INTRO
The project aims were to identify potentials and
barriers in an ideal model of implementation-
components used in the Danish school project
“Space for differentness”
and to identify project
participants’ perceptions of
implementation. Involved schools (70) were
implementing
pedagogical methods for inclusion.
METHODS
A qualitative approach, including interviews (6), observations (75 hours), and following the
object.
Title:
Subtitle
Leeroy Jenkins, author2, author3, author4
Positionings:
1. A political position 2. A fidelity position
3. A technical position
4. A developmental position 5. ?
RESULTS
Revision of an ideal model (from model 1 to model 2).
Four categories of positions and positionings.
DISCUSSION
Why develop models for
implementation when their
‘power’ of meeting praxis of
implementation processes are so weak and depended on
existing praxis?
What are the potentials and
pitfalls of inviting participators in implementation processes
to analyze their own positioning and the
possibilities of positionings in the implementation project?
Ideal implementation-components and different positionings
Jens H. Lund, VIA University College, Didactics of Professions Research Program Denmark/Aarhus
je@via.dk
Ideal implementation- components:
Separate problem definition/analytical processes from processes of ‘actions’
Separate ‘actions’ aiming at enacting impl. object from ‘actions’ aiming at
changing the conditions/capacities
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S., Blase, K., Friedman, R., Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Litterature. Tamps, Fl: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #2031)
Meyers, D.C., Durlak, J.A., Wandersman, A. (2012). The Quality Implementation Framework: A Synthesis of Critical Steps in the Implementation Process. In American Journal of
Community Psychology. 50:462-480.
From model 1:
…to model 2:
