In my evaluation of the several constructs this blog has
presented, I’ve used Eugene Meehan’s criteria.[1] Those criteria were developed to analyze
social science theories and models. The
criteria are made up of eight elements:
comprehension, power, precision, consistency or reliability,
isomorphism, compatibility, predictability, and control. I used the criteria to look at the three
mental constructs I claimed can be used in choosing content for a civics curriculum. Those three are the natural rights construct,
the critical theory construct, and the liberated federalism construct (a.k.a.
federation theory). Each element of the
criteria has a question which can be asked of any theory, model or construct;
for example, using the criterion, comprehension, one can ask: does the theory, model, or construct explain
as many phenomena which are related to the area of concern as possible? In my evaluation, given that I was concerned
with a construct not to conduct academic research, but for curricular purposes,
I added the criteria abstraction level and motivational level. In this posting, I want to focus on one of
Meehan’s criterion. I am looking at
power and revisiting the question: does
federation theory control its explanatory aspects by being valid and complete
in its component parts and in the relations between those parts?
Using power, one can ask whether federation theory’s support
of communal strategies is functional; that is, do groups that are noted for
having viable bonds of partnership experience more efficacious
performance? This blog has dedicated a
lot of space to describing these modes of operation. I just completed a series of postings that
reviewed change strategies that pick up on this view. Those would be normative-re-educative
strategies which I contend are based on federalist principles and values. In short, I want to address whether such an
approach is powerful.
Hahrie Han has recently looked at this concern.[2] She conducted research on the effectiveness
between transactional mobilizing and transformational mobilizing among
community based organizations.
Transactional mobilizing relies more on reward and punishment strategies
while transformational mobilizing relies on altering the attitudes,
perceptions, biases, and even values of people to become active and effective
community workers. This latter technique
gets at issues of legitimacy, reference, and expertise rather than punishments
and rewards. Using observations and
interviews, she took a highly in-depth view of members in two national
organizations. The main independent
variable was the level of engagement one could detect among the chapters of
these organizations. She distinguished
high and low levels of engagements. She
then tested whether transactional or transformational techniques could be
associated with each level.
Han found that transformational mobilizing was associated
with high level engagement. Most
interesting is that the chapter that opted to develop transformational strategy
was deemed more successful than the chapter that attempted to find talented and
interested individuals as their main approach.
While in using transformational techniques was more expensive –
especially in terms of time and effort – the results were characterized by organizational
workers who exhibited higher levels of self-motivation for longer periods of
time. The organization’s “mobilizers,” who
were charged with recruiting and used the transformative approach, would “allow
people to self-select the level of activity they desire … [Organizers] seek to
transform people’s interests as they recruit them for action.”[3] In Han’s accounts of how each of the two
types practiced recruitment, transactional mobilizers would seek those workers
who would come to the organization ready to function. On the other hand, transformational mobilizers
would invest a great deal of time using one-on-one techniques to train and mentor
individual workers so they could develop those leadership skills that could then
operate independently within communal arrangements. This “training” would emphasize the emotional
and cognitive elements of a worker’s perspective. In short, it would be of a normative-re-educative
type of strategy. A noted difference
between the two approaches is that the transactional mobilizer type is more
successful if highly talented and self-motivated personnel are recruited
initially. It also demands less time and
effort to implement. If people are
self-motivated and can see themselves as determining such factors as time, they
can be very productive at low costs; i.e., contributing to higher
productivity. Otherwise – and what is
usually the case – higher levels of engagement are secured by implementing
transformational mobilizing strategy. In
addition, while relying on promoting a communal sense and social capital, there
is the added benefit that related attitudes, emotions, and values which are
akin to healthier citizenship are enhanced.
I believe this research attests to the power of federalist
values. As such, it adds to the
supportive literature that helps warrant the implementation of federation
theory in our efforts to develop civics education curriculum.
[1] Meehan, E. J. (1969). Explanations in social science: A system paradigm. Homewood, IL:
The Dorsey Press.
[2]
Han, H.
(2014). How organizations develop activists:
Civic associations and leadership in the 21st century. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press. AND
thanks to Michelson, M. (2015). Political Science Quarterly, Book Review,
Fall, pp. 559-560.
[3]
Ibid., p. 15.
No comments:
Post a Comment