Decision Issues for Approach SelectionSummaryDiscussion Questions

"Decision Issues for Approach SelectionSummaryDiscussion
QuestionsAppendixAssumptions upon which this chapter is
based:Ethical considerations are at the heart of decisions about
plan-ning.Ethics guide appropriate actions on the part of the
planner andchoices about the appropriate vehicle for developing
the plan.Useful to ethical decision-making is critical thinking,
to deter-mine whether ethical absolutism or ethical relativism is
calledfor in the situation.Planners may prefer one approach
over another or be moreskilled in one program planning
approach; thus, using differentapproaches may require
professional growth and develop-ment.Both prescriptive and
emergent planning approaches representstrengths and
challenges, depending on the context for plan-ning.You, the
reader, are likely a practitioner (or soon to be practi -
tioner) wishing to be an effective program planner. You may be
aclinician who implements programs and wants them to
‘‘work.’’You may have experienced the unfortunate situation in
which youhave been tasked with carrying out programs that
were poorlydesigned or so rigidly prescribed that they
restricted the workyou were trying to accomplish. Perhaps you
need the skills to dosound rational planning for the purpose of
accessing funding fora program to which you are very
committed. You "program coordinator in a human service
agency, forced to carry outinitiatives that use approaches
insensitive to cultural needs. What-ever your circumstance,
chances are you want to be a professionalwhose work has
integrity and who has the capacity to use appro-priate tools for
problem-solving, decision-making, and planning.In Chapters 3
and 4, we examined two approaches to planningbased on
different sets of assumptions. In Chapter 3, we focused onthe
logic of rational planning in which prescriptive approaches
arelinear layouts of plans of action to solve a social problem
based onthe assumptions that when planning, one knows
where one isgoing. Planners who use these approaches

generally do so asexperts with predetermined goals developed
from an expert per-spective. This approach has been termed
‘‘reverse-order planning’’(Brody, 2000, pp. 77–78) where
the results to be achieved areidentified early and the planner
pursues a logic model or a problem-solving model to bring them
about.In Chapter 4, we examined interpretive planning, an
emergentapproach, focused on understanding stakeholders’
perspectives as ameans of continual information gathering and
analysis for problem-solving. The logic of this planning process
is a nonlinear process ofengagement, sense-making, and
discovery, interacting continually asa program design unfolds.
In this approach, goals emerge in process,and may change,
revealing ‘‘forward-sequence planning,’’ whichbegins
wherever one can start (Brody, 2000, pp. 77–78).We believe
that there are places for both rational program plan-ning and
interpretive planning. When to use which approach
isdistinguished by context and by what one is trying to achieve,
basedon what it takes to articulate and develop solutions.
Sometimes theselection of an approach is straightforward and
clear. Other times,as Quinn (1988) says inBeyond Rational
Management, it requires the‘‘complex, holistic, and fluid—a
kind of thinking that distinguishesthe master from the novice’’
(p. 7). This is when critical thinking" may be the" "steeped in
solid ethical decision-making is needed—when whatis
necessary for competent, appropriate planning is less
clear.This chapter has been designed to help you not only
distinguishthe differences between the approaches, but also to
engage in thecomplex thinking necessary to determine which
should work bestin a given situation.Persons skilled in dealing
with complexity and critical thinking,who can live with paradox
and ambiguity, are likely candidates fordesigning and
developing emergent human service programs; butthose without
those natural and acquired skills must also be able touse this
sort of planning when appropriate. Cultures in
whichinterpretive or nonrational thinking occurs as a
matter of coursemay be particularly receptive to

interpretive planning, and evenhelpful in educating those
needing the skills to face these challengesof emergent
approaches. Other cultures steeped in rationality maybe
receptive to rational planning and helpful in incubating
plannerscompetent to enact prescriptive approaches. In either
case, an alter-native way of planning may be necessary to
reach needed goals.Both approaches are important and
necessary for planning. Some-times, one approach should be
preferred over another. Other times,a strategic combination is
appropriate. Determining the appropriateapproach requires a
consciousness and criticality about contextualconstraints and
opportunities that is only possible if the plannerbrings
ethics and critical thinking to the decision-making process.In
this chapter, we begin with another case example. Now thatyou
are familiar with both prescriptive and emergent approaches
toplanning, we will also do a brief analysis of a case to
demonstratehow the approaches are used. We then explore
program planningapproaches in terms of their similarities
regarding gaining entryand becoming oriented. Next in that
section, we investigate theimportance of critical thinking and
ethical decision-making in theplanning process as guides to all
planning practice, with emphasison nuanced differences
between the approaches. This is followed by" "steeped in solid
ethical decision-making is needed—when whatis necessary
for competent, appropriate planning is less clear.This
chapter has been designed to help you not only distinguishthe
differences between the approaches, but also to engage in
thecomplex thinking necessary to determine which should work
bestin a given situation.Persons skilled in dealing with
complexity and critical thinking,who can live with paradox and
ambiguity, are likely candidates fordesigning and developing
emergent human service programs; butthose without those
natural and acquired skills must also be able touse this sort of
planning when appropriate. Cultures in whichinterpretive or
nonrational thinking occurs as a matter of coursemay be
particularly receptive to interpretive planning, and

evenhelpful in educating those needing the skills to face these
challengesof emergent approaches. Other cultures steeped in
rationality maybe receptive to rational planning and helpful in
incubating plannerscompetent to enact prescriptive approaches.
In either case, an alter-native way of planning may be
necessary to reach needed goals.Both approaches are
important and necessary for planning. Some-times, one
approach should be preferred over another. Other times,a
strategic combination is appropriate. Determining the
appropriateapproach requires a consciousness and criticality
about contextualconstraints and opportunities that is only
possible if the plannerbrings ethics and critical thinking to the
decision-making process.In this chapter, we begin with another
case example. Now thatyou are familiar with both prescriptive
and emergent approaches toplanning, we will also do a brief
analysis of a case to demonstrate how the approaches are used.
We then explore program planningapproaches in terms of
their similarities regarding gaining entryand becoming
oriented. Next in that section, we investigate theimportance
of critical thinking and ethical decision-making in theplanning
process as guides to all planning practice, with emphasison
nuanced differences between the approaches. This is followed
by" "steeped in solid ethical decision-making is needed—
when whatis necessary for competent, appropriate planning
is less clear.This chapter has been designed to help you not
only distinguishthe differences between the approaches, but also
to engage in thecomplex thinking necessary to determine which
should work bestin a given situation.Persons skilled in dealing
with complexity and critical thinking,who can live with paradox
and ambiguity, are likely candidates fordesigning and
developing emergent human service programs; butthose without
those natural and acquired skills must also be able touse thi s
sort of planning when appropriate. Cultures in
whichinterpretive or nonrational thinking occurs as a
matter of coursemay be particularly receptive to
interpretive planning, and evenhelpful in educating those

needing the skills to face these challengesof emergent
approaches. Other cultures steeped in rationality maybe
receptive to rational planning and helpful in incubating
plannerscompetent to enact prescriptive approaches. In either
case, an alter-native way of planning may be necessary to
reach needed goals.Both approaches are important and
necessary for planning. Some-times, one approach should be
preferred over another. Other times,a strategic combination is
appropriate. Determining the appropriateapproach requires a
consciousness and criticality about contextualconstraints and
opportunities that is only possible if the plannerbrings
ethics and critical thinking to the decision-making process.In
this chapter, we begin with another case example. Now thatyou
are familiar with both prescriptive and emergent approaches
toplanning, we will also do a brief analysis of a case to
demonstratehow the approaches are used. We then explore
program planningapproaches in terms of their similarities
regarding gaining entryand becoming oriented. Next in that
section, we investigate theimportance of critical thinking and
ethical decision-making in theplanning process as guides to all
planning practice, with emphasison nuanced differences
between the approaches. This is followed by" "compared with
the marketing of pigs to liberate capital. Theybegan to
compute the potential impact of the marketing of pigson the
local economy. They analyzed the situation and adjustedthe
intervention by coordinating with various stakeholders
toadjust what they were doing, thusresponding to the
implicationsof what would happen if the pig distribution from
Europe con-tinued. In the process, the planners probably did not
name whatthey were doing as copying, comparing,
computing, analyzing,coordinating, and synthesizing; but they
engaged in all of theseprocesses. It was part of a critical
focus on problem-solving.The interesting aspect was that the
problem changed. With thatchange, the critical thinking moved
from a linear to a more circu-lar method. In the process, they
were thinking critically aboutwhat was happening while

moving to action that altered theoriginal program design.
Had they not analyzed, coordinated,and synthesized what was
happening, what seemed like a won-derful intervention could
have had disastrous consequences.Though Kroeger and
Thuesen describe levels of thinking in arather hierarchical
manner, indicating that one stage is completedprior to moving
to another, our example shows that the processmight not be
either sequential or linear. In the example, what beganas a
highly rational process sequenced into an interpretive
process,and then sequenced back into a rational process in the
course of theprogram. Thus, for us, the levels of complex
thinking do not belongto one type of program planning, but are
necessary ingredients inany successful program planning
process.Critical thinking is a dialogic process comprising
reflective/ana-lytic listening, active pursuit of clarity of
expression, evidence, andreason, as necessary. What is
considered appropriate evidence andthe reason employed may
differ, depending on the planningapproach. These must be
combined with an evenhanded consider-ation of alternative
points of view. The required evenhandedness is" "possible
through fair-mindedness. The critical thinker sees
theinterplay between various beliefs and is willing to test these
beliefs,including his or her own. Testing closely held beliefs
requires intel-lectual courage and security that comes more
easily when the criti-cal thinker possesses self-knowledge about
personal strengths andlimitations. However, the critical thinker
also must be able to ques-tion what others accept.Critical
thinking includes critical reading and critical writing, tosurface
and deal with differing perspectives of experts and otherswho
may or may not have a stake in the process. If multiple per-
spectives are not easily expressed, they must be generated so
com-parative analysis can occur.Finally, the critical thinker
is a conscious thinker. Rehner(1994) has developed some
strategies to demystify critical thinking.We provide adaptations
from that work to fit the experiences of theprogram planner.
To become a critically conscious planner, thefollowing are

useful basic questions to ask and answer in the
thinkingprocess:What is thepurposeof my thinking?What
precisequestion(problem) am I trying to answer?Within
whatpoint of view(positivis" "If I accept the conclusions,
what are theimplications? Whatwould be the consequence
(positive and negative) if I were toput my thoughts into
action?In short, program planners must be critical thinkers in
order todetermine which planning approach is needed in a
particular sit-uation and to competently carry out that
approach.How, then, is critical thinking different for rational
and interpre-tive planning? The answer probably depends on
where the plan-ning process begins. If a program is being
designed ‘‘from scratch’’and is totally new, then both rational
and interpretive planning willlikely begin at a similar place.
Each will begin with general obser-vations and move toward
synthesizing thinking in order to deter-mine which approach
is appropriate and move from there.However, if
redesigning an existing program, then the process willlook
different. Rational planning would probably respect predeter -
mined goals of the existing program and think critically with
othersabout how the program needs to be modified to reach the
goals.Interpretive planning, coming from a different
perspective willlikely begin by questioning the goals because
goals are useful onlyas long as they function, the need for
program redesign would beseen as an indication that everything
might need to change; eventhe idea of having a program might
be questioned. The directionthat is chosen may well have an
ethical component.For example, in a large school system, the
number of childrenwho lacked consistent medical
attention and had incompleteimmunizations histories was
increasing. Local officials contactedthe public health
department to see if it could develop an immuni-zation
program, along with providing opportunities for
schoolphysicals. Public health nurses worked with family
physicianswho donated their time to do monthly clinics at the
schools." "If I accept the conclusions, what are

theimplications? Whatwould be the consequence (positive and
negative) if I were toput my thoughts into action?In short,
program planners must be critical thinkers in order todetermine
which planning approach is needed in a particular sit-uation and
to competently carry out that approach.How, then, is critical
thinking different for rational and interpre-tive planning? The
answer probably depends on where the plan-ning process
begins. If a program is being designed ‘‘from scratch’’and is
totally new, then both rational and interpretive planning
willlikely begin at a similar place. Each will begin with general
obser-vations and move toward synthesizing thinking in order to
deter-mine which approach is appropriate and move
from there.However, if redesigning an existing program, then
the process willlook different. Rational planning would
probably respect predeter-mined goals of the existing program
and think critically with othersabout how the program needs to
be modified to reach the goals.Interpretive planning, coming
from a different perspective willlikely begin by questioning
the goals because goals are useful onlyas long as they function,
the need for program redesign would beseen as an indication
that everything might need to change; eventhe idea of having a
program might be questioned. The directionthat is chosen may
well have an ethical component.For example, in a large school
system, the number of childrenwho lacked consistent
medical attention and had incompleteimmunizations
histories was increasing. Local officials contactedthe public
health department to see if it could develop an immuni-zation
schools." "If I accept the conclusions, what are
theimplications? Whatwould be the consequence (positive and
negative) if I were toput my thoughts into action?In short,
program planners must be critical thinkers in order todetermine
which planning approach is needed in a particular sit-uation and
to competently carry out that approach.How, then, is critical

thinking different for rational and interpre-tive planning? The
answer probably depends on where the plan-ning process
begins. If a program is being designed ‘‘from scratch’’and is
totally new, then both rational and interpretive planning
willlikely begin at a similar place. Each will begin with general
obser-vations and move toward synthesizing thinking in order to
deter-mine which approach is appropriate and move
from there.However, if redesigning an existing program, then
the process willlook different. Rational planning would
probably respect predeter-mined goals of the existing program
and think critically with othersabout how the program needs to
be modified to reach the goals.Interpretive planning, coming
from a different perspective willlikely begin by questioning
the goals because goals are useful onlyas long as they function,
the need for program redesign would beseen as an indication
that everything might need to change; eventhe idea of having a
program might be questioned. The directionthat is chosen may
well have an ethical component.For example, in a large school
system, the number of childrenwho lacked consistent
medical attention and had incompleteimmunizations
histories was increasing. Local officials contactedthe public
health department to see if it could develop an immuni-zation
schools." "design will net the expected results. Ideally, in
rational planning,clients’ voices will be heard at least in a
representative way. If clientvalues and preferences are at odds
with those of practitioners, thetendency will be to respect the
opinion of the experts, the practi-tioners. The same is true for
empirical research. If there are empiri-cal research data
available that contradict both practitioners’ andclients’
perspectives, these data will usually be the most
privilegedinformation in rational program planning decision-
making.In interpretive planning, evidence that reveals deep
underlyingmeanings will be most valued, and studies that

provoke newinsights will be most helpful. Context-based
quantitative researchwill not be disregarded, but the
richness of qualitative methods,allowing for in-depth knowing
and understanding of the problem,will be highly valued.
Qualitative evidence (word data) will assurethat the decision-
making process is emergent, recognizing tenta-tively held
insights as practice unfolds. This stance can be seen to bemore
congruent with an ethical relativist position. Funders
andother constituencies appreciative of more consensus-based
modelsof intervention will understand and prefer the way
interpretiveevidence influences program planning.
Practitioners and clientswill join in a decision-making process
in which their joint experi-ences and values are treated as
important elements in movingtoward a consensus on what
intervention needs to occur. Evaluat-ing the process itself
(formative evaluation) will be as important asresults or
outcome-oriented evaluation (summative evaluation).From the
ethical relativist position, then, making clear the conse-quences
of overlooking formative evaluation in preference to sum-
mative evaluation will become an ethical responsibility, even
whenfacing the more ethical absolutist demands of EBP. It is
within thisethical challenge that critical thinking becomes an
essential tool.In addition, an important ethical question in
either type ofplanning is: to whom are the planners
accountable? The answer"
"design will net the expected results. Ideally, in rational
planning,clients’ voices will be heard at least in a representative
way. If clientvalues and preferences are at odds with those of
practitioners, thetendency will be to respect the opinion of the
experts, the practi-tioners. The same is true for empirical
research. If there are empiri-cal research data available that
contradict both practitioners’ andclients’ perspectives, these
data will usually be the most privilegedinformation in rational
program planning decision-making.In interpretive planning,
evidence that reveals deep underlyingmeanings will be most
valued, and studies that provoke newinsights will be most

helpful. Context-based quantitative researchwill not be
disregarded, but the richness of qualitative
methods,allowing for in-depth knowing and understanding of
the problem,will be highly valued. Qualitative evidence (word
data) will assurethat the decision-making process is
emergent, recognizing tenta-tively held insights as practice
unfolds. This stance can be seen to bemore congruent with an
ethical relativist position. Funders andother constituencies
appreciative of more consensus-based modelsof intervention
will understand and prefer the way interpretiveevidence
influences program planning. Practitioners and clientswill
join in a decision-making process in which their joint experi-
ences and values are treated as important elements in
movingtoward a consensus on what intervention needs to occur.
Evaluat-ing the process itself (formative evaluation) will be as
important asresults or outcome-oriented evaluation
(summative evaluation).From the ethical relativist position,
then, making clear the conse-quences of overlooking formative
evaluation in preference to sum-mative evaluation will become
an ethical responsibility, even whenfacing the more ethical
absolutist demands of EBP. It is within thisethical challenge
that critical thinking becomes an essential tool.In addition, an
important ethical question in either type ofplanning is: to
whom are the planners accountable? The answer" "design
will net the expected results. Ideally, in rational
planning,clients’ voices will be heard at least in a representative
way. If clientvalues and preferences are at odds with those of
practitioners, thetendency will be to respect the opinion of the
experts, the practi-tioners. The same is true for empirical
research. If there are empiri-cal research data available that
contradict both practitioners’ andclients’ perspectives, these
data will usually be the most privilegedinformation in rational
program planning decision-making.In interpretive planning,
evidence that reveals deep underlyingmeanings will be most
valued, and studies that provoke newinsights will be most
helpful. Context-based quantitative researchwill not be

disregarded, but the richness of qualitative
methods,allowing for in-depth knowing and understanding of
the problem,will be highly valued. Qualitative evidence (word
data) will assurethat the decision-making process is
emergent, recognizing tenta-tively held insights as practice
unfolds. This stance can be seen to bemore congruent with an
ethical relativist position. Funders andother constituencies
appreciative of more consensus-based modelsof intervention
will understand and prefer the way interpretiveevidence
influences program planning. Practitioners and clientswill
join in a decision-making process in which their joint experi-
ences and values are treated as important elements in
movingtoward a consensus on what intervention needs to occur.
Evaluat-ing the process itself (formative evaluation) will be as
important asresults or outcome-oriented evaluation
(summative evaluation).From the ethical relativist position,
then, making clear the conse-quences of overlooking formative
evaluation in preference to sum-mative evaluation will become
an ethical responsibility, even whenfacing the more ethical
absolutist demands of EBP. It is within thisethical challenge
that critical thinking becomes an essential tool.In addition, an
important ethical question in either type ofplanning is: to
whom are the planners accountable? The answer"
"logic of the language helps one understand the logic-in-
use inthe culture. Linear, Anglo-Saxon-based languages
(English andGerman, among others) provide different clues
to reasoning andproblem-solving than those available in more
circular languages,such as the romance languages (French,
Spanish, and Italian,among others). If one lacks language
facility or the time to acquirethe language, then cultural
interpreters are essential to developingcultural competence.
Professional colleagues or friends who aremembers of the
culture of interest can help the planner not onlylearn about the
culture but prepare for practice within it. Cultural‘‘guides’’ can
be worthwhile throughout the planning process tohelp the
planner prevent or deal with cultural issues that may arise.These

cultural interpreters can sometimes aid the planner in
skilldevelopment relating to attitude and behavioral changes
necessaryto acculturate in a new culture.The planner intent on
becoming culturally competent must enterthe culture of interest
because it is only inside the culture that truecultural
understanding becomes possible. Campbell and
Gregor(2004), in their text on institutional ethnography, provide
excellentguidance about how to do this in an organization. We
recommendtheir work for details about data collection and
developing therequisite interpersonal relations with
organizational informants.Two techniques of ethnographic
research are important for entryinto a different culture, and can
enhance further understanding thatwill aid the planner to
become culturally competent. These are:becoming a
culturally competent interviewer and learning whereto look in
the cultural context (observation).Culturally competent
interviewingdevelops through informal con-versational
interviews (Ruben & Babbie, 2005, p. 447). In manycases,
there is an assumption that culturally competent interview -ing
only occurs when the interviewer is of the same culture as
theone being interviewed. This seems to suggest that
communication" "across cultures is impossible. Others suggest
that racial matching,though important, is no more important
than interviewer com-petence (Jackson & Ivanoff, 1999).
Previous experience, training inworking within the culture,
is also important. In addition to thehelp of cultural guides,
informal conversational interviews will addto a planner’s
cultural competence. These informal conversationswith a
purpose (Lincoln & Guba, 1984) usually result from observa-
tions within the context that suggest where to look for
clarifyinginformation.Much has been written about
observation as a way of gaininginformation. In
ethnographic research, this activity is generallyknown
asparticipant observation(Marshall & Rossman, 1995). How-
ever, Gold (1969, pp. 30–39), in a classic work, explicates four
differ-ent roles an observer might play. To gain insight, one

might becomea complete participant, a participant-as-
observer, an observer-as-participant, or a complete
observer. Each has much to offer,but each also represents
specific challenges to the planner wishingcultural
understanding.From our perspective, the richest source of
information to movetoward cultural competence comes from a
combination of the role ofobserver-as-participant and guided
conversations with selectedinformants. During ob servations,
the planner becomes aware of issuesor questions. Ethically, it
is made clear that he or she is both anobserver and
participant and is engaging in conversations to acquirerelevant
information to maximize an understanding of what is
beingobserved and what people think about it. The planner
engages inasking and listening. Lofland (1995, p.56) calls this
role a ‘‘naturalisticinvestigator.’’ The planner, recognizing
cultural ignorance, enters into these conversations with a
purpose (Lincoln & Guba, 1984). Thepurpose is to be taught.
The planner is a watcher and asker, a student,in search of
elaboration so as not to make erroneous assumptionsbased
on personal cultural assumptions. The skills of observing and"
"ward off unethical behavior through attention to precision.
Withthis precision we are further lulled into the belief that there
is a rightand a wrong way to operate, a right and wrong answer
to everydecision, and that through demands for precision, we
can measureeverything exactly. Our earlier philosophy of
science discussionrelates to the depth of belief in this myth.
The Enron scandal andothers like it demonstrate how difficult
this attention to account-ability really is: systems do go wrong
with unethical individuals;but controls in place do not always
prevent future disasters, if theindividuals are bent on
unprincipled practice.Our worry is about the unintended
consequences from over-attention to misplaced accountability
in which there is such greatprecision in detailing regulations
and oversight that planners’hands are tied in designing
innovative programs. This attentionto detail can hamper
creativity in program design and subsequentimplementation.

There is also the demand of what we are callingcontradictory
accountability, which occurs when programmaticpolicies and
directives are helpful to one group but actually contra-dict what
is helpful to another group. In human service programs inwhich
there are multiple constituencies to whom one is account-able,
there will inevitably be difficulties in balancing accountabil -
ities, and times during which being accountable to one
groupmeans countermanding the demands of another.We agree
with Weinberger (2007), that accountability require-ments
reduce complexity, while also increasing detail.
Creative,responsive organizations resist being boxed into
regulating proce-dures and routines because responsiveness
requires innovation andadaptability that will undoubtedly
require breaking those rules andprocedures. Forms, reporting,
and documentation inhibit agilityand set up a force field
against change.We advance accountability by urging clarity and
responsibility,regardless of the approach to planning,
instead of using an" "need to be identified in the
proposal.Community participation [is] ofcourse paramount, but
only as a vehicle for implementing predefinedproject
outcomes’’ (Ibid., p. 193).The various reports from the
UNESCO Growing Up in Cities sitesfrom around the world
reveal several lessons learned. First, adultssimply do not
fully understand young people’s issues and priorities.Second,
even young children can participate in meaningful commu-nity
evaluation and generate feasible recommendations. Third, if
adultsand children work together, young voices can be heard,
and there canbe a role for influencing decisions that will affect
their well-being.This project is reminiscent of the AIDS
Orphans and the Pig Inter-vention project discussed in
Chapter 5. Child-headed householdscould easily be
disregarded in the planning process, being composedof children.
However, without attention to their perspectives, plan-ners
risked dire consequences to the pig industry nationally in unin-
tended consequences, resulting fromnot understanding the
children’spreferences. Their inclusion required being sensitive

to the culturalnuances that bond them together as children. In
attempting to plan ontheir behalf and with genuine interest in
their well-being, plannersoverlooked their perspectives, with
almost disastrous results.With or without cultural sensitivity,
excluding important stake-holders in the problem identification
and in problem resolution setsup difficult challenges to
overcome for planning and implementa-tion. Unintended
negative consequences are sure to accrue. Goodintentions, many
times based on erroneous cultural assumptions,will not
overcome the challenges created when the minority voice" "A
detention center is often disruptive; but more important,
becausethe young women’s lengths of stay varied, any long-
term interven-tion continuity would be broken. The program
posed challenges notonly for the planners but also for those
planning to evaluate it.The evaluators interviewed 31
participants and the artist, andobserved the arts project over a
period of time. Findings revealedthe importance of the
relational nature of the program as the youngwomen connected
to one another, to the artist, to the artwork, totheir families, and
to themselves. The evaluators concluded that theartist and the
work were pivotal in facilitating those connections.This
underscores the need for gender-responsive programming
forincarcerated young women, given women’s relational needs.
Art isa relational intervention, but it also provides an
opportunity forself-expression in a tightly controlled,
freedomless environment.Planning for the individual in her
environment (the detentioncenter) and recognizing the culture
in which she must live (at leastfor a short time) illustrates
planning with contextual sensitivity.Let’s look at another
example. There is likely no more challengingenvironment for
contextual sensitivity than when end-of-life care isthe program
and the institution is the one in which individuals facethe
inevitability of their mortality. Here again, good intentions
arenot sufficient to assure planning with sensitivity to context.
Eventhe most culturally competent planner can benefit from the
experi-ences of others. This is especially true when the reports

on modelprograms are transparent in revealing the lessons
learned andchallenges encountered.Kramer and Auer (2005)
report a case study of the challengesinvolved in offering an
end-of-life care program to older personswith low incomes
and multiple comorbid chronic conditions.Advanced chronic
disease is incredibly unpredictable in its pro-gression. The
precise moment of death, and the conditions in whichthat death
will occur, is a totally unique human experience. Thus,"
"interpretive planning. In the former, culture may be
viewed interms of its material manifestations (e.g., artifacts
and behaviors),whereas in the latter, it may focus more on
cognitive elements(values and assumptions). Both are
important, even though theemphasis may shift, depending on
whether one is using a prescrip-tive or an emergent approach to
program planning.Cultural competence is important to program
planning becausethe planner or planners must have some
understanding of thecontext within which they are working.
Not only does culturalcompetence require cultural awareness,
but it also requires a deepunderstanding leading to action.
Thus, a culturally competentplanner must be a good
interviewer (be able to listen to differentvoices with unexpected
messages), be an observer of human behav-ior within the
planning context, be willing to learn, and then be ableto
synthesize. During the process, culturally competent
plannerssometimes actively participate and, at other times,
actively observe.We suggest that the richest source of
information to move towardcultural competence comes from
a combination of the role ofobserver-as-participant and from
engaging in guided conversationswith selected
informants.Contextual variables must be considered in
culturally competentpractice. These include developmental and
family-oriented needsof stakeholders; professional skills,
practice, and approaches guid-ing planning practice; research
and knowledge building from theliterature and from the cultural
context; organizational and contex-tual diversity; and delivery
of program planning services. From thisperspective, planning

occurs in a series of nested cultures. Wereturned to a
discussion of positivism and interpretivism to extendour
understanding of the challenges of managing planning in
themulticultural world of today.We provided examples from
the literature of how planningwith a sensitivity to difference
may occur. Planning with groups"
A. Instructions
Choose a topic that enables you to tell a short, interesting
personal story. Your story can be funny, suspenseful,
meaningful, or exciting, but it must focus on one event. For
example, if you decide to write about traveling to Denmark, you
should not write about the entire trip. Choose one event (e.g.,
an afternoon you spent bicycling on an island, or your first taste
of smoked herring, or your visit to the childhood home of Hans
Christian Anderson) and tell a detailed story that focuses on
that event.
The following are some ideas that can help you to select a topic
for your story:
· Firsts: Think of a "first" in your life and describe that moment
in detail.
· Proud Moment: Choose a moment when you felt proud about
an accomplishment.
· Adversity: Describe a time when you had to think or act
quickly to overcome a challenge.
· Travel: Recall a memorable experience you had while visiting
an interesting place.
B. Think About Your Writing
Below your completed narrative, include answers to all of the
following reflection questions:
1. Which narrative techniques did you use to bring your story to
life? (2-3 sentences) Sophia says: Did you use vivid description,
sensory details, and/or dialogue to engage readers? Provide two

examples from your essay in which you “show” readers rather
than “tell” them. EXAMPLE: A sentence such as "I glanced at
the clock, grabbed my briefcase, and sprinted for the elevator"
uses more descriptive language than simply saying, "I was
running late for the meeting."
2. How did your purpose and audience shape the way in which
you wrote your narrative? (3-4 sentences) Sophia says: Your
hypothetical audience extends beyond the people who will
evaluate your narrative. Which individuals or groups were you
addressing when you wrote your narrative, and how did
consideration of your audience and your purpose influence the
way in which you wrote it?
3. Provide a concrete example from your narrative that shows
how you have written specifically for this audience and
purpose. (3-5 sentences) Sophia says: Consider including a
quotation from your essay and explaining how it was written to
appeal to your audience, and to accomplish your purpose.
Alternatively, you might describe a theme, tone, or narrative
technique that you used and explain how it was intended to
appeal to your audience and achieve your purpose.
C. Narrative Guidelines
DIRECTIONS: Refer to the checklist below throughout the
writing process. Do not submit your Touchstone until your
essay meets all of the guidelines.Narrative Focus and Flow
❒ Are all of the details in your story relevant to your purpose?
❒ Are the events presented in a logical order that is easy to
follow?
❒ Is your story 500-800 words in length? If not, which details
do you need to add or subtract?
Narrative Structure
❒ Is there an opening paragraph that introduces the setting,
characters, and situation?
❒ Are there middle paragraphs that describe the progression of
events?

❒ Is there a closing paragraph that provides a thorough
resolution to the story?
Narrative Language and Techniques
❒ Have you incorporated narrative language and techniques
(e.g., figurative language, concrete and sensory details,
dialogue, and vivid description)?
❒ Can examples of narrative language and techniques be found
throughout your story, or are they only evident in some places?
Conventions
❒ Have you double-checked for correct grammar, punctuation,
spelling, formatting, and capitalization?
❒ Have you proofread to find and correct typos?
Before You Submit
❒ Have you included your name, date, and course in the top left
corner of the page?
❒ Have you answered all of the “Think About Your Writing”
questions?
❒ Is your essay between 500 and 800 words in length (2-3
pages)?
D. Scoring
Your composition and reflection will be scored according to the
Touchstone 1 Rubric, which evaluates the narrative focus,
narrative flow, narrative structure, narrative language and
techniques, use of conventions (grammar, punctuation, etc.),
and your answers to the “Think About your Writing” questions
above.
E. Rubric
Advanced (90-100%)
Proficient (80-90%)
Acceptable (70-79%)

Needs Improvement (50-69%)
Non-Performance (0-49%)
Narrative Focus
Present a focused, meaningful narrative.
The composition is consistently focused, and details are
relevant and specific.
The composition is focused and details are relevant and
specific. However, a few details and descriptions detract
slightly from the focus.
The composition is mostly focused and the majority of details
are relevant and specific. However, there are several details and
descriptions that detract from the focus.
The composition does not have a consistent focus.
The composition exhibits no evidence of a focus.
Narrative Flow
Tell the story using a logical, smooth sequence of events.
The sequence of events and details is logical and easy to follow
throughout the composition.
The sequence of events and details is logical and easy to follow
throughout the composition, with a few minor exceptions.
The sequence of events and details is easy to follow throughout
most of the composition; however, some areas are poorly
sequenced or confusing.
The events and details are primarily poorly sequenced and
difficult to follow.
The sequence of events and details is illogical. Readers cannot
follow the progression of the composition.
Narrative Structure
Develop a clear beginning, middle, and end.
The composition has a clear and well-developed beginning,
middle, and end. The opening paragraph(s) thoroughly introduce
the setting, characters, and situation. The middle paragraphs
thoroughly describe the progression of events. The closing

paragraph(s) provide a thorough resolution to the narrative.
The composition has a clear and sufficiently developed
beginning, middle, and end. The opening paragraph(s)
adequately introduce the setting, characters, and situation. The
middle paragraphs adequately describe the progression of
events. The closing paragraph(s) provide an adequate resolution
to the narrative.
The composition has a clear beginning, middle, and end;
however, one of the three sections is minimally developed.
The composition lacks a clear beginning, middle, or end; or,
two of the three sections are minimally developed.
The composition lacks a clear beginning, middle, and end; or,
all three sections are minimally developed.
Narrative Language and Techniques
Use narrative language and techniques competently.
Uses narrative language and techniques (e.g., concrete and
sensory details, figurative language, vivid description, dialogue,
pacing, and plot development) effectively throughout the
composition.
sensory details, figurative language, vivid description, dial ogue,
pacing, and plot development) effectively in the majority of the
composition.
pacing, and plot development) effectively in some parts of the
composition.
pacing, and plot development) rarely in the composition.
Does not use narrative language and techniques (e.g., concrete
and sensory details, figurative language, vivid description,
dialogue, pacing, and plot development) in the composition.
Conventions

Demonstrate command of standard English grammar,
punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and usage.
There are few, if any, negligible errors in grammar,
punctuation, spelling, capitalization, formatting, and usage.
There are occasional minor errors in grammar, punctuation,
spelling, capitalization, formatting, and usage.
There are some significant errors in grammar, punctuation,
There are frequent significant errors in grammar, punctuation,
There are consistent significant errors in grammar, punctuation,
Think About Your Writing
Reply to reflection questions thoroughly and thoughtfully.
Demonstrates thoughtful reflection; consistently includes
insights, observations, and/or examples in all responses.
Answers all reflection questions effectively, following or
exceeding response length guidelines.
Demonstrates thoughtful reflection; includes multiple insights,
observations, and/or examples. Answers all reflection questions
effectively, following response length guidelines.
Primarily demonstrates thoughtful reflection, but some
responses are lacking in detail or insight. Answers all reflection
questions, primarily following response length guidelines.
Shows limited reflection; the majority of responses are lacking
in detail or insight. Answers reflection questions inadequately;
may not answer all of the questions and/or may not follow
response length guidelines.
Does not answer the majority of reflection questions, or the
majority of answers do not follow response length guidelines.
F. Requirements
· Your narrative must be 500 to 800 words (approximately 2-3
pages) in length.

· Assignment guidelines must be followed or your submission
will not be graded.
· Double-space the essay and use one-inch margins.
· Use an easily-readable 12-point font.
· All writing must be appropriate for an academic context.
· Your narrative must be original and written for this
assignment.
· Plagiarism of any kind is strictly prohibited.
· Your submission must include your name, the name of the
course, the date, and the title of your composition.
· Your submission must include both your narrative and your
answers to the "Think About Your Writing" questions.
· Submit only a single file that contains all of the assignment
components.
· Acceptable file formats are .doc and .docx.

Decision Issues for Approach SelectionSummaryDiscussion Questions

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Decision Issues for Approach SelectionSummaryDiscussion Questions

Similar to Decision Issues for Approach SelectionSummaryDiscussion Questions (20)

More from LinaCovington707

More from LinaCovington707 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Decision Issues for Approach SelectionSummaryDiscussion Questions