This exploratory mixed method study builds upon previous research to investigate the influence of teacher self- and collective efficacy on technology use in the classroom. This population was purposefully sampled to examine first- and second order technology barriers, instructional strategies, and human influences on technology. The quantitative finding was supported by qualitative analysis of the teacher interviews and led to the conclusion that even thought there were strong teacher tendencies towards a belief in using technology actual practice demonstrated a lack of productivity or transference of that belief into classroom practice. A high self- and collective efficacy had no effect on technology use in the classroom and a belief in technology did not lead to the use of technology. <br>The study explored three research questions: 1) what is the effect of teacher self-efficacy on technology use in the classroom, 2) what is the effect of collective efficacy on technology use in the classroom, and 3) what is the relationship among teacher self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and barriers that inhibit technology use in a K-12 classroom setting? Thirty-five teachers in a New Jersey K-8 school district volunteered to take a 36-question survey. Three teachers were interviewed to corroborate the survey data. <br> This study is unique in the combined analysis of self- and collective efficacy and technology. It raises several questions for future study. Teacher responses overwhelmingly identified first order or extrinsic barriers as impediments to technology. These included poor technical support, access, time issues, and a lack of vision and training. These barriers are decades old and have been acknowledged for as long as technology has been in the classroom. Why, despite thirty years of technology in education, do the same barriers that existed in the very beginning continue to be strong deterrents of technology use? <br>Teachers identified administrators as the least influential on teacher practices. If this is so, how can there be such a high sense of collective efficacy? How much influence does the collective agency have on classroom teacher behavior? Specifically, at what point in a teacher's decision-making does the collective agency over-ride personal beliefs and what are the characteristics that contribute to this conflict and possible submissive behavior? <br> Finally, are we seeking answers to the wrong questions? Is it possible that teachers and educational systems are not able to modify intrinsic and standard operating practices to utilize technology successfully? / School of Education / Instructional Technology (EdDIT) / EdD / Dissertation

The theory of Agency, specifically that developed by Jesen and Meckling (1976), will be the subject of examination. Agency theory has been the subject of extensive research since its introduction in modern form by Jensen and Meckling (1976). The generality of the theory of Agency appears unquestionable and it has been widely adopted. Surprisingly, however, the model correctly predicts particular phenomena under investigation in only the simplest of instances, and even in the simplest of instances there are cases where the simple agency model has limited success. Possible reasons for this failure may lie in the assumed universalist foundation and in the common formulation regarding agent behaviour, that all agents are self-interested rationalists seeking to maximise their own utility to the disregard of their principal's interest. While the hypothesis of self-interested rationalism may be apt in some contexts it may be misleading or inadequate in others. This is especially so when the narrow interpretations of self-interested rationalism are used. Human beings are more complex in their totality than can be represented in any parsimonious model. This is particularly a problem when model predictions are not empirically supported. Aspects omitted in a model may be a source of the misfit between prediction and observation. An extended conceptualisation and reformulation of agent behaviour is presented. An approach is developed that addresses the context of agent behaviour, the socio-environment within which the agent interacts. The context particularly refers to the institutional affiliations and interactions that influence agent behaviour through their belief structure (i.e., their Belief-Desire-Intention, BDI, model of rational action). Through the use of an institutional framework contextual analysis is incorporated into the theory of agency and ultimately agent behaviour. This agent is termed a socio-environmental rationalist agent (SERA) which is contrasted with the self-interested rationalist (SIR) agent in the existing agency literature. This research utilises an object-oriented approach to develop a simulation of the extended conceptualisation and reformulation of agent behaviour. Simulations investigate agent behaviours and outcomes at the micro (specifically through individualised SERA and SIR formulations) and macro (specifically through a multi-agent SERA community formulation in the context of the EU financial accounting harmonisation process) levels. Netlogo is the simulation tool through which this is attained. The simulation demonstrates how alternative formulations of rationality lead to different outcomes and these differences are evident at both levels. Importantly the extended model has outputs that are more in tune with current empirical evidence. The analysis thus demonstrates the plausibility of the extended conceptualisation and reformulation and the need to incorporate the context of behaviour more fully within the analysis of the principal-agent relationship. Through this extended examination of agent behaviour further theoretical and practical insights regarding the understanding of agent behaviour, the principal-agent problem and relationship, multi-agent communities, and of business and society in general may be attained. This dissertation provides one step in advancing our fundamental understanding of the principal-agent problem. The scope and power of agency analysis can be substantially extended using the approach and methods outlined, particularly beyond that present in existing Agency research.

Thesis (MEd)--University of South Australia

This thesis aims to understand the experiences of community development practitioners who are located in the organisational context of bureaucracies. Over the last decade there has been a revitalised interest in community development as a means of addressing social issues within Australia. Local, state and federal governments, as well as large non-government organisations, have developed policies and programs aimed at building, strengthening, renewing and revitalising communities. At the same time, a set of ideologies have emerged that have given rise to a global neoliberal welfare regime, and that have shaped ways of thinking and behaving within bureaucracies. Whilst much has been written about these two broad trends and their impact upon Australia, what appears to be missing from these analyses is an understanding of the impact upon the actual practitioners operating at the intersection of these forces. This research addresses the gap in the literature between the academic discussion and the personal experience of undertaking community development in bureaucracies. This investigation adopts a qualitative approach. Twenty-two semi-structured interviews were conducted with community development practitioners from federal, state and local government and from large non-government organisations in Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The interview transcripts were then analysed utilising a framework known as Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) which enabled the responses to be examined through multiple lenses: social, discursive and metaphoric. What this study reveals is that community development practitioners have a largely negative experience of bureaucracies: the work is difficult to do, it is not well understood, and it is not well supported. Whilst this is not particularly surprising, what IS of interest is the level of shock and frustration felt by practitioners, and their lack of preparedness for these experiences. Whilst community development workers have a very good understanding of the content of their practice, what appears to be missing is a critical analysis of their context and themselves as practitioners, and this invites a more negative experience of the work. Practitioners respond to these experiences by distinguishing between themselves as bureaucrats and what they name as their true and authentic selves. They articulate a difference between “working developmentally” from within bureaucracies and undertaking what they call “real” community development, which occurs “in community”. The acts of distinguishing an authentic self and authentic community development are both forms of resistance. However, I suggest that such constructions are largely unhelpful as they construct false binaries which render practitioners ineffective. The work of community development practitioners is compromised because the context in which they are operating is compromised. I also argue that community development students require greater preparation for the organisational context of bureaucracy, which includes understanding not only methodology, but also the objectives, arenas and structures for practice. Practitioners need a deeper understanding of relations of power within these contexts. This requires workers to be clear about their motivations, their commitment and their analysis. Finally I contend that what is required is the creation and sharing of metaphors that articulate a relational rather than individualistic and heroic form of agency. In this way community development theory and practice can shift away from a modernist narrative of development to a discussion of mutual transformation.

This folio explores the theory and practice of managing organisational redesign within a public sector agency— the 'Out of School Services‘ provided by an education jurisdiction, Fraser Cooloola district, within Education Queensland, Australia. The objective of the project and research was to develop and implement an approach to organisational redesign that derived from Limerick et al.‘s (1998) Fourth Blueprint theory (particularly their concept of metastrategy), and to measure the impact of the redesign process on selected organisational operations within the education jurisdiction. In the context of this study, Limerick et al.‘s metastrategic management cycle (1998) is defined as an approach to strategic management that is constituted of four elements— (a) founding vision (b) identity (c) configuration design and (d) systems of action (Limerick et al. 1998, p 152).The concept of metastrategy is revealed by the research as having clear potential for application in public sector settings. That is, the study captured its successful application to the task of leading a process of organisational redesign within an education system and uncovered complex subtleties of that application. The study also revealed that organisational redesign to bring about sustained cultural change in a public sector setting is difficult, complex and subject to threat by political decisions. In leading and managing the process of organisational design in an educational setting, eleven key leadership skills across three distinct domains - individual leadership capacity and action; conceptual development and organisational implementation - were found to be significant: The leadership skill areas are: (1) developing clarity regarding professional values, the nature of the design task and how a leader might undertake the task; (2) developing a set of options informed by a synthesis of local priorities, the broader organisational direction and relevant, organisational theory; (3) undertaking engaged and purposeful communication aimed at creating greater knowledge of the design or adding value to the intended design and the quality of its implementation; (4) creating a common language as a platform for engaging stakeholders; (5) leading in a manner that encourages creative difference and distinctiveness; (6) displaying a capacity for reflective appraisal; (7) acknowledging pertinent ethical considerations; (8) Identifying, engaging, managing and leading key stakeholders; (9) assessing important leverage points; (10) identifying relevant networks and (11) setting and implementing governance arrangements. These eleven skill areas complement and extend Limerick‘s metastrategic management cycle with its four basic elements of: - founding vision; - identity - configuration design; and - systems of action Each of the above four elements generally align with two of the three domains developed to capture the nature of critical leadership skills required to lead organisational redesign in an educational setting—inner circle or domain-individual leadership capacity and action and middle circle or domain. The leadership skills captured in the outer domain entitled 'organisational implementation‘ extends on the metastrategic cycle by giving focus to the processes that need to be considered when applying the metastrategic management cycle.

Contemporary debates about collective action in civil society have given prominent place to the connections between voluntary associations and social capital. Social capital research, however, commonly over-emphasises the role of associations in generating societal-level outcomes, to the neglect of the specific contexts in which associations reside and the different opportunities individuals and groups have to access resources for and through collective action. Also largely ignored are considerations of gender. This thesis addresses these issues, presenting evidence from a case study of a large women???s service organisation ??? the VIEW Clubs of Australia ??? to examine how social capital and women???s agency intersect. The thesis adopts a social-structural approach to social capital, highlighting its role as a resource brokered through networks that both enable and constrain action. This approach attends to the inter-relations of particular types of social capital, such as bonding and bridging; specific elements of social capital, such as reciprocity, trust, and shared values, identities and purposes; and addresses the broader socio-historical context in which social capital networks are located. The thesis employs a model of agency that encompasses three core fields of agency ??? individual, social and political. These fields of agency encapsulate the capacity for women to ???act??? and exercise choice and change in their own lives, in the community, and in the polity, and to do this through collective action. The thesis applies these ideas using an embedded case study model combining documentary analysis, participant observation and in-depth interviews. The findings reveal agency and social capital to be in tension. Activities that feed the agential capacity of the organisation and its members are more successfully realised in areas closest to women???s past experiences than in those addressing the public sphere. The research nevertheless shows that a voluntary association such as VIEW can foster women???s agency. Indeed, building women???s capacities in society as a whole may well rely on organisational contexts where women are empowered to self-develop and connect their activities to broader society. This is impacted by the nature, purpose, and social location of the social capital networks of women and others, and has implications for how we understand the ongoing role of voluntary associations in civil society. By revealing how different dimensions of social capital operate and intersect with women???s agency, the thesis shows the dynamic role of voluntary associations in civil society.

This study examines the role of three institutional factors (regulative; normative and cultural-cognitive pillars of institutions) in addressing agency problems of Australia. In the wake of the series of corporate collapses of current decade, director and executive remuneration was identified as one of the major causes behind these scandals. The Australian government and other related organisations made both regulative and non-regulative institutional reforms to manage this agency conflict. These reforms, encapsulated in Corporate Law Economic Reform Program (CLERP) Act 2004 demanded an increased level of disclosure of director and executive remuneration particularly, the disclosure of performance based salary. Subsequently, these amendments provided an opportunity through a non-binding vote to shareholders to participate in executive remuneration decisions. This study proposes a new synthesis of institutional and agency theories by examining how institutional interventions addresses agency conflicts in the Australian context. A conceptual model is developed to measure both the conjoined and distinctive institutional impact on the disclosure level of director and executive remuneration in Australia. To measure and quantify the aforementioned impact a mixed method research strategy was used. First, content analysis as an investigative tool was used to develop a disclosure index which determined the level of disclosure of director and executive remuneration from top 100 Australian listed entities. Second, a conceptual model, positing the relationships between independent and dependent variables was verified through an econometric analysis of collected data, performed through the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 15. The findings of this research reveal that there exists a significant difference between the levels of disclosure in the pre and post stages of the introduction of the CLERP Act 2004. This result highlights the significance of regulatory intervention in addressing agency conflicts. The study also indicates that regulative and normative pillars have a higher impact than the culture-cognitive pillar on disclosure practices of Australian firms. In light of these results, the new blend between agency and institutional theories highlight the role of different institutions, particularly the government, in stabilising the organisational practices for good governance and creating national competitive advantages.

This thesis aims to understand the experiences of community development practitioners who are located in the organisational context of bureaucracies. Over the last decade there has been a revitalised interest in community development as a means of addressing social issues within Australia. Local, state and federal governments, as well as large non-government organisations, have developed policies and programs aimed at building, strengthening, renewing and revitalising communities. At the same time, a set of ideologies have emerged that have given rise to a global neoliberal welfare regime, and that have shaped ways of thinking and behaving within bureaucracies. Whilst much has been written about these two broad trends and their impact upon Australia, what appears to be missing from these analyses is an understanding of the impact upon the actual practitioners operating at the intersection of these forces. This research addresses the gap in the literature between the academic discussion and the personal experience of undertaking community development in bureaucracies. This investigation adopts a qualitative approach. Twenty-two semi-structured interviews were conducted with community development practitioners from federal, state and local government and from large non-government organisations in Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The interview transcripts were then analysed utilising a framework known as Causal Layered Analysis (CLA) which enabled the responses to be examined through multiple lenses: social, discursive and metaphoric. What this study reveals is that community development practitioners have a largely negative experience of bureaucracies: the work is difficult to do, it is not well understood, and it is not well supported. Whilst this is not particularly surprising, what IS of interest is the level of shock and frustration felt by practitioners, and their lack of preparedness for these experiences. Whilst community development workers have a very good understanding of the content of their practice, what appears to be missing is a critical analysis of their context and themselves as practitioners, and this invites a more negative experience of the work. Practitioners respond to these experiences by distinguishing between themselves as bureaucrats and what they name as their true and authentic selves. They articulate a difference between “working developmentally” from within bureaucracies and undertaking what they call “real” community development, which occurs “in community”. The acts of distinguishing an authentic self and authentic community development are both forms of resistance. However, I suggest that such constructions are largely unhelpful as they construct false binaries which render practitioners ineffective. The work of community development practitioners is compromised because the context in which they are operating is compromised. I also argue that community development students require greater preparation for the organisational context of bureaucracy, which includes understanding not only methodology, but also the objectives, arenas and structures for practice. Practitioners need a deeper understanding of relations of power within these contexts. This requires workers to be clear about their motivations, their commitment and their analysis. Finally I contend that what is required is the creation and sharing of metaphors that articulate a relational rather than individualistic and heroic form of agency. In this way community development theory and practice can shift away from a modernist narrative of development to a discussion of mutual transformation.

Agency theory is one of the principal frameworks utilized in explaining the family business phenomena. The objectives of this dissertation are to (1) identify the unique agent-principal dynamics that differentiate family firms from non-family firms, (2) determine the effects of these unique agency dynamics on family firm performance, and (3) evaluate these unique agency dynamics within family businesses, as moderated by differing forms of governance and management practices.This dissertation proposes that family firms are defined by two unique and opposing agency dynamics. On one hand, it is posited that family firms are defined by their ability to deploy concomitant forms of relational governance that reduce information asymmetry and associated agency costs. On the other hand, it is posited that family firms are distinctly encumbered with agency costs from non-economic family oriented goals. These distinct agency cost-savings, termed as family gains, and agency costs, termed as family costs, contribute to the study on how and why family firms perform differently than non-family firms.In addition, the study proposes that the ensuing trade-off between family gains and family costs may lead to competitive advantages for family firms in highly competitive environments. This agency trade-off provides a link between agency theory and the resource-based perspective of the family firm.Finally, this dissertation seeks to investigate these agency dynamics among family firms that employ differing governance and management practices. In particular, this study looks at how the agency dynamics of family firms that employ the most concentrated forms of management and governance, manifested as owner-manager led family firms, compare against other forms of family firms. This study posits that manager led family firms, on one hand, have greater family gains and, on the other hand, have greater family costs when compared against other forms of family firms. Moreover, it is proposed that under highly competitive environments, the trade-off between family gains and family costs lead to greater competitive advantages for owner-manager led family firms over other family firms.This dissertation employs cross-sectional linear regression as the primary tool for empirical analysis on Australian business data. In addition, non-parametric testing is utilized to support the above analysis. These analyses are complemented by proper robustness checks to support the study’s validity.The results from empirical analysis corroborate this study’s propositions. First, the research suggests that family firms have family gains driven by lower information asymmetries, but have family costs driven by greater divergence in firm objectives. Second, the results indicate that family firms outperform non-family firms, which is consistent with extant family business literature. Likewise, the results suggest that family firms under managerial ownership have greater family gains and greater family costs than other

No description available.