Utilization of needs assessments by decision makers: A comparative analysis of assessment methods

The major purpose of this study was to ascertain how needs assessment findings and methodologies are accepted by public decision makers in the U.S. Virgin Islands. To accomplish this, the following five different needs assessments were executed: (1) population survey; (2) key informants survey; (3) community forum; (4) rates-under-treatment (RUT); and (5) social indicators analysis. The assessments measured unmet needs of older persons regarding transportation, in-home care, and socio-recreation services, and determined which of the five methodologies is most costly, time consuming, and valid.^ The results of a five-way comparative analysis was presented to public sector decision makers who were surveyed to determine whether they are influenced more by needs assessment findings, or by the methodology used, and to ascertain the factors that lead to their acceptance of needs assessment findings and methodologies.^ The survey results revealed that acceptance of findings and methodology is influenced by the congruency of the findings with decision makers' goals and objectives, feasibility of the findings, and credibility of the researcher.^ The study also found that decision makers are influenced equally by needs assessment findings and methodology; that they prefer population surveys, although they are the most expensive and time consuming of the methodologies; that different types of needs assessments produce different results; and, that needs assessment is an essential program planning tool. Executive decision makers are found to be influenced more by management factors than by legal and political factors, while legislative decision makers are influenced more by legal factors. Decision makers overwhelmingly view their leadership style as democratic.^ A typology of the five needs assessments, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses, is offered as a planning guide for public decision makers. ^

Utilization of needs assessments by decision makers : a comparative analysis of assessment methods

The major purpose of this study was to ascertain how needs assessment findings and methodologies are accepted by public decision makers in the U. S. Virgin Islands. To accomplish this, the following five different needs assessments were executed: (1) population survey; (2) key informants survey; (3) community forum; (4) rates-under-treatment (RUT); and (5) social indicators analysis. The assessments measured unmet needs of older persons regarding transportation, in-home care, and sociorecreation services, and determined which of the five methodologies is most costly, time consuming, and valid. The results of a five-way comparative analysis was presented to public sector decision makers who were surveyed to determine whether they are influenced more by needs assessment findings, or by the methodology used, and to ascertain the factors that lead to their acceptance of needs assessment findings and methodologies. The survey results revealed that acceptance of findings and methodology is influenced by the congruency of the findings with decision makers' goals and objectives, feasibility of the findings, and credibility of the researcher. The study also found that decision makers are influenced equally by needs assessment findings and methodology; that they prefer population surveys, although they are the most expensive and time consuming of the methodologies; that different types of needs assessments produce different results; and, that needs assessment is an essential program planning tool. Executive decision makers are found to be influenced more by management factors than by legal and political factors, while legislative decision makers are influenced more by legal factors. Decision makers overwhelmingly view their leadership style as democratic. A typology of the five needs assessments, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses is offered as a planning guide for public decision makers.

A distance education case study: A comparison of instructional delivery methods practiced by higher education faculty and emerging standards

The purpose of this research was to compare the delivery methods as practiced by higher education faculty teaching distance courses with recommended or emerging standard instructional delivery methods for distance education. Previous research shows that traditional-type instructional strategies have been used in distance education and that there has been no training to distance teach. Secondary data, however, appear to suggest emerging practices which could be pooled toward the development of standards. This is a qualitative study based on the constant comparative analysis approach of grounded theory.^ Participants (N = 5) of this study were full-time faculty teaching distance education courses. The observation method used was unobtrusive content analysis of videotaped instruction. Triangulation of data was accomplished through one-on-one in-depth interviews and from literature review. Due to the addition of non-media content being analyzed, a special time-sampling technique was designed by the researcher--influenced by content analyst theories of media-related data--to sample portions of the videotape instruction that were observed and counted. A standardized interview guide was used to collect data from in-depth interviews. Coding was done based on categories drawn from review of literature, and from Cranton and Weston's (1989) typology of instructional strategies. The data were observed, counted, tabulated, analyzed, and interpreted solely by the researcher. It should be noted however, that systematic and rigorous data collection and analysis led to credible data.^ The findings of this study supported the proposition that there are no standard instructional practices for distance teaching. Further, the findings revealed that of the emerging practices suggested by proponents and by faculty who teach distance education courses, few were practiced even minimally. A noted example was the use of lecture and questioning. Questioning, as a teaching tool was used a great deal, with students at the originating site but not with distance students. Lectures were given, but were mostly conducted in traditional fashion--long in duration and with no interactive component.^ It can be concluded from the findings that while there are no standard practices for instructional delivery for distance education, there appears to be sufficient information from secondary and empirical data to initiate some standard instructional practices. Therefore, grounded in this research data is the theory that the way to arrive at some instructional delivery standards for televised distance education is a pooling of the tacitly agreed-upon emerging practices by proponents and practicing instructors. Implicit in this theory is a need for experimental research so that these emerging practices can be tested, tried, and proven, ultimately resulting in formal standards for instructional delivery in television education. ^

European integration and democratic consolidation: Spain, Poland and Turkey in comparative perspective

The study explored when, under what conditions, and to what extent did European integration, particularly the European Union’s requirement for democratic conditionality, contribute to democratic consolidation in Spain, Poland, and Turkey? On the basis of a four-part definition, the dissertation examined the democratizing impact of European integration process on each of the following four components of consolidation: (i) holding of fair, free and competitive elections, (ii) protection of fundamental rights, including human and minority rights, (iii) high prospects of regime survival and civilian control of the military, and (iv) legitimacy, elite consensus, and stateness. To assess the relative significance of EU’s democratizing leverage, the thesis also examined domestic and non-EU international dynamics of democratic consolidation in the three countries. By employing two qualitative methods (case study and process-tracing), the study focused on three specific time frames: 1977–1986 for Spain, 1994–2004 for Poland, and 1999–present for Turkey. In addition to official documents, newspapers, and secondary sources, face-to-face interviews made with politicians, academics, experts, bureaucrats, and journalists in the three countries were utilized. The thesis generated several conclusions. First of all, the EU’s democratizing impact is not uniform across different components of democratic consolidation. Moreover, the EU’s democratizing leverage in Spain, Poland, and Turkey involved variations over time for three major reasons: (i) the changing nature of EU’s democratic conditionality over time (ii) varying levels of the EU’s credible commitment to the candidate country’s prospect for membership, and (iii) domestic dynamics in the candidate countries. Furthermore, the European integration process favors democratic consolidation but its magnitude is shaped by the candidate country’s prospect for EU membership and domestic factors in the candidate country. Finally, the study involves a major policy implication for the European Union: unless the EU provides a clear prospect for membership, its democratizing leverage will be limited in the candidate countries.