----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Greenaway <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2001 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: process vs. outcomes - language


> I think that much depends on the main question being asked. ''How
> does this happen?'' and ''How does this work?'' leads to research
> that examines the processes and workings. ''Does it work?'' ''How
> well/often/much does it work?'' leads to research that measures
> results/effects/outcomes/consequences. Yes we need both (and many
> other) kinds of research questions. And it is difficult, but not
> impossible, to tackle different kinds of questions in a
> worthwhile way within one research study.
>
> I challenged you James last week in the following way:
>
> ''If 'process' and 'outcome' really are one and the same thing,
> how would your research writings read if 'process' is substituted
> for 'outcome' and vice-versa?''
>
> I was surprised at the detail of your reply (your PS on
> 25/10/01).
> Perhaps it does illustrate that there can be a close alignment
> between processes and outcomes e.g. you can develop trust
> (outcome) by trusting others and being trustworthy (processes).
> If you did find examples in which 'process' and 'outcome' are
> fully interchangeable, this indicates to me that you should have
> used both words or chosen a more general word such as 'events'.
>
> Are your views changing in 2001? Your doctoral thesis was
> about programme outcomes, and the research page where it appears
> to be summarised at http://www.outwardbound.com.au/research.html
> is very clearly about 'outcomes' (18 mentions) vs. 'processes' (2
> mentions, both paired with 'outcomes'). The research page does
> include a sentence that describes some of the 'factors'
> (processes??) on which the 'outcomes' depend:
>
> ''The outcomes of any educational program [are] dependent on a
> complex combination of factors such as the age and gender of the
> participants, how motivated they are, the length of the program,
> the quality of the instructors, the sequence of the activities,
> and so on.''
>
> I have enjoyed reading the messages on this 'process vs.
> outcomes - language' thread. I am still getting my head round the
> ''Non-Representational'' nature of education discussed in the
> article recommended by Steve B., but to me it is shouting out
> 'process' as being all important to the author, Petruzzi. I agree
> very much with the caution of Pete A. and Kara towards new
> language. I would add that the coining and trademarking of
> phrases by Project Adventure Inc. (TM) and other organisations,
> is I think more to do with marketing than with the needs of
> research or a gap in our vocabulary or concepts.
>
> This process/outcome issue was sparked off from an earlier thread
> in which I expressed some concern about (the process of)
> firewalking, and began a search for existing theories or models
> that provide an alternative to using the 'frontier' zone for
> generating worthwhile outcomes.
>
> You replied, James (23/10/01), with what looked like 100%
> commitment to outcomes and 0% commitment to processes:
> ''BTW - re firewalking.  At Outward Bound we had the belief that
> if you could plug someone into a socket in the wall and achieve
> what OB programs achieved then we would switch over and do
> that.''
>
> In the same email you made a special plea:
> ''I have plea here - please don't characterize what I'm saying as
> belonging in some 'quantitative outcome' domain.  Process needs
> to be examined just as much as outcome, using whatever rigorous
> approach is most appropriate.  I don't see any point in arguing
> about which is more important (process or outcome) because its an
> artificial distinction.''
>
> But how else can I characterise your statement about plugging
> someone into a socket? What point could you possibly be making
> other than illustrating your 100% commitment to outcomes?
>
> I am 100% confused.
>
> Roger Greenaway
> Reviewing Skills Training
> [log in to unmask]
> http://reviewing.co.uk
>