Policy Analysis

7170EDN
TeamsForum
Learning@Griffith
Facebook

Transformational Educational Technologies

Design-Based
Systems Sim
Org Policy
Transf Plan
Wk 1
Wk 2
Wk 3
Wk 4
Wk 5
Wk 6
Wk 7
Wk 8
Wk 9
Wk 10
Wk 11
Wk 12

Unit 3 Aims

  1. apply an Action Research approach to develop policies that support the implementation of Educational Technologies in an educational organisation; and

  2. demonstrate understanding of a range of research-informed Educational Transformation approaches.

Week 8 Learning Outcomes

  1. Understand Educational Technology policy development; and

  2. Conduct stakeholder Analysis.

Week 8 Recording

Week 8 Learning Activities

policyanalysis (1).pdf
Yano, S. (2013). UNESCO Handbook on Education Policy Analysis and Programming. Volume 1. Education Policy Analysis. UNESCO, Bangkok.

Come to the tutorial prepared to discuss the potential stakeholders of your educational organisation.


Share to Teams five different stakeholders in your organisation

25801348.pdf
Ebitz, D. (2010). Stakeholder Analysis for Educators: Obtaining Support and Reducing Obstacles. The Journal of Museum Education, 35(2), 187-191. Retrieved September 7, 2020, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25801348
Stakeholder-analysis-toolkit-v3.pdf
Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action. (2018). Stakeholder Analysis toolkit https://www.alnap.org/system/files/content/resource/files/main/Stakeholder-analysis-toolkit-v3.pdf

Stakeholder Mapping

The salience model


The salience model uses three dimensions: legitimacy (A), power (B), and urgency (C). It is represented in a Venn diagram, that has 8 regions each associated to a specific stakeholder type.

The Covalence model has eight regions each associated with a stakeholder type

Stakeholder types as described by the salience model:

  1. Discretionary stakeholders: These stakeholders have little urgency or power and are unlikely to exert much pressure. They have legitimate claims. (yellow region)

  2. Dormant stakeholders: These stakeholders have much power but no legitimacy or urgency and therefore are not likely to become heavily involved. (blue region)

  3. Demanding stakeholders: These stakeholders have little power or legitimacy but can make much "noise" because they want things to be addressed immediately. (red region)

  4. Dominant stakeholders: These stakeholders have both formal power and legitimacy, but little urgency. They are tend to have certain expectations that must be met. (green region)

  5. Dangerous stakeholders: These stakeholders have power and urgency but are not really pertinent to the project. (purple region)

  6. Dependent stakeholders: These stakeholders have urgent and legitimate stakes in the project but little power. These stakeholders may lean on another stakeholder group to have their voices heard. (orange region)

  7. Definitive stakeholders: These stakeholders have power, legitimacy and urgency and therefore have the highest salience. (white region at the intersection of all other regions)

  8. Non-stakeholders: These stakeholders have no power, legitimacy or urgency. (outside the regions defined by the circles A, B, and C)


33.pdf
Schmeer, K. (1999). Stakeholder analysis guidelines. Policy toolkit for strengthening health sector reform, 1. http://msalamkhan.buet.ac.bd/teaching_msk_files/Stakeholder%20analysis%20guidelines%20.pdf

Come to the tutorial prepared to engage with the development of a stakeholder map.


Share to Teams the most challenging stakeholder that may oppose the Transformation you wish to see for your organisation.

OPTIONAL

A comprehensive reading (Thesis) on School Vision: A Stakeholder Analysis

Niva_Matalon_final_thesis.pdf
Matalon, N. (2018). School Vision: A Stakeholder Analysis (Doctoral dissertation, University of Portsmouth). https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/portal/files/14416147/Niva_Matalon_final_thesis.pdf