Popular in Psychology

Books

City Time: On Being Sentenced to Rikers Island

Independent Scholar David A. Campbell

Most Cited

The adapted mind

Dalhousie University Jerome Barkow

Experimental Psychology

Time to investigate human visual shape perception

University of Montreal Martin Arguin

Most Cited

James S. Jackson and the program for research on Black Americans

Harvard University David R. Williams

Psychology

Violence and Mental Illness: Rethinking Risk Factors and Enhancing Public Safety

Duke University Eric Elbogen

Cognitive Psychology

Cognitive remediation – where are we now and what should we do next?

King's College London Til Wykes

Why is this child in special education?

View more insights in Social Sciences - Psychology - Personality and Intelligence

View more figures from University of Dundee

View the page of Tracey Colville

Read the Study

Tracey Colville discusses the systemic change in a local authority decision-making process (DMP) for allocating specialist resources for children with complex educational needs in a local authority in Scotland.

Image courtesy of interviewee. March 13, 2024

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

This video video outlines a study focused on improving public services, particularly in the context of educational decision-making for children with special educational needs. It emphasizes the complexity of current public services and the need for a deeper theoretical understanding of systemic issues and transformational change.

The study used Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as a framework, highlighting the importance of understanding how systems evolve and the contradictions within them. The researcher, an educational psychologist, collaborated with senior managers from a local authority to analyze and improve their decision-making practices regarding children's access to specialized educational resources.

Key principles of the research included:

1. **Object of Activity**: Understanding the focus of collaborative work (e.g., child assessments).
2. **Diverse Voices**: Acknowledging competing perspectives within the system.
3. **Historicity**: Recognizing how past practices shape current systems.
4. **Contradictions**: Identifying tensions within the practices to foster transformation.
5. **Interventionist Research**: Collaboratively engaging with practitioners to enact change.

Through a series of workshops, the participants critically analyzed their existing processes, recognized power imbalances, and identified ineffective practices. Ultimately, they developed a new model for assessing children's needs that emphasized inclusive practices and aimed at improving outcomes.

This video video underscores the necessity for educational leaders to actively engage with theoretical frameworks to implement effective changes in public services. There’s a call for educational psychologists to utilize such frameworks to promote critical engagement and transformation in professional practices, ensuring systems are more efficient and effective in meeting the needs of children and families. The study's findings advocate for continued reflection and adaptation within public service frameworks to avoid repeating past mistakes.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.185 --> 00:03.405
The context of the study is around the complexity

00:03.405 --> 00:05.805
of working in public services at the moment.

00:06.705 --> 00:11.155
And part of that problem is that as researchers,

00:11.155 --> 00:12.955
we feel we need to better theorize

00:13.295 --> 00:16.435
how public services function, how do managers manage,

00:16.435 --> 00:18.915
how do leaders, improve the work

00:19.015 --> 00:20.115
of the people they work with?

00:20.775 --> 00:24.075
So what we are thinking is we need a more nuance

00:24.145 --> 00:26.475
understanding of the systemic problems

00:26.495 --> 00:29.995
and how to enable transformational change within systems.

00:30.655 --> 00:31.955
And we need to understand

00:32.055 --> 00:34.435
how senior managers develop new ways of learning

00:34.455 --> 00:35.955
and working and leadership.

00:37.105 --> 00:41.365
So the cultural historical activity theory approach would

00:41.425 --> 00:46.165
say we need to have an archeological dig into these systems

00:46.385 --> 00:49.965
to understand better where the problems are coming from,

00:50.315 --> 00:53.045
usually from the past, the effect the present,

00:53.385 --> 00:55.245
and the main impact on your future.

00:56.205 --> 00:59.145
So my research focused upon collaborative research

00:59.145 --> 01:02.145
with senior managers who were responsible

01:02.205 --> 01:03.305
for a local authority,

01:03.935 --> 01:06.665
special educational needs decision making process

01:07.325 --> 01:08.625
for assessment of children

01:09.005 --> 01:13.025
and their access to specialist educational resources.

01:14.735 --> 01:18.795
So why was I focusing on that particular topic?

01:19.535 --> 01:21.075
So in this local authority,

01:21.145 --> 01:25.275
this large urban city local authority, they were

01:25.805 --> 01:28.835
doing a review of, of their own practices and work,

01:29.455 --> 01:32.835
and they realized that this process, very complex process

01:33.385 --> 01:35.875
with lots of professionals working with parents,

01:36.465 --> 01:39.195
that it wasn't working, that it was inequitable,

01:39.545 --> 01:41.035
that it was taking too long,

01:41.505 --> 01:44.075
that some children were given specialist placements

01:44.095 --> 01:45.315
and some children weren't.

01:45.895 --> 01:49.275
So I was an educational psychologist working in this local

01:49.275 --> 01:53.635
authority, and I was asked to work with the senior managers

01:53.975 --> 01:57.875
to help them review their work practices

01:57.935 --> 01:59.955
around this decision making process.

02:00.655 --> 02:05.475
So I chose to use cultural lic activity theory

02:05.735 --> 02:07.675
and developmental work research.

02:08.065 --> 02:10.475
What is chat Cultural lic activity theory

02:10.495 --> 02:12.155
and developmental work research.

02:12.975 --> 02:15.205
So activity theory

02:15.305 --> 02:17.365
or cultural historical activity theory

02:18.025 --> 02:21.645
is located in the works of critical theory in the work

02:21.645 --> 02:23.285
of Marx by Gosky

02:23.785 --> 02:25.925
and the, the dialectical traditions

02:25.985 --> 02:27.645
of critical social theory.

02:29.045 --> 02:33.505
So it activity theory started in the 1930s, was the work

02:33.505 --> 02:36.185
of Vygotsky and Leon Tiv, a lot

02:36.185 --> 02:38.985
of these great Russian psychologists whose work was very

02:38.985 --> 02:41.945
much impeded by the Stalin ish regime at the time.

02:42.245 --> 02:45.145
And it wasn't until the 1960s that we really became aware

02:45.145 --> 02:46.545
of the work that we had been doing.

02:47.525 --> 02:50.785
Um, so Vygotsky's idea was that we need to show

02:50.885 --> 02:55.065
how individual learning is mediated by cultural tools.

02:55.645 --> 03:00.315
And then Leon Tim Strom projected that idea onto, well,

03:00.575 --> 03:03.275
can we ask the same questions of how systems learn?

03:03.455 --> 03:05.515
How do people learn within systems

03:05.775 --> 03:07.555
and not just at the individual level?

03:08.135 --> 03:12.395
So Engstrom is the, the world leader now on this approach,

03:12.775 --> 03:16.715
and he has developed three generations of activity theory

03:17.175 --> 03:20.235
to show how different systems interact with each other

03:20.815 --> 03:22.875
in complex work settings

03:23.175 --> 03:25.715
and public services such as education

03:25.775 --> 03:29.395
and health, are very complex,

03:29.535 --> 03:31.515
social, structures.

03:31.575 --> 03:34.555
And this is a perfect approach, to understand

03:35.375 --> 03:36.915
the contradictions

03:36.975 --> 03:40.155
and tensions that exist within these complex work settings.

03:40.575 --> 03:42.275
So activity, theory, chat,

03:42.795 --> 03:46.675
cultural historical activity theory has five key principles.

03:47.215 --> 03:48.795
The first one is really important.

03:49.545 --> 03:52.635
It's the object of activity that is the unit

03:52.635 --> 03:54.035
of analysis in this research.

03:54.465 --> 03:57.275
It's what is it that everyone is coming together

03:57.855 --> 03:59.915
at this point in time to work on?

04:00.375 --> 04:03.675
So for example, that could be the assessment of a child

04:03.735 --> 04:05.755
who has very complex medical needs

04:05.985 --> 04:08.555
that involves professionals from different backgrounds,

04:08.555 --> 04:12.235
different services to come together and try

04:12.235 --> 04:16.115
and work in partnership to improve outcomes for that child.

04:16.615 --> 04:18.835
The second principle is that there are lots

04:18.835 --> 04:20.275
of voices in these systems

04:20.695 --> 04:22.155
and they often compete with each other

04:22.575 --> 04:23.995
and they're often contested

04:24.495 --> 04:26.075
and people have to negotiate

04:26.185 --> 04:27.715
what the rules are in these systems.

04:29.105 --> 04:31.525
The third principle is that,

04:31.525 --> 04:33.245
this word called historicity,

04:33.665 --> 04:34.765
and it's the understanding

04:34.765 --> 04:38.125
that current systems didn't just appear randomly.

04:38.395 --> 04:40.805
They have evolved from past practice.

04:41.225 --> 04:43.645
So we need to understand past practice

04:44.025 --> 04:46.925
to understand the problems in the present so

04:46.925 --> 04:50.685
that we can shape the future practice in a more productive,

04:50.845 --> 04:51.925
effective way.

04:52.755 --> 04:56.365
Another key idea in activity theory is KO's idea

04:56.475 --> 05:01.285
that all open messy systems are inherently embedded

05:01.355 --> 05:02.405
with contradictions,

05:02.985 --> 05:06.685
and that we need this type of research to surface

05:06.945 --> 05:10.405
and cover what these contradictions are in order

05:10.505 --> 05:11.885
to transform practice.

05:12.825 --> 05:16.765
The fifth principle is the interventionist aspect

05:16.865 --> 05:19.205
of cultural historical activity theory,

05:19.625 --> 05:21.925
and that is called developmental work research.

05:22.225 --> 05:23.805
And that is when the researcher

05:23.825 --> 05:27.045
or a group of researchers work in collaboration

05:27.715 --> 05:31.885
with key workers in any given context to allow them

05:32.425 --> 05:35.885
to use activity theory tools to get a better understanding

05:35.945 --> 05:37.125
of their own work context

05:37.745 --> 05:40.405
and then help them transform their own practice.

05:40.585 --> 05:42.885
So the role of the researcher in this type

05:42.885 --> 05:44.125
of research is very different.

05:44.275 --> 05:46.445
It's very, interactive

05:46.705 --> 05:49.405
and we are part of that, that which is being studied.

05:49.465 --> 05:52.295
So it's quite interesting. So how does it work?

05:52.995 --> 05:56.135
So we assume that all activity systems go through cycles

05:56.135 --> 05:57.165
of expansive learning.

05:58.165 --> 06:01.025
So all open systems will go through periods of change

06:01.085 --> 06:04.305
and flux and stability and things need to change.

06:04.315 --> 06:08.005
Again, DWR developmental work research

06:09.585 --> 06:12.985
artificially intervenes in these work context to work

06:12.985 --> 06:14.425
with the key players.

06:14.765 --> 06:18.385
In that context, the managers, the leaders to consider

06:19.085 --> 06:21.425
the potential for change in the systems

06:21.455 --> 06:22.625
that they are working within.

06:23.365 --> 06:24.905
And it's very much about the role

06:24.905 --> 06:27.305
of the researcher being an active participant.

06:27.765 --> 06:31.025
The learning is at the individual and the collective level,

06:31.405 --> 06:34.025
and its collaboration between the researchers

06:34.125 --> 06:35.465
and those participating.

06:36.125 --> 06:37.305
And we look at,

06:37.605 --> 06:41.385
we bring in ethnographic data into workshops, change labs,

06:41.385 --> 06:45.505
they're called, and we use case studies, publish papers,

06:46.105 --> 06:48.065
anything that's considered ethnographic data.

06:48.405 --> 06:51.785
And we use that together with the, the tools of chat

06:52.245 --> 06:55.185
to help the participants get a more theoretical

06:55.185 --> 06:58.385
understanding of the context they are trying to change.

06:58.645 --> 07:01.025
So in Vygotsky's words, he would say,

07:01.025 --> 07:02.425
these are mediating tools.

07:02.615 --> 07:04.825
They're serving as second stimuli

07:05.165 --> 07:07.945
to improve the understanding of the,

07:08.085 --> 07:10.825
the leaders in the field that they are managing.

07:11.135 --> 07:13.905
When you plan this type of research in, in a system,

07:13.965 --> 07:17.745
in a complex system, they, you need an intervention part.

07:17.965 --> 07:22.725
So that was the part where I worked every six weeks

07:22.915 --> 07:25.685
with a group of very senior educational managers

07:26.385 --> 07:28.645
and we, I led them

07:28.645 --> 07:30.605
through the understanding of their practice.

07:30.885 --> 07:33.885
I introduced them to cultural still activity theory

07:33.945 --> 07:35.085
and the tools that we have.

07:35.585 --> 07:40.125
And then we met every six weeks to look at case studies,

07:40.355 --> 07:44.685
problematic, outcomes for children, policy documents,

07:44.835 --> 07:47.645
legislation, looked at everything in that context.

07:48.745 --> 07:52.885
And I took the participants through a 10 month period of

07:53.445 --> 07:55.925
studying, analyzing, critiquing

07:56.615 --> 07:58.445
everything we had in the room with us.

07:59.025 --> 08:01.685
And then the whole point of that was

08:01.755 --> 08:05.485
that they then considered themselves what was the potential

08:05.505 --> 08:07.685
for change and as a very complex system

08:08.305 --> 08:10.205
to have better outcomes for the children

08:10.265 --> 08:13.885
and young people who had very complex educational needs.

08:15.095 --> 08:17.275
So at the end of the intervention process,

08:18.095 --> 08:21.115
the participants had developed a brand new model

08:21.495 --> 08:25.395
for practice, for the whole local authority for children

08:25.455 --> 08:27.755
and young people being assessed so

08:27.755 --> 08:31.635
that they could access the appropriate educational resources

08:31.635 --> 08:35.435
that they required in a, a proportionate and timely manner.

08:36.345 --> 08:38.925
So, so at the end of the intervention process,

08:39.355 --> 08:41.565
they had developed a new model for practice.

08:42.185 --> 08:46.285
The second phase was the implementation of this model

08:47.035 --> 08:49.845
that took place over 18 months where

08:50.425 --> 08:53.605
the educational leaders were going out,

08:53.935 --> 08:55.285
describing their new model

08:55.425 --> 08:58.725
to everyone else in the local authority planning,

08:59.145 --> 09:01.645
how people were going to develop different work streams.

09:01.645 --> 09:03.805
There were work plans for different work streams

09:04.305 --> 09:08.525
and there were evaluation points to gather data so we can,

09:08.585 --> 09:11.045
we could evaluate the longitudinal impact

09:11.385 --> 09:12.445
of the intervention.

09:13.665 --> 09:17.645
And we were also evaluating the usefulness of chat

09:17.825 --> 09:20.565
as an approach to engage senior managers

09:20.745 --> 09:21.845
in this kind of work.

09:22.385 --> 09:25.085
So the, the two phases together probably took over

09:25.085 --> 09:26.245
about two and a half years.

09:26.785 --> 09:29.525
And so the intervention phase informed

09:29.835 --> 09:31.805
what would happen in the implementation phase.

09:32.545 --> 09:34.245
The participants in this research,

09:34.425 --> 09:36.045
it was a self-selecting group

09:36.515 --> 09:40.405
because I wanted to focus on the vet,

09:40.405 --> 09:42.365
the most senior educational managers

09:42.585 --> 09:46.085
who had power control agency budgetary

09:46.085 --> 09:47.885
control over the whole process.

09:48.385 --> 09:52.915
So chat would say that to effect real

09:53.555 --> 09:57.575
transformational change, researchers need to be interacting

09:57.575 --> 09:59.255
with the people who hold the most power

09:59.795 --> 10:03.375
and who hold the agency to effect change to make it happen.

10:04.035 --> 10:08.095
So I invited all of the senior educational managers

10:08.955 --> 10:11.455
who were part who, who were responsible,

10:11.475 --> 10:12.735
who managed this process.

10:12.915 --> 10:17.555
So they included head teachers

10:17.815 --> 10:20.675
of some of our special schools and specialist provisions.

10:20.985 --> 10:23.475
They were part of the decision making process

10:23.545 --> 10:27.155
that was under question, very senior,

10:28.505 --> 10:32.155
educational and legislative leaders

10:32.415 --> 10:35.195
who oversaw the process from the legislative perspective,

10:35.975 --> 10:37.155
the overall manager

10:37.415 --> 10:40.475
of all the educational services in the local authority.

10:41.325 --> 10:44.355
There were some educational psychologists, the managers

10:44.355 --> 10:46.915
of educational psychologists as

10:47.425 --> 10:49.675
they were often the key professionals

10:49.775 --> 10:53.985
who would assess the child for this specialist provision.

10:54.485 --> 10:59.465
So in my group, I had all the key people who

11:00.055 --> 11:01.985
managed the specialist provisions,

11:02.485 --> 11:04.905
who participated in the decision making process

11:05.405 --> 11:07.985
and who managed the decision making process.

11:08.725 --> 11:11.585
The first part of the intervention

11:11.935 --> 11:15.505
with these senior managers was to do a critique

11:15.885 --> 11:18.985
and analysis of their own process.

11:20.125 --> 11:24.405
So using activity theory tools, it's often,

11:24.715 --> 11:26.645
it's often depicted as a triangle.

11:26.905 --> 11:30.885
So a system and activity is depicted as a triangle

11:31.345 --> 11:33.685
and it has various nodes on the triangle.

11:33.865 --> 11:38.485
So for example, what are people's roles in this activity?

11:38.865 --> 11:40.285
How do people know how to work together?

11:40.955 --> 11:44.005
What tools do they have to work together?

11:44.185 --> 11:48.045
So for example, what kind of assessment tools were used

11:48.265 --> 11:51.435
to assess the children to be prioritized

11:51.535 --> 11:52.875
for these specialist provisions?

11:53.435 --> 11:57.765
What kind of legislative policy either hinders

11:58.305 --> 12:00.725
or facilitates this process to work?

12:01.025 --> 12:04.805
And the most important aspect of it was how are people

12:05.325 --> 12:06.405
managing to work together

12:06.985 --> 12:09.605
and to what extent are there problems with that?

12:10.305 --> 12:14.565
So their analysis of their own system showed us

12:14.995 --> 12:18.085
that there were problems with partnership with parents.

12:18.415 --> 12:20.285
There was a real power imbalance

12:20.475 --> 12:22.725
between the professionals involved in the assessment

12:22.785 --> 12:25.245
of children and the parents' views

12:25.745 --> 12:29.045
and children's views were absent from the whole process.

12:30.315 --> 12:33.025
There were lots of conflict with multi-agency working.

12:33.725 --> 12:38.225
So teachers, educational psychologists, social workers,

12:39.125 --> 12:41.865
speech and language therapists, pediatricians,

12:42.055 --> 12:45.145
they were all expected to come together to work

12:45.285 --> 12:46.305
to assess a child.

12:46.485 --> 12:50.265
But there were problems with who decided what to do

12:50.365 --> 12:53.105
and people using different assessment methodologies.

12:53.285 --> 12:55.505
It was very difficult to get everyone

12:55.525 --> 12:58.705
to agree on the best needs for the child.

12:58.895 --> 13:00.145
That was very problematic.

13:01.025 --> 13:04.405
Um, educational psychologists in particular were using

13:04.405 --> 13:06.045
different assessment methodologies,

13:06.945 --> 13:10.885
and that then caused problems for the decision making group

13:10.955 --> 13:14.365
because they couldn't interpret the different,

13:14.365 --> 13:15.605
assessment outcomes

13:15.665 --> 13:18.045
and what the, what the recommendations

13:18.045 --> 13:19.925
that educational psychologists were making.

13:20.375 --> 13:24.045
There were also problems with deficit models of learning.

13:24.745 --> 13:27.705
So when children were being assessed,

13:28.785 --> 13:32.225
negative categorizing labels were being used and,

13:32.365 --> 13:36.875
and the assessment methodologies were often involving

13:37.395 --> 13:41.515
standardized assessment tools that bore no relation to,

13:41.855 --> 13:44.515
to trying to understand the needs of the child.

13:45.215 --> 13:48.035
So there were problems at the legislative level,

13:48.535 --> 13:50.955
the local authority policy practice level,

13:51.655 --> 13:54.035
the way professionals try to work together,

13:54.695 --> 13:56.715
the way the power imbalances

13:56.715 --> 13:58.435
between parents and professionals.

13:58.895 --> 14:03.435
And all of this came together such

14:03.435 --> 14:06.315
that the outcome of this decision making process

14:06.735 --> 14:09.675
to place children in specialist provisions was

14:09.675 --> 14:12.435
that sometimes children were inappropriate

14:12.435 --> 14:13.915
and placed in provisions.

14:14.345 --> 14:15.955
Some children would expect it

14:15.955 --> 14:17.675
to be supported in mainstream schools,

14:18.055 --> 14:20.155
but the parents felt they should have been in a main,

14:20.275 --> 14:21.315
a specialist school.

14:22.015 --> 14:25.715
And often there were disputes that went to formal,

14:25.715 --> 14:28.275
additional support and tribunal processes.

14:28.575 --> 14:31.035
So the whole, the whole system,

14:31.095 --> 14:34.275
the whole process was fraught with tensions, dilemmas

14:35.195 --> 14:37.135
not achieving good outcomes for children.

14:37.835 --> 14:42.815
And it was long and drawn out and nobody was happy with it.

14:43.515 --> 14:46.855
So the participants taking part in this process,

14:47.115 --> 14:49.135
it was very, very important for them.

14:49.845 --> 14:52.045
They gathered lots of reflective data from them

14:52.275 --> 14:55.925
that this was the first time they'd actually looked at the

14:55.925 --> 14:57.725
whole process in its entirety

14:58.425 --> 15:01.405
rather than just looking at the procedural

15:01.555 --> 15:03.085
aspects of the process.

15:03.785 --> 15:06.445
So once they had achieved this analysis

15:06.505 --> 15:10.165
and the outcomes, they then went on to talk about,

15:11.245 --> 15:13.185
so we understand the problems now,

15:13.695 --> 15:15.105
what does the future model

15:15.205 --> 15:17.145
of this decision making process look like?

15:17.885 --> 15:22.625
So the next part of the result was that using the tools

15:22.765 --> 15:25.545
and principles of cultural historical activity theory,

15:25.965 --> 15:29.385
the group of participants journeyed

15:29.385 --> 15:32.945
through various turning points in their thinking using the

15:32.945 --> 15:35.105
tools of chat, actually changed

15:35.885 --> 15:37.345
how they were thinking about the,

15:37.345 --> 15:38.825
their own problems in their workplace.

15:39.285 --> 15:43.025
So for example, they started off the research by saying,

15:43.025 --> 15:45.185
we're going to review this decision making process.

15:45.935 --> 15:48.305
Then as the sessions unfolded

15:48.485 --> 15:52.065
and their analysis became clearer, they started to say,

15:52.295 --> 15:54.425
wait a minute, review

15:54.425 --> 15:57.145
of this process isn't really the right thing, is it,

15:57.205 --> 16:00.585
we actually need to broaden out the scope of this review

16:00.845 --> 16:03.305
and look at the wider systems around this process.

16:04.075 --> 16:06.825
There was lots of discussion and debate around that

16:06.965 --> 16:09.345
and looking at case studies of children again.

16:09.845 --> 16:13.425
And then eventually they arrived at the third turning point.

16:14.345 --> 16:16.185
Actually, what we need to do

16:16.725 --> 16:20.305
is build capacity in all our mainstream schools so

16:20.305 --> 16:22.065
that they have the needs

16:22.205 --> 16:25.705
and the skills to include more children in mainstream

16:26.285 --> 16:29.825
and that will avoid children being placed in specialist

16:29.825 --> 16:31.305
provisions when they don't have to.

16:32.045 --> 16:35.185
And then their final turning point was,

16:35.605 --> 16:37.865
it was at the point there was this new practice,

16:38.505 --> 16:40.665
national practice guidelines in Scotland called

16:41.305 --> 16:42.785
Getting it Right for every child.

16:43.645 --> 16:45.945
And the the participant group said,

16:45.965 --> 16:47.145
do you know what we need to do?

16:47.205 --> 16:51.305
We need to start afresh, look at this new practice model

16:51.885 --> 16:53.225
and start to think about

16:53.685 --> 16:56.665
how do we assess needs in a timely manner so

16:56.665 --> 16:59.585
that children can access their education in their

16:59.685 --> 17:00.705
own local school.

17:01.085 --> 17:03.985
So they, they traveled from thinking they were going

17:03.985 --> 17:05.665
to review a very specific process

17:06.365 --> 17:09.825
to completely transforming their whole approach to

17:09.825 --> 17:11.905
how children's needs are met

17:12.085 --> 17:15.065
and how children learn in mainstream schools.

17:15.205 --> 17:17.545
So it was quite a significant journey

17:17.765 --> 17:20.145
and transformation that they went through in their thinking.

17:20.965 --> 17:25.725
If they hadn't done that chat would predict that

17:26.475 --> 17:29.325
they would've maybe just produced the same process

17:30.005 --> 17:31.565
thinking it was actually different,

17:31.565 --> 17:34.805
but it had, it would have the same inherent problems in it

17:34.805 --> 17:36.325
because they hadn't been looked at.

17:37.145 --> 17:41.185
So the outcome of those turning points

17:42.325 --> 17:44.745
was they developed a completely new model

17:45.325 --> 17:48.465
for the local authority about meeting children's needs

17:48.605 --> 17:51.725
and how they were learning in mainstream schools.

17:52.395 --> 17:55.615
Once they had developed that model, they then went

17:55.635 --> 17:57.055
to the implementation phase

17:57.425 --> 17:59.335
where they had different work streams

17:59.355 --> 18:01.655
and different professionals working on different work

18:01.655 --> 18:04.295
streams so that all the different parts

18:04.295 --> 18:06.335
of the system were changing at the same time

18:07.275 --> 18:09.655
and everything was moving forward at the same time.

18:10.195 --> 18:13.655
We had various points, time points when we gathered data.

18:14.435 --> 18:17.135
And like all organizational change processes,

18:17.285 --> 18:19.535
it's not straightforward, it's not linear.

18:20.275 --> 18:22.375
And there were times when people thought things weren't

18:22.375 --> 18:27.015
moving quickly enough or things weren't radical enough and,

18:27.035 --> 18:28.575
and the changes that were being made.

18:29.115 --> 18:32.615
So as we, I gathered the data over various time points.

18:32.985 --> 18:35.135
There were times when people were frustrated,

18:35.525 --> 18:37.495
they didn't think it was moving quickly enough,

18:37.915 --> 18:39.455
but all this can be predicted

18:39.455 --> 18:41.535
by organization organizational change theory.

18:41.635 --> 18:45.935
It takes at least two years to do really embedded

18:46.525 --> 18:48.495
radical transformational change.

18:49.035 --> 18:50.095
And they achieved that.

18:51.025 --> 18:54.205
So what this approach told us was

18:55.025 --> 18:57.725
to have better theoretical understandings

18:57.745 --> 18:59.285
of complex systems like this.

18:59.945 --> 19:04.205
We need to be using this kind of theoretical framework.

19:04.345 --> 19:08.005
We need to be using this type of interventionist research so

19:08.005 --> 19:09.205
that educational leaders

19:09.345 --> 19:13.225
and managers can offer better systems

19:13.295 --> 19:15.305
that not only have better outcomes for children

19:15.325 --> 19:17.865
and families, but they function more efficiently

19:17.865 --> 19:18.905
and effectively as well.

19:18.975 --> 19:22.425
Because we know these public services

19:22.525 --> 19:26.265
and systems are very, very strained at the moment in terms

19:26.285 --> 19:27.585
of budgets and so on.

19:27.725 --> 19:31.545
So we need to be using these theoretical processes

19:32.205 --> 19:34.305
to not only improve how we all work together,

19:34.485 --> 19:35.865
better outcomes for children,

19:36.085 --> 19:39.305
but that it works more efficiently and effectively as well.

19:39.905 --> 19:42.985
I was an educational psychologist working in this

19:42.985 --> 19:44.185
local authority at the time.

19:44.825 --> 19:47.465
A key role of educational psychologists is

19:47.465 --> 19:49.185
that we are research practitioners

19:49.605 --> 19:51.505
and we undertake research

19:52.085 --> 19:54.545
in the educational systems within which we work.

19:55.345 --> 19:57.265
I would say one of the key aspects is

19:57.265 --> 19:59.385
that more educational psychologists need

19:59.385 --> 20:01.225
to understand this work so

20:01.225 --> 20:03.785
that when they are out there supporting schools,

20:03.835 --> 20:07.305
supporting teachers, supporting educational managers,

20:07.575 --> 20:10.665
they can use these tools, these theoretical frameworks,

20:10.665 --> 20:11.665
these concepts

20:12.005 --> 20:15.385
to engage people in a more critical transformational process.

20:16.005 --> 20:18.465
So I think the raising theoretical awareness

20:19.085 --> 20:20.225
of senior managers

20:20.225 --> 20:22.585
and leaders is essential so

20:22.585 --> 20:24.705
that they can develop the public services

20:24.705 --> 20:27.265
that are more effective and have better outcomes.

20:28.555 --> 20:30.165
Also, I think there's a need

20:30.165 --> 20:33.445
for critical engagement using the conceptual tools of chat

20:33.625 --> 20:35.845
to critique and transform

20:36.205 --> 20:38.245
professional practice and leadership.

20:38.665 --> 20:40.325
We can't have, there are lots

20:40.325 --> 20:41.925
of processes in local authorities

20:41.925 --> 20:45.205
and in public services under lots of review processes,

20:45.385 --> 20:46.685
but they seem to reproduce

20:46.685 --> 20:47.685
Themselves. We

20:47.685 --> 20:50.325
need to start engaging people in proper

20:50.885 --> 20:53.645
critical reflection to have transformational change.

20:54.265 --> 20:57.525
So I would say what I'm doing now, what I do in my work

20:58.105 --> 21:01.725
is having conferences, doing interviews like this, we need

21:01.725 --> 21:05.725
to promote chat as an interventionist research framework

21:06.195 --> 21:08.125
that has practical relevance

21:08.505 --> 21:11.565
and theoretical rigor to understand

21:11.625 --> 21:15.565
and change complex work settings such as public services

21:16.185 --> 21:20.365
and in particular educational settings, which is my area

21:20.365 --> 21:20.845
of research.

00:00 - The context of the study is around the complexity of working in public services at the moment. And part of that problem is that as researchers, we feel we need to better theorize how public services function, how do managers manage, how do leaders, improve the work

00:19 - of the people they work with? So what we are thinking is we need a more nuance understanding of the systemic problems and how to enable transformational change within systems. And we need to understand how senior managers develop new ways of learning and working and leadership. So the cultural historical activity theory approach would say we need to have an archeological dig into these systems to understand better where the problems are coming from,

00:50 - usually from the past, the effect the present, and the main impact on your future. So my research focused upon collaborative research with senior managers who were responsible for a local authority, special educational needs decision making process for assessment of children and their access to specialist educational resources. So why was I focusing on that particular topic? So in this local authority,

01:21 - this large urban city local authority, they were doing a review of, of their own practices and work, and they realized that this process, very complex process with lots of professionals working with parents, that it wasn't working, that it was inequitable, that it was taking too long, that some children were given specialist placements and some children weren't. So I was an educational psychologist working in this local authority, and I was asked to work with the senior managers

01:53 - to help them review their work practices around this decision making process. So I chose to use cultural lic activity theory and developmental work research. What is chat Cultural lic activity theory and developmental work research. So activity theory or cultural historical activity theory is located in the works of critical theory in the work of Marx by Gosky

02:23 - and the, the dialectical traditions of critical social theory. So it activity theory started in the 1930s, was the work of Vygotsky and Leon Tiv, a lot of these great Russian psychologists whose work was very much impeded by the Stalin ish regime at the time. And it wasn't until the 1960s that we really became aware of the work that we had been doing. so Vygotsky's idea was that we need to show how individual learning is mediated by cultural tools.

02:55 - And then Leon Tim Strom projected that idea onto, well, can we ask the same questions of how systems learn? How do people learn within systems and not just at the individual level? So Engstrom is the, the world leader now on this approach, and he has developed three generations of activity theory to show how different systems interact with each other in complex work settings and public services such as education and health, are very complex,

03:29 - social, structures. And this is a perfect approach, to understand the contradictions and tensions that exist within these complex work settings. So activity, theory, chat, cultural historical activity theory has five key principles. The first one is really important. It's the object of activity that is the unit of analysis in this research. It's what is it that everyone is coming together

03:57 - at this point in time to work on? So for example, that could be the assessment of a child who has very complex medical needs that involves professionals from different backgrounds, different services to come together and try and work in partnership to improve outcomes for that child. The second principle is that there are lots of voices in these systems and they often compete with each other and they're often contested

04:24 - and people have to negotiate what the rules are in these systems. The third principle is that, this word called historicity, and it's the understanding that current systems didn't just appear randomly. They have evolved from past practice. So we need to understand past practice to understand the problems in the present so that we can shape the future practice in a more productive,

04:50 - effective way. Another key idea in activity theory is KO's idea that all open messy systems are inherently embedded with contradictions, and that we need this type of research to surface and cover what these contradictions are in order to transform practice. The fifth principle is the interventionist aspect of cultural historical activity theory, and that is called developmental work research.

05:22 - And that is when the researcher or a group of researchers work in collaboration with key workers in any given context to allow them to use activity theory tools to get a better understanding of their own work context and then help them transform their own practice. So the role of the researcher in this type of research is very different. It's very, interactive and we are part of that, that which is being studied.

05:49 - So it's quite interesting. So how does it work? So we assume that all activity systems go through cycles of expansive learning. So all open systems will go through periods of change and flux and stability and things need to change. Again, DWR developmental work research artificially intervenes in these work context to work with the key players. In that context, the managers, the leaders to consider the potential for change in the systems

06:21 - that they are working within. And it's very much about the role of the researcher being an active participant. The learning is at the individual and the collective level, and its collaboration between the researchers and those participating. And we look at, we bring in ethnographic data into workshops, change labs, they're called, and we use case studies, publish papers, anything that's considered ethnographic data.

06:48 - And we use that together with the, the tools of chat to help the participants get a more theoretical understanding of the context they are trying to change. So in Vygotsky's words, he would say, these are mediating tools. They're serving as second stimuli to improve the understanding of the, the leaders in the field that they are managing. When you plan this type of research in, in a system, in a complex system, they, you need an intervention part.

07:17 - So that was the part where I worked every six weeks with a group of very senior educational managers and we, I led them through the understanding of their practice. I introduced them to cultural still activity theory and the tools that we have. And then we met every six weeks to look at case studies, problematic, outcomes for children, policy documents, legislation, looked at everything in that context. And I took the participants through a 10 month period of

07:53 - studying, analyzing, critiquing everything we had in the room with us. And then the whole point of that was that they then considered themselves what was the potential for change and as a very complex system to have better outcomes for the children and young people who had very complex educational needs. So at the end of the intervention process, the participants had developed a brand new model for practice, for the whole local authority for children

08:25 - and young people being assessed so that they could access the appropriate educational resources that they required in a, a proportionate and timely manner. So, so at the end of the intervention process, they had developed a new model for practice. The second phase was the implementation of this model that took place over 18 months where the educational leaders were going out, describing their new model to everyone else in the local authority planning,

08:59 - how people were going to develop different work streams. There were work plans for different work streams and there were evaluation points to gather data so we can, we could evaluate the longitudinal impact of the intervention. And we were also evaluating the usefulness of chat as an approach to engage senior managers in this kind of work. So the, the two phases together probably took over about two and a half years.

09:26 - And so the intervention phase informed what would happen in the implementation phase. The participants in this research, it was a self-selecting group because I wanted to focus on the vet, the most senior educational managers who had power control agency budgetary control over the whole process. So chat would say that to effect real transformational change, researchers need to be interacting

09:57 - with the people who hold the most power and who hold the agency to effect change to make it happen. So I invited all of the senior educational managers who were part who, who were responsible, who managed this process. So they included head teachers of some of our special schools and specialist provisions. They were part of the decision making process that was under question, very senior, educational and legislative leaders

10:32 - who oversaw the process from the legislative perspective, the overall manager of all the educational services in the local authority. There were some educational psychologists, the managers of educational psychologists as they were often the key professionals who would assess the child for this specialist provision. So in my group, I had all the key people who managed the specialist provisions, who participated in the decision making process

11:05 - and who managed the decision making process. The first part of the intervention with these senior managers was to do a critique and analysis of their own process. So using activity theory tools, it's often, it's often depicted as a triangle. So a system and activity is depicted as a triangle and it has various nodes on the triangle. So for example, what are people's roles in this activity? How do people know how to work together?

11:40 - What tools do they have to work together? So for example, what kind of assessment tools were used to assess the children to be prioritized for these specialist provisions? What kind of legislative policy either hinders or facilitates this process to work? And the most important aspect of it was how are people managing to work together and to what extent are there problems with that? So their analysis of their own system showed us

12:14 - that there were problems with partnership with parents. There was a real power imbalance between the professionals involved in the assessment of children and the parents' views and children's views were absent from the whole process. There were lots of conflict with multi-agency working. So teachers, educational psychologists, social workers, speech and language therapists, pediatricians, they were all expected to come together to work to assess a child.

12:46 - But there were problems with who decided what to do and people using different assessment methodologies. It was very difficult to get everyone to agree on the best needs for the child. That was very problematic. educational psychologists in particular were using different assessment methodologies, and that then caused problems for the decision making group because they couldn't interpret the different, assessment outcomes

13:15 - and what the, what the recommendations that educational psychologists were making. There were also problems with deficit models of learning. So when children were being assessed, negative categorizing labels were being used and, and the assessment methodologies were often involving standardized assessment tools that bore no relation to, to trying to understand the needs of the child. So there were problems at the legislative level, the local authority policy practice level,

13:51 - the way professionals try to work together, the way the power imbalances between parents and professionals. And all of this came together such that the outcome of this decision making process to place children in specialist provisions was that sometimes children were inappropriate and placed in provisions. Some children would expect it to be supported in mainstream schools,

14:18 - but the parents felt they should have been in a main, a specialist school. And often there were disputes that went to formal, additional support and tribunal processes. So the whole, the whole system, the whole process was fraught with tensions, dilemmas not achieving good outcomes for children. And it was long and drawn out and nobody was happy with it. So the participants taking part in this process, it was very, very important for them.

14:49 - They gathered lots of reflective data from them that this was the first time they'd actually looked at the whole process in its entirety rather than just looking at the procedural aspects of the process. So once they had achieved this analysis and the outcomes, they then went on to talk about, so we understand the problems now, what does the future model of this decision making process look like?

15:17 - So the next part of the result was that using the tools and principles of cultural historical activity theory, the group of participants journeyed through various turning points in their thinking using the tools of chat, actually changed how they were thinking about the, their own problems in their workplace. So for example, they started off the research by saying, we're going to review this decision making process. Then as the sessions unfolded

15:48 - and their analysis became clearer, they started to say, wait a minute, review of this process isn't really the right thing, is it, we actually need to broaden out the scope of this review and look at the wider systems around this process. There was lots of discussion and debate around that and looking at case studies of children again. And then eventually they arrived at the third turning point. Actually, what we need to do is build capacity in all our mainstream schools so

16:20 - that they have the needs and the skills to include more children in mainstream and that will avoid children being placed in specialist provisions when they don't have to. And then their final turning point was, it was at the point there was this new practice, national practice guidelines in Scotland called Getting it Right for every child. And the the participant group said, do you know what we need to do?

16:47 - We need to start afresh, look at this new practice model and start to think about how do we assess needs in a timely manner so that children can access their education in their own local school. So they, they traveled from thinking they were going to review a very specific process to completely transforming their whole approach to how children's needs are met and how children learn in mainstream schools.

17:15 - So it was quite a significant journey and transformation that they went through in their thinking. If they hadn't done that chat would predict that they would've maybe just produced the same process thinking it was actually different, but it had, it would have the same inherent problems in it because they hadn't been looked at. So the outcome of those turning points was they developed a completely new model for the local authority about meeting children's needs

17:48 - and how they were learning in mainstream schools. Once they had developed that model, they then went to the implementation phase where they had different work streams and different professionals working on different work streams so that all the different parts of the system were changing at the same time and everything was moving forward at the same time. We had various points, time points when we gathered data. And like all organizational change processes,

18:17 - it's not straightforward, it's not linear. And there were times when people thought things weren't moving quickly enough or things weren't radical enough and, and the changes that were being made. So as we, I gathered the data over various time points. There were times when people were frustrated, they didn't think it was moving quickly enough, but all this can be predicted by organization organizational change theory. It takes at least two years to do really embedded

18:46 - radical transformational change. And they achieved that. So what this approach told us was to have better theoretical understandings of complex systems like this. We need to be using this kind of theoretical framework. We need to be using this type of interventionist research so that educational leaders and managers can offer better systems that not only have better outcomes for children

19:15 - and families, but they function more efficiently and effectively as well. Because we know these public services and systems are very, very strained at the moment in terms of budgets and so on. So we need to be using these theoretical processes to not only improve how we all work together, better outcomes for children, but that it works more efficiently and effectively as well. I was an educational psychologist working in this

19:42 - local authority at the time. A key role of educational psychologists is that we are research practitioners and we undertake research in the educational systems within which we work. I would say one of the key aspects is that more educational psychologists need to understand this work so that when they are out there supporting schools, supporting teachers, supporting educational managers,

20:07 - they can use these tools, these theoretical frameworks, these concepts to engage people in a more critical transformational process. So I think the raising theoretical awareness of senior managers and leaders is essential so that they can develop the public services that are more effective and have better outcomes. Also, I think there's a need for critical engagement using the conceptual tools of chat

20:33 - to critique and transform professional practice and leadership. We can't have, there are lots of processes in local authorities and in public services under lots of review processes, but they seem to reproduce Themselves. We need to start engaging people in proper critical reflection to have transformational change. So I would say what I'm doing now, what I do in my work

20:58 - is having conferences, doing interviews like this, we need to promote chat as an interventionist research framework that has practical relevance and theoretical rigor to understand and change complex work settings such as public services and in particular educational settings, which is my area of research.

Faculti AI can make mistakes