Implementation of the plan, collection of data, and dialogue
According to Action Research Paradigm Protocol (ARPP), a person, who is responsible for the implementation of any plan, must objectively assess the progress and the results. One must make sure that a problem or issue is examined from different points of view and that a researcher can keep an open mind (LeBlanc n. d. p 3).
The main problem that occurred during the stage of implementation was the necessity to collect and analyze quantitative data, and many employees of the HCZ had to be “involved in counting numbers rather than helping children. Moreover, many of managers were able to assess only their own programs, but they did not see the HCZ as a whole (Grossman & Curran, 2004, p 9).
This is one of the reasons why Geoffrey Canada had to employ Betina Jean-Louis who could assess the Harlem Children’s Zone as a system. This person was able to evaluate the implementation of the plan from various standpoints and identify its possible shortcomings.
The next step of ARPP is the collection and analysis of data. At this stage, the main question to answer is how the data are recorded, collected and analyzed. This organization used various methods of data collection, namely participant surveys, the study of demographic data; moreover, they relied on the information about students’ academic performance and their school attendance (Grossman & Curran, 2004, p 7).
This information was stored in the agency-wide database. This approach enabled the management of the HCZ to better understand the functioning of this organization as a system and not as a set of separate programs. Finally, while analyzing this statistical information, the managers of the HCZ attempted to see the connections between the programs implemented by this organization and the welfare of children and teenagers.
In this case, the term welfare or life improvement consists of several components such as class attendance, academic achievements, avoidance of drug use, self-discipline, and so forth (Grossman & Curran, 2004, p 25). Thus, there were two variables, improvement of teenager’s welfare and the policies of the HCZ.
Another important part of ARPP is dialogue or discussion of the process and findings. A very important task of an administrator is to ensure that various stakeholders are able to voice their opinions and make recommendations. Overall, Geoffrey Canada was able to cope with this task.
For instance, he held regular meetings with program directors and executive staff so that they openly express their ideas about the new strategies as well as their benefits and shortcomings (Grossman & Curran, 2004, p 13).
Yet, one has to admit that the opinions of other stakeholders, namely, parents were not taken into account. Certainly, Canada worked with parents during the development of the business plan, but they were not encouraged to evaluate the results of its implementation. This is one of the drawbacks that we can identify.
The evaluation of outcomes and reflection
While evaluating the results of any program or initiative, one has to ensure that the data under analysis is valid, credible and up-to-date. This is one of the requirements of ARPP (LeBlanc n. d. p 4). George Canada believed that the efficiency of the HCZ had to be assessed on a “child-by-child” or “case-by-case” basis (Grossman & Curran, 2004, p 7).
This is the reason why they collected information about every child who participated in their programs. Most importantly, this information was gathered at regular intervals. We can say that Geoffrey Canada preferred longitudinal approach to make sure that their results were valid. It should be noted that evaluation of the outcomes showed the necessity of other educational programs for at-risk children.
For example, it became evident that many of them required help with their reading or math skills (Grossman & Curran, 2004, p 10). We can argue that such unforeseen results are an inseparable part of action research.
They indicate that the results of the change were evaluated objectively (Coghlan & Brannick 2009, p 14). Overall, we can argue that despite some shortcomings Geoffrey Canada complied with the principles of Action Research Paradigm Protocol.
The strategies employed by Geoffrey Canada
The strategies employed by Geoffrey Canada were premised on the idea that every public organization has to strive for continuous improvement. This is the reason his work on the business plan, its implementation, and evaluation closely resemble the Action Research Paradigm. Every step that this organization takes is carefully evaluated. Most importantly, this evaluation gives rise to a new set of initiatives.
This approach explains why so much attention was paid to the collection and collection of quantitative data. Additionally, Canada’s willingness to achieve continuous improvement is reflected in his willingness to involve other employees into discussion. Another important strategy is the systemic approach.
As it has been mentioned before, Canada encouraged senior managers to see the HCZ as a system in which components interact with one another. This is his most important contribution to the success of this agency.
Reference List
Coghlan D. & Brannick T. (2009). Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Grossman A. & Curran D. (2004). The Harlem Children’s Zone: Driving Performance with Measurement and Evaluation. Harvard Business School.
LeBlanc A.(n. d) “Action Research Paradigm Protocol”. Capella University. Web.