1. Insider Research fourth generation evaluation: on the crest of a wave or heading for the rocks? Julie Scholes & Alec Grant

2. Re-engineering 1350 pre reg students 26,000 person training days 116 wte academic 46 wte administrative staff teaching clinical credibilityclinical links research and practice development

3. massification partnerships with Trusts widened access learning nursing modeling care academic support promoting independent learners market competitors Context pastoral care

4. Purpose of re-engineering identify strategies that enable learner centred approaches as the core of our activity re-define time for scholarly activity education to facilitate excellence in health care practice

5. to Aims project develop corporate thinking about re-engineering to embrace different perspectives and use this process as the dynamic force for change liberate the potential of staff and students so they might achieve academic, professional and personal fulfillment value diversity but harness these towards the collective goals of the organisation facilitate transitions for individuals

6. to demonstrate through realising the core characteristics of the research (open informed inclusive) one model of scholarly activity ensure the research team are consistent and clear and that the process is transparent that allows for multiple perspectives to be heard, acknowledged and understood empower educateenfranchise

7. see and understand alternative perspectives and develop new meaning constructions to define the way forward fourth generation evaluation

8. values clarification issuesclaimsconcerns constructivist paradigm no such thing as an objective fact

9. Values Clarification Claims: favourable assertions made by stakeholders about re- engineering Concerns: unfavourable assertions made by stakeholders about re- engineering Issues : topics over which reasonable persons may disagree

10. Stakeholder group CCIs hermaneutic dialogue iterative process

11. Stakeholder group CCIs hermaneutic dialogue iterative process Stakeholder group CCIs hermaneutic dialogue negotiation unresolved Stakeholder group evaluation / audit/ search to provide evidence to refute / support contested CCIs

12. highly idealisticunrealistic expectations unresolved / contested CCIs force for disintegration rather than inclusion and consensus enabling unifying participative the organisation as an emotional arena

13. too much investment in the process detracts from the purpose or intended outcomes quiet voices do not get heard risks exposes vulnerability (back stage reality) trivialised defensively - potential for sabotage

14. role of the evaluator is to orchestrate negotiation and facilitate discussion in a climate of high challenge and context of high support negotiation is managed in a balanced and constructive way anonymity and privacyresearch contract

15. ? Questions issues for discussion what tensions may emerge between manager and evaluator responsibilities how to resist being seduced into the hero rescuer role hero or villain at conclusion: our future in the organisation …