Browsing by Author "Schroeder, Aaron D."

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Thumbnail Image
    Building Implementation Networks: Building Multi-organizational, Multi-sector Structures for Policy Implementation
    Schroeder, Aaron D. (Virginia Tech, 2001-01-24)
    The purpose of this dissertation is the delineation of a new approach, or, more precisely, a new "role" and "methodological system," for those persons engaged in building and managing multi-actor structures, or "networks," for the purpose of policy implementation. As policy formulation and implementation can be viewed increasingly as taking place inter-organizationally, and consisting of individuals, special-interest groups, public organizations, private organizations, non-profits, etc., none of whom have the individual power to autonomously determine the strategies and actions of all the other actors, policy processes can no longer be viewed as the implementation of ex ante formulated goals, but instead must be seen as an interaction process in which actors exchange information about problems, preferences and means, and trade-off goals and resources. That is, the context of "getting things done" in the public sector is changing from a singular organizational context to a multiple-organization network context. Managerially, we must respond accordingly. While there has been an increasing recognition in the literatures of at least three distinct fields of enquiry [political science, organization theory, and policy science] that such networks are becoming the "reality" of daily operation, much less has been written attempting to aid the acting administrator to function successfully within this new setting. Even less has been written concerning how to actually build and use a network setting to one's advantage in an implementation endeavor. We are left in need of a new way to successfully approach implementation through complex multi-actor settings. As it becomes increasingly difficult to administer policy implementation through a single, public organization, the need for new tools and understanding that will enable us to achieve public ends in such complex settings becomes apparent. Such an approach must work to successfully accommodate the increased role of extra-organizational actors, a new role of the administrator as "network facilitator," and still afford the ability to plan for and carry out project implementation. Because the invention of such an approach will require the accommodation of a different view of the administrative world (i.e. a more dynamic context, ephemeral definitions, new roles and responsibilities, and a new method to approaching work life), its development cannot constitute a straightforward reshuffling of the boxes of the administrative process, or the simple adoption of some new buzzwords. It demands, instead, that we begin by asking some fundamental ontological (what is reality) and epistemological (how can we know it) questions. It is after addressing these fundamental concerns that this volume will work to build a new approach to functioning proactively in a network setting. Following a discussion on what the role of "network facilitator" means in relation to current understanding of public management, this treatise will describe a new methodological system for use by the administrator playing such a role. The "methodological system" for building implementation networks that is advocated here is composed of three overlapping methodologies: 1) "Contextual Assessment" - Mapping a Network's Political-Economy; 2) "Stakeholder Analysis & Management" — Understanding Who Should be at the Table and Furthering the Conditions for Cooperation; and, 3) "Joint Visioning" " The Facilitation of Project Planning in a Network Setting. In the chapter on "contextual assessment," the reader will be introduced to a method that uses the political economy framework of Wamsley and Zald to derive an interview instrument for use by a recently appointed network facilitator (somebody appointed the responsibility of "getting something done" cross-organizationally). Combining the political economic framework with other standard qualitative methods, including gaining entrance, selecting interview type, snowballing, and quota sampling, one should be able to assess the existing political and economic environment surrounding a potential implementation network and, further, begin to select from that environment a first set of stakeholders in the budding implementation network. This method will result in a "conceptual mapping" of the environment from which one may begin to select potential resources to build an implementation network. Following that, the reader will be introduced to two methods, that when used together, will allow for the analysis, categorization, and selection of network stakeholders. Taken together, these methods can be referred to as "stakeholder analysis." It is the successful selection and management of these stakeholders that will result in the formation of a young implementation network. Finally, the reader will be introduced to a method of "joint-visioning," a process for working with a set of stakeholders to create a shared understanding of the social/organizational and technical/functional systems required for a new implementation network to function. While the theoretical conception here of joint-visioning is new, the techniques suggested to support this method are probably the least original of the techniques associated with the three methods introduced in this volume (in that they are based on recognized methods of group facilitation). The joint-visioning method proposed here is probably most remarkable for what it is not, corporate strategic planning. A discussion about the problems of adopting corporate strategic planning in the public sector will begin this section, followed by a discussion of why something else, like joint visioning, is probably more appropriate. Each methodology has been constructed from the ground up by appropriating parts of different methodologies that have been advocated in different areas of application. Specifically, methods, approaches, and understandings have been appropriated from the literatures of corporate management, stakeholder analysis, action research, political economy, community facilitation, knowledge engineering and management, and strategic planning. These methods have been combined and modified to better serve as tools for network establishment and management. This methodological system has been developed as much from experience as from scholarly analysis. Accordingly, a case study, one that has directly led to the development of many concepts in this system, will be discussed and used for "real-world" elaboration of the concepts described. Specifically, each of these methods will be accompanied by an in-depth discussion on how it was applied in the "Travel Shenandoah" case study. Benefits, as well as problems with the proposed methods will be highlighted. Where appropriate, possible modifications to a method will be suggested.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Development of the University Health Index to Examine the Interface between Campus Environment and Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Weight in College Students
    Goodwin, Stephanie Kay (Virginia Tech, 2011-09-02)
    Since many adolescents experience the transition to young adulthood in college, the university health environment could play a significant role in addressing the current rise in chronic disease and obesity epidemic. The University Health Index for Nutrition and Physical Activity (UHI) tool, guided by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) K-12 School Health Index, was developed to evaluate the associations between the university health environment and student health outcomes related to nutrition, physical activity, and weight. Several studies were conducted to examine what university characteristics are most strongly associated with college student health habits related to weight, nutrition, and physical activity behaviors. These studies culminated in a study to develop and validate the UHI. A request soliciting participation in the completion of the UHI was posted on the American College Health Association (ACHA) listserve. The final dataset used for analysis included 13 universities (N = 19) with a total of 9,460 National College Health Assessment (NCHA) student participants. Data were analyzed using Mixed-effects REML regression model adjusting for clustering effects, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05 and trends set a p < 0.10. Data were analyzed to determine associations between the total UHI score, individual module scores, and individual components of each module with student outcomes from the NCHA data (fruit/vegetable intake per day, days per week of aerobic and strength physical activity, and body mass index: BMI; kg/m² calculated from self-reported height and weight). Total UHI score was not significantly associated with outcome variables related to BMI, nutrition, or physical activity. The total health promotion module, however, was associated with vigorous physical activity (coefficient = 0.095; SE = 0.048; p = 0.046) and the built environment was associated with moderate physical activity (coefficient = 0.029; SE = 0.017; p = 0.096) and with high fruit and vegetable intake (coefficient = 0.021; SE = 0.011; p = 0.061). Individual questions related to recreational sports and fitness and nutrition and/or weight management counseling were associated with outcome variables as well. Measures for physical activity are better developed than for nutrition as there was only one nutrition question available with limited utility in terms of data analysis to test the UHI. Studying the university health environment and college students' health habits related to weight, nutrition, and physical activity is multifaceted and challenging. Unlike the K-12 school system, there is not a central university entity with jurisdiction over health-related student issues. Instead, health-related student issues and services are the responsibility of a variety of departments at a university and it is difficult to realize the complete university health environment. Results of this research can be used to refine future versions of the UHI and to continue to investigate the university characteristics that are most strongly associated with specific student health behaviors and outcomes related to nutrition, physical activity, and weight.
  • Thumbnail Image
    An Elaboration and Analysis of Two Policy Implementation Frameworks to Better Understand Project Exile
    Collins, Matthew Lloyd (Virginia Tech, 2002-12-13)
    In 1997, on average every 40 to 45 hours criminals either shot or killed a victim in the City of Richmond, Virginia. This resulted in 122 firearm homicides in that year alone. This gun-related violent crime epidemic so terrorized law-abiding citizens that many of them became hostages in their own homes. In response to this horrific social problem, Project Exile was developed in late 1997. Project Exile is a multi-level (federal, state, and local) law enforcement effort aimed at the amelioration of Richmond's high per-capita rate of gun violence and gun homicide. Through the Richmond U.S. Attorney's Office, Project Exile takes advantage of stiffer bond rules and sentencing guidelines in federal court, where all cases involving felons with guns, guns and drugs, and guns and domestic violence are prosecuted. Although Project Exile has received extensive television and print media coverage, it has not caught the attention of the academic world. This dissertation begins to fill this research gap by combining Kingdon's (1995) Multiple Streams model with Sabatier's (1999) Advocacy Coalition Framework to develop a "Specific Collins Classification and Elaboration Model" and a "Generic Collins Classification and Elaboration Model" that will be used to analyze the formation and implementation of Project Exile. The three purposes of this research will be: 1. To elaborate and analyze Kingdon's and Sabatier's frameworks as a means for understanding Project Exile 2. To draw on these two frameworks to create both Specific and Generic new "Collins Models: to assist in furthering a deeper understanding of this case study as well as similar policy subsystems. 3. To explain the genesis and development of Project Exile. The most salient result of this research is that it shows the disparate ways in which variables, taken from the work of Kingdon, Sabatier, and the Project Exile case, fit in Schroeder's (2001) operationalization of the Political Economic framework. In addition, this research shows how both Kingdon and Sabatier compensate for the respective limitations of the other when the two of them are combined into one model.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Enhanced Night Visibility Series, Volume II: Overview of Phase I and Development of Phase II Experimental Plan
    Dingus, Thomas A.; Allen, Gary R.; Brich, Stephen C.; Neale, Vicki L.; Schroeder, Aaron D.; Blanco, Myra; Schnell, Thomas; Gillespie, James S.; Schroeder, Tracey T.; Simmons, Carole J.; Hankey, Jonathan M. (United States. Federal Highway Administration, 2005-12)
    The focus of the Phase I effort was on the establishment of performance and design objectives to facilitate the deployment of ultraviolet A (UV-A) headlamps. This report describes the plan to develop UV-A headlamp specifications, evaluate fluorescent infrastructure materials, quantify glare and photobiological risks, expand the cost/benefit analysis, and demonstrate and implement the UV-A technology. It also includes a literature review that was conducted before the Phase II studies. As is often the case in large projects, some of the planned work eventually changed or was replaced to address more pressing issues. The later volumes of this report series detail what research occurred and why.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Freshmen Student-Athletes: An Examination of the Decision-Making Process and Satisfaction
    Davis, George Robert Jr. (Virginia Tech, 2006-04-18)
    Major college recruitment of high school athletes is a very competitive process. There are one hundred and seventeen Division I - A NCAA schools for athletes to choose among. Up to this point, coaches and administrators have speculated what is important to the prospective student-athlete in an attempt to improve certain potential factors like facilities, equipment, coaching changes, etc. The purpose of this study was to determine what factors were important in the decision-making process of prospective student-athletes and discover, as freshman, were they satisfied with their ultimate decision. Eighty-Eight freshmen student-athletes responded to the questionnaire in the months May through July of 2005. The questionnaire was grouped into three main areas of content: Team History, Facilities and Equipment, and Departmental Services. These areas were investigated by means of utilizing a Likert scale and analyzing data by scholarship status, by gender and by team affiliation. The results revealed that the most important factors in one's decision-making process are Education, Coaches, Success of the Program, and Facilities. From these factors, besides Education itself, the main area of focus for a prospective student-athlete is related to Team History, followed by Facilities and Equipment, with Departmental Services being the final area of concern. Also revealed by this study is the fact that there are some differences between the factors a scholarship student-athlete considers and the factors a non-scholarship student-athlete considers in their decision-making process. Finally, this study showed that of those polled, they were satisfied with their decision to participate in collegiate athletics.
  • Thumbnail Image
    I-81 ITS Program Evaluation Plan
    Baker, Stephanie Ann; Schroeder, Aaron D.; Rakha, Hesham A.; Hintz, Rewa (United States. Joint Program Office for Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2003-07)
    This document presents the evaluation framework that the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) has prepared for Phase II of the Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT) I-81 ITS Model Safety Corridor Program, more commonly referred to as the I-81 ITS Program. The document also includes a description of the I-81 ITS Program, how this evaluation framework was developed, and who has been involved.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Scientizing Science Policy: Implications for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy and R&D Evaluation
    Kim, Gouk Tae (Virginia Tech, 2012-07-12)
    In this dissertation research, I try to deepen the understanding of the logic and history behind science of science policy approaches and to substitute for this scientific evidence-based science policy model an evidence-critical and -informed model in which scientific and democratic claims are promoted simultaneously. Science of science policy, or what I call the scientizing science policy (SSP) discourse, is a strategic response of science policy community members to the following two socio-political developments: the government performance management reform movement and a new social contract of science. These two developments have motivated the science policy community to construct new science R&D management strategies that make science R&D investment more effective and economically beneficial than before. Former Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger played an important role in articulating an SSP approach at the federal level that opened up a political space for the larger SSP discourse to emerge and take hold. Other heterogeneous science policy community actors, including science agency managers and academic researchers, have also engaged and played major roles in shaping the premises, strategies, and directions that make up the SSP discourse by articulating their own approaches to SSP. The SSP discourse constitutes a series of strategies such as economizing and quantifying R&D investment decisions. In particular, to implement the ideas of performance reform and a new social contract of science in the field of science policy and management, the SSP community members have prioritized the development of data, models, and evidence related to federal R&D investment by funding studies on new scientific data, tools, and quantitative methods through the National Science Foundation (NSF) Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) program. Interagency collaboration organized and supported by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is another key feature promoted by the SSP community. Through this research of the rise and development of the SSP discourse, I emphasize the following aspects that are relevant to both science policy practice and research community members. First, the SSP discourse demonstrates the influence of the performance reform movement on science, technology, and innovation policy and R&D management. Second, the SSP discourse has the strong potential to shift science policy makers' focus from planning and implementing to evaluating federal R&D programs. Third, the SSP discourse not only reflects, but also promotes the tendency of public policy makers, politicians, and the public to rely on scientific claims and evidence when they are engaged in discussions or policy decision making processes related to science and technology. Fourth, the SSP discourse alters the balance of authority and influence among science policy actors, including science agency managers, scientists, and executive branch offices in the decision making process on federal R&D priority and investment. Fifth, even though there are conflicts and disagreements among science policy community members on the visions and future of the NSF SciSIP program, the SSP discourse is valuable as a space in which heterogeneous science policy research and practice community members can interact, learn from each other, and collaborate to develop U.S. science, technology, and innovation policy. I conclude by proposing an evidence-critical and -informed science policy in which the SSP discourse contributes to promoting democratic values in the science policy decision process. In particular, the evidence-critical and -informed model focuses on not only using scientific data and evidence when making federal R&D decisions, but also on promoting the democratic and deliberative process in monitoring R&D activities' performance and social outcomes. In this model, I view the public as a legitimate stakeholder for evaluating federal R&D investment. This evidence-informed model can be implemented under the SSP discourse if the new R&D data, models, and tools developed by the NSF SciSIP-funded research are coupled with a new government performance website in which the public can access information about federal R&D activities as well as provide feedback about R&D investments to science policy makers.