of coursemay be particularly receptive to interpretive planning, and evenhelpful in educating those needing the skills to face these challengesof emergent approaches. Other cultures steeped in rationality maybe receptive to rational planning and helpful in incubating plannerscompetent to enact prescriptive approaches. In either case, an alter-native way of planning may be necessary to reach needed goals.Both approaches are important and necessary for planning. Some-times, one approach should be preferred over another. Other times,a strategic combination is appropriate. Determining the appropriateapproach requires a consciousness and criticality about contextualconstraints and opportunities that is only possible if the plannerbrings ethics and critical thinking to the decision-making process.In this chapter, we begin with another case example. Now thatyou are familiar with both prescriptive and emergent approaches toplanning, we will also do a brief analysis of a case to demonstratehow the approaches are used. We then explore program planningapproaches in terms of their similarities regarding gaining entryand becoming oriented. Next in that section, we investigate theimportance of critical thinking and ethical decision-making in theplanning process as guides to all planning practice, with emphasison nuanced differences between the approaches. This is followed by" "compared with the marketing of pigs to liberate capital. Theybegan to compute the potential impact of the marketing of pigson the local economy. They analyzed the situation and adjustedthe intervention by coordinating with various stakeholders toadjust what they were doing, thusresponding to the implicationsof what would happen if the pig distribution from Europe con-tinued. In the process, the planners probably did not name whatthey were doing as copying, comparing, computing, analyzing,coordinating, and synthesizing; but they engaged in all of theseprocesses. It was part of a critical focus on problem-solving.The interesting aspect was that the problem changed. With thatchange, the critical thinking moved from a linear to a more circu-lar method. In the process, they were thinking critically aboutwhat was happening while moving to action that altered theoriginal program design. Had they not analyzed, coordinated,and synthesized what was happening, what seemed like a won-derful intervention could have had disastrous consequences.Though Kroeger and Thuesen describe levels of thinking in arather hierarchical manner, indicating that one stage is completedprior to moving to another, our example shows that the processmight not be either sequential or linear. In the example, what beganas a highly rational process sequenced into an interpretive process,and then sequenced back into a rational process in the course of theprogram. Thus, for us, the levels of complex thinking do not belongto one type of program planning, but are necessary ingredients inany successful program planning process.Critical thinking is a dialogic process comprising reflective/ana-lytic listening, active pursuit of clarity of expression, evidence, andreason, as necessary. What is considered appropriate evidence andthe reason employed may differ, depending on the planningapproach. These must be combined with an evenhanded consider-ation of alternative points of view. The required evenhandedness is" "possible through fair-mindedness. The critical thinker sees theinterplay between various beliefs and is willing to test these beliefs,including his or her own. Testing closely held beliefs requires intel-lectual courage and security that comes more easily when the criti-cal thinker possesses self-knowledge about personal strengths andlimitations. However, the critical thinker also must be able to ques-tion what others accept.Critical thinking includes critical reading and critical writing, tosurface and deal with differing perspectives of experts and otherswho may or may not have a stake in the process. If multiple per-spectives are not easily expressed, they must be generated so com-parative analysis can occur.Finally, the critical thinker is a conscious thinker. Rehner(1994) has developed some strategies to demystify critical thinking.We provide adaptations from that work to fit the experiences of theprogram planner. To become a critically conscious planner, thefollowing are useful basic questions to ask and answer in the thinkingprocess:What is thepurposeof my thinking?What precisequestion(problem) am I trying to answer?Within whatpoint of view(positivis" "If I accept the conclusions, what are theimplications? Whatwould be the consequence (positive and negative) if I were toput my thoughts into action?In short, program planners must be critical thinkers in order todetermine which planning approach is needed in a particular sit-uation and to competently carry out that approach.How, then, is critical thinking different for rational and interpre-tive planning? The answer probably depends on where the plan-ning process begins. If a program is being designed ‘‘from scratch’’and is totally new, then both rational and interpretive planning willlikely begin at a similar place. Each will begin with general obser-vations and move toward synthesizing thinking in order to deter-mine which approach is appropriate and move from there.However, if redesigning an existing program, then the process willlook different. Rational planning would probably respect predeter-mined goals of the existing program and think critically with othersabout how the program needs to be modified to reach the goals.Interpretive planning, coming from a different perspective willlikely begin by questioning the goals because goals are useful onlyas long as they function, the need for program redesign would beseen as an indication that everything might need to change; eventhe idea of having a program might be questioned. The directionthat is chosen may well have an ethical component.For example, in a large school system, the number of childrenwho lacked consistent medical attention and had incompleteimmunizations histories was increasing. Local officials contactedthe public health department to see if it could develop an immuni-zation program, along with providing opportunities for schoolphysicals. Public health nurses worked with family physicianswho donated their time to do monthly clinics at the schools." "If I accept the conclusions, what are theimplications? Whatwould be the consequence (positive and negative) if I were toput my thoughts into action?In short, program planners must be critical thinkers in order todetermine which planning approach is needed in a particular sit-uation and to competently carry out that approach.How, then, is critical thinking different for rational and interpre-tive planning? The answer probably depends on where the plan-ning process begins. If a program is being designed ‘‘from scratch’’and is totally new, then both rational and interpretive planning willlikely begin at a similar place. Each will begin with general obser-vations and move toward synthesizing thinking in order to deter-mine which approach is appropriate and move from there.However, if redesigning an existing program, then the process willlook different. Rational planning would probably respect predeter-mined goals of the existing program and think critically with othersabout how the program needs to be modified to reach the goals.Interpretive planning, coming from a different perspective willlikely begin by questioning the goals because goals are useful onlyas long as they function, the need for program redesign would beseen as an indication that everything might need to change; eventhe idea of having a program might be questioned. The directionthat is chosen may well have an ethical component.For example, in a large school system, the number of childrenwho lacked consistent medical attention and had incompleteimmunizations histories was increasing. Local officials contactedthe public health department to see if it could develop an immuni-zation program, along with providing opportunities for schoolphysicals. Public health nurses worked with family physicianswho donated their time to do monthly clinics at the schools." "If I accept the conclusions, what are theimplications? Whatwould be the consequence (positive and negative) if I were toput my thoughts into action?In short, program planners must be critical thinkers in order todetermine which planning approach is needed in a particular sit-uation and to competently carry out that approach.How, then, is critical thinking different for rational and interpre-tive planning? The answer probably depends on where the plan-ning process begins. If a program is being designed ‘‘from scratch’’and is totally new, then both rational and interpretive planning willlikely begin at a similar place. Each will begin with general obser-vations and move toward synthesizing thinking in order to deter-mine which approach is appropriate and move from there.However, if redesigning an existing program, then the process willlook different. Rational planning would probably respect predeter-mined goals of the existing program and think critically with othersabout how the program needs to be modified to reach the goals.Interpretive planning, coming from a different perspective willlikely begin by questioning the goals because goals are useful onlyas long as they function, the need for program redesign would beseen as an indication that everything might need to change; eventhe idea of having a program might be questioned. The directionthat is chosen may well have an ethical component.For example, in a large school system, the number of childrenwho lacked consistent medical attention and had incompleteimmunizations histories was increasing. Local officials contactedthe public health department to see if it could develop an immuni-zation program, along with providing opportunities for schoolphysicals. Public health nurses worked with family physicianswho donated their time to do monthly clinics at the schools." "design will net the expected results. Ideally, in rational planning,clients’ voices will be heard at least in a representative way. If clientvalues and preferences are at odds with those of practitioners, thetendency will be to respect the opinion of the experts, the practi-tioners. The same is true for empirical research. If there are empiri-cal research data available that contradict both practitioners’ andclients’ perspectives, these data will usually be the most privilegedinformation in rational program planning decision-making.In interpretive planning, evidence that reveals deep underlyingmeanings will be most valued, and studies that provoke newinsights will be most helpful. Context-based quantitative researchwill not be disregarded, but the richness of qualitative methods,allowing for in-depth knowing and understanding of the problem,will be highly valued. Qualitative evidence (word data) will assurethat the decision-making process is emergent, recognizing tenta-tively held insights as practice unfolds. This stance can be seen to bemore congruent with an ethical relativist position. Funders andother constituencies appreciative of more consensus-based modelsof intervention will understand and prefer the way interpretiveevidence influences program planning. Practitioners and clientswill join in a decision-making process in which their joint experi-ences and values are treated as important elements in movingtoward a consensus on what intervention needs to occur. Evaluat-ing the process itself (formative evaluation) will be as important asresults or outcome-oriented evaluation (summative evaluation).From the ethical relativist position, then, making clear the conse-quences of overlooking formative evaluation in preference to sum-mative evaluation will become an ethical responsibility, even whenfacing the more ethical absolutist demands of EBP. It is within thisethical challenge that critical thinking becomes an essential tool.In addition, an important ethical question in either type ofplanning is: to whom are the planners accountable? The answer"

"design will net the expected results. Ideally, in rational planning,clients’ voices will be heard at least in a representative way. If clientvalues and preferences are at odds with those of practitioners, thetendency will be to respect the opinion of the experts, the practi-tioners. The same is true for empirical research. If there are empiri-cal research data available that contradict both practitioners’ andclients’ perspectives, these data will usually be the most privilegedinformation in rational program planning decision-making.In interpretive planning, evidence that reveals deep underlyingmeanings will be most valued, and studies that provoke newinsights will be most helpful. Context-based quantitative researchwill not be disregarded, but the richness of qualitative methods,allowing for in-depth knowing and understanding of the problem,will be highly valued. Qualitative evidence (word data) will assurethat the decision-making process is emergent, recognizing tenta-tively held insights as practice unfolds. This stance can be seen to bemore congruent with an ethical relativist position. Funders andother constituencies appreciative of more consensus-based modelsof intervention will understand and prefer the way interpretiveevidence influences program planning. Practitioners and clientswill join in a decision-making process in which their joint experi-ences and values are treated as important elements in movingtoward a consensus on what intervention needs to occur. Evaluat-ing the process itself (formative evaluation) will be as important asresults or outcome-oriented evaluation (summative evaluation).From the ethical relativist position, then, making clear the conse-quences of overlooking formative evaluation in preference to sum-mative evaluation will become an ethical responsibility, even whenfacing the more ethical absolutist demands of EBP. It is within thisethical challenge that critical thinking becomes an essential tool.In addition, an important ethical question in either type ofplanning is: to whom are the planners accountable? The answer" "design will net the expected results. Ideally, in rational planning,clients’ voices will be heard at least in a representative way. If clientvalues and preferences are at odds with those of practitioners, thetendency will be to respect the opinion of the experts, the practi-tioners. The same is true for empirical research. If there are empiri-cal research data available that contradict both practitioners’ andclients’ perspectives, these data will usually be the most privilegedinformation in rational program planning decision-making.In interpretive planning, evidence that reveals deep underlyingmeanings will be most valued, and studies that provoke newinsights will be most helpful. Context-based quantitative researchwill not be disregarded, but the richness of qualitative methods,allowing for in-depth knowing and understanding of the problem,will be highly valued. Qualitative evidence (word data) will assurethat the decision-making process is emergent, recognizing tenta-tively held insights as practice unfolds. This stance can be seen to bemore congruent with an ethical relativist position. Funders andother constituencies appreciative of more consensus-based modelsof intervention will understand and prefer the way interpretiveevidence influences program planning. Practitioners and clientswill join in a decision-making process in which their joint experi-ences and values are treated as important elements in movingtoward a consensus on what intervention needs to occur. Evaluat-ing the process itself (formative evaluation) will be as important asresults or outcome-oriented evaluation (summative evaluation).From the ethical relativist position, then, making clear the conse-quences of overlooking formative evaluation in preference to sum-mative evaluation will become an ethical responsibility, even whenfacing the more ethical absolutist demands of EBP. It is within thisethical challenge that critical thinking becomes an essential tool.In addition, an important ethical question in either type ofplanning is: to whom are the planners accountable? The answer"

"logic of the language helps one understand the logic-in-use inthe culture. Linear, Anglo-Saxon-based languages (English andGerman, among others) provide different clues to reasoning andproblem-solving than those available in more circular languages,such as the romance languages (French, Spanish, and Italian,among others). If one lacks language facility or the time to acquirethe language, then cultural interpreters are essential to developingcultural competence. Professional colleagues or friends who aremembers of the culture of interest can help the planner not onlylearn about the culture but prepare for practice within it. Cultural‘‘guides’’ can be worthwhile throughout the planning process tohelp the planner prevent or deal with cultural issues that may arise.These cultural interpreters can sometimes aid the planner in skilldevelopment relating to attitude and behavioral changes necessaryto acculturate in a new culture.The planner intent on becoming culturally competent must enterthe culture of interest because it is only inside the culture that truecultural understanding becomes possible. Campbell and Gregor(2004), in their text on institutional ethnography, provide excellentguidance about how to do this in an organization. We recommendtheir work for details about data collection and developing therequisite interpersonal relations with organizational informants.Two techniques of ethnographic research are important for entryinto a different culture, and can enhance further understanding thatwill aid the planner to become culturally competent. These are:becoming a culturally competent interviewer and learning whereto look in the cultural context (observation).Culturally competent interviewingdevelops through informal con-versational interviews (Ruben & Babbie, 2005, p. 447). In manycases, there is an assumption that culturally competent interview-ing only occurs when the interviewer is of the same culture as theone being interviewed. This seems to suggest that communication" "across cultures is impossible. Others suggest that racial matching,though important, is no more important than interviewer com-petence (Jackson & Ivanoff, 1999). Previous experience, training inworking within the culture, is also important. In addition to thehelp of cultural guides, informal conversational interviews will addto a planner’s cultural competence. These informal conversationswith a purpose (Lincoln & Guba, 1984) usually result from observa-tions within the context that suggest where to look for clarifyinginformation.Much has been written about observation as a way of gaininginformation. In ethnographic research, this activity is generallyknown asparticipant observation(Marshall & Rossman, 1995). How-ever, Gold (1969, pp. 30–39), in a classic work, explicates four differ-ent roles an observer might play. To gain insight, one might becomea complete participant, a participant-as-observer, an observer-as-participant, or a complete observer. Each has much to offer,but each also represents specific challenges to the planner wishingcultural understanding.From our perspective, the richest source of information to movetoward cultural competence comes from a combination of the role ofobserver-as-participant and guided conversations with selectedinformants. During ob servations, the planner becomes aware of issuesor questions. Ethically, it is made clear that he or she is both anobserver and participant and is engaging in conversations to acquirerelevant information to maximize an understanding of what is beingobserved and what people think about it. The planner engages inasking and listening. Lofland (1995, p.56) calls this role a ‘‘naturalisticinvestigator.’’ The planner, recognizing cultural ignorance, enters into these conversations with a purpose (Lincoln & Guba, 1984). Thepurpose is to be taught. The planner is a watcher and asker, a student,in search of elaboration so as not to make erroneous assumptionsbased on personal cultural assumptions. The skills of observing and" "ward off unethical behavior through attention to precision. Withthis precision we are further lulled into the belief that there is a rightand a wrong way to operate, a right and wrong answer to everydecision, and that through demands for precision, we can measureeverything exactly. Our earlier philosophy of science discussionrelates to the depth of belief in this myth. The Enron scandal andothers like it demonstrate how difficult this attention to account-ability really is: systems do go wrong with unethical individuals;but controls in place do not always prevent future disasters, if theindividuals are bent on unprincipled practice.Our worry is about the unintended consequences from over-attention to misplaced accountability in which there is such greatprecision in detailing regulations and oversight that planners’hands are tied in designing innovative programs. This attentionto detail can hamper creativity in program design and subsequentimplementation. There is also the demand of what we are callingcontradictory accountability, which occurs when programmaticpolicies and directives are helpful to one group but actually contra-dict what is helpful to another group. In human service programs inwhich there are multiple constituencies to whom one is account-able, there will inevitably be difficulties in balancing accountabil-ities, and times during which being accountable to one groupmeans countermanding the demands of another.We agree with Weinberger (2007), that accountability require-ments reduce complexity, while also increasing detail. Creative,responsive organizations resist being boxed into regulating proce-dures and routines because responsiveness requires innovation andadaptability that will undoubtedly require breaking those rules andprocedures. Forms, reporting, and documentation inhibit agilityand set up a force field against change.We advance accountability by urging clarity and responsibility,regardless of the approach to planning, instead of using an" "need to be identified in the proposal.Community participation [is] ofcourse paramount, but only as a vehicle for implementing predefinedproject outcomes’’ (Ibid., p. 193).The various reports from the UNESCO Growing Up in Cities sitesfrom around the world reveal several lessons le

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.