Myriad and fragmented understandings of responsiveness exist. This chapter offers an overview of the existing definitions of responsiveness and highlights the limitations of these fragmented conceptions. These limitations set the stage for the broad responsiveness-related research questions that drive this dissertation study.
Exploring Existing Definitions of Responsiveness and Their Limitations
Apart from everyday understandings of the term ‘responsiveness,’ this section explores four different disciplinary conceptions of responsiveness, examining how these conceptions of responsiveness are similar and different. The four disciplinary fields of the social sciences referenced in this chapter are education, evaluation, business
management, and political science.
Everyday conceptions. The dictionary definition of ‘responsiveness’ reads—
“answering” or responding to someone or something, i.e., making a response (Oxforddictionaries.com, 2012). The Free online dictionary (thefreedictionary.com, 2012) defines ‘responsiveness’ as “reacting quickly”; and “as a quality of people, it involves responding with emotion to people and events.” ‘Responsive’ is also explained on this website as readily reacting or responding to suggestions, influences, appeals, or efforts. Merriam-Webster online begins by defining responsiveness as “giving response”
or “making a response” (Merriam-webster.com, 2012) and simultaneously also defines responsiveness as the noun version of ‘responsive,’ where ‘responsive’ is defined as
“quick to respond, or reacting appropriately or sympathetically.” Cambridge online also defines ‘responsive’ as “making a positive and quick reaction to something or someone”
(Dictionary.Cambridge.org, 2012). Here, ‘responsiveness’ is once again defined as the noun version of ‘responsive.’
Each of these four dictionary definitions define ‘responsiveness’ as encompassing a combined meaning of a process of just responding as well as an attribute (such as courteously, sympathetically, in a timely manner, and the like) of responding. As a result of these dictionary-defined everyday conceptions, responsiveness is often seen as an attribute that people (e.g., teachers, evaluators, government officials, members of
organizations and business establishments) possess based on how “well” they respond to their stakeholder’s needs. I.e., it can be argued that when an EI/NPO considers itself as responding well to its different stakeholder’s needs (making responsiveness a process where “well” is a standard set by each individual EI/NPO for itself); the EI/NPO can consider itself as possessing the attribute of “responsiveness.”
The above common understandings and use of the term indicate responsiveness being used as a stand-in term for the attributes of being timely or sympathetic in
responding to someone. But in these common understandings, the process of responding (also defined as responsiveness in the dictionaries) is not clearly defined.
The attribute of responsiveness implies that a process of responding exists.
However, the dictionary definitions and everyday use of the word lack details regarding what the process specifically entails. As is evident, everyday (i.e., dictionary) definitions of responsiveness—which allude to responsiveness as a combined attribute and process—
do not clarify what responsiveness is. Conceptions of responsiveness in other areas within the field of social science have similar issues.
Responsiveness as cultural. The first significant understanding of responsiveness in the social sciences is the concept of cultural responsiveness. Cultural responsiveness is extensively used in education and evaluation literature in relation to building equity, enacting multicultural values, engaging diversity, and practicing cultural competency.
Cultural responsiveness in education. Within the field of teaching and learning, cultural responsiveness is the way in which teaching takes into account the diverse identities of students within the teaching process. Culturally responsive teaching or CRT as it is called, uses the student’s experiences, perspectives, and views based on the student’s own identity as a means to teach, engage, and motivate the student (Gay, 2000;
Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1995). Cultural responsiveness is a process within pedagogy or curriculum of responding sympathetically or sensitively to the cultural identity of the student.
Cultural responsiveness in evaluation. Similar to the field of education, cultural responsiveness within evaluations or a culturally responsive evaluation (CRE) speaks to the way in which an evaluation takes into consideration the diverse identities of the multiple stakeholders and evaluators within the evaluation process. CRE is about building the skills of the evaluator and conducting an evaluation in a manner that enables an evaluator to elicit and include diverse voices within the evaluation process (Hood, Hopson, & Frierson, 2005).
The issues in cultural responsiveness. Within the above understandings in education and evaluation, responsiveness is seen as responding with cultural sensitivity.
If one were to separate culture and responsiveness, it would seem that responsiveness is primarily about responding—in this case based on sensitivity or sympathy to culture, but
in another case it could be sensitivity or sympathy to gender, or language, or any number of other aspects of individual identity. As a result, a few questions arise.
Does the term ‘responsiveness,’ reflect a dual meaning—of simultaneously being the attribute of sensitivity (toward culture or some other identity element) and the
process of responding? Without that defining word that captures where the sympathy or sensitivity needs to be directed, is responsiveness just the process of responding? Upon disassociating ‘cultural’ from responsiveness, what would responsiveness allude to?
These questions remain unanswered and demonstrate the problems in this understanding of responsiveness within the field of education and evaluation.
Responsiveness in the field of business management. Responsiveness has also been explored in the field of management, marketing, and customer service. Three examples of how responsiveness is conceptualized in the field of business management include (a) the reliability, assurance, tangibles, empathy, and responsiveness (RATER) model (Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1990), (b) the theory of organizational
ambidexterity specific to simultaneous adaptability and alignment (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), and (c) strategic responsiveness (Goodstein, 1994; Oliver, 1991).
Responsiveness as part of the RATER model. The RATER model (Ziethaml, Parasuraman & Berry, 1990) conceptualizes responsiveness as a characteristic (i.e., attribute) of a business or organization reacting appropriately (sympathetically) and in a timely fashion (quick) to its customers and their needs. Responding to the needs of the customer is at the center of responsiveness in this definition which implies that
responsiveness is a process as well. However, the process has certain attributes. Thus, in this definition responsiveness is both process and attribute.
Responsiveness within ambidexterity. Ambidexterity is seen as the ability of an OI to be dynamic in the face of change, and to simultaneously explore and exploit its circumstances to adapt over time (March, 1991; O’Rielly & Tushman, 2007; Raisch, Birkinshaw, Probst, & Tushman, 2009). Responsiveness is a concept that is subsumed within this theorization of ambidexterity (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).
Jayachandran, Hewett and Kaufman (2004) state that responsiveness is the characteristic of being constantly adaptive, customizing products and services according to the consumer’s needs, and strategizing in a manner that foresees a need and addresses it, sometimes even before it is expressed. All these above expectations are considered to be aspects of responsiveness.
In this understanding of responsiveness within ambidexterity, once again responsiveness focuses on customer/client needs. Additionally, the organization that fulfills the above expectations of being constantly adaptive and anticipating customer needs and meeting them even before they are expressed is considered as having the attribute of responsiveness.
Strategic responsiveness. Goodstein (1994) and Oliver (1991) on the other hand, describe responsiveness as the process of responding where the response is directed towards institutional pressures rather than clients. Other conceptions of responsiveness in the field of business management primarily describe responsiveness as directed toward the clients that the EI/NPO is offering its services to (student, families, audience, customer/consumer). In this definition of responsiveness Goodstein (1994) and Oliver (1991) primarily describe responsiveness as the process of responding to institutional pressures and enforcers. Their process is different from other descriptions of
responsiveness that define this process as being directed toward the clients of the OI rather than the institutional pressures that Goldstein or Oliver speak of.
Exploring the contradictions. Existing conceptions of responsiveness within the field of business management raise serious questions about what exactly is meant by responsiveness. As has been discussed, responsiveness seems to have multiple meanings in the field of business management. In some conceptions it is the ‘attribute’ of the organization and is linked to other qualities like timeliness or sympathy. In other conceptions it is the ‘process’ of responding to consumer needs in a specified manner based on knowing the consumers very well.
Beyond the lack of clarity regarding responsiveness being an attribute or a process, it is once defined as existing in relation to its clients—i.e., the process of
responsiveness is deemed as being client-oriented. And yet in another definition, it is also defined as existing in relation to stakeholders who exert institutional pressures. Thus, exactly who responsiveness is directed towards and what the very nature of
responsiveness itself is are important and seemingly unresolved questions.
The varying conceptions of responsiveness in the field of business management raise several new questions: Is responsiveness an attribute of an OI (EI or an NPO), or can it also be an attribute of an evaluation, or a process, or a practice, or a practitioner?
Does responsiveness have to be directed towards one particular stakeholder group only?
Does the existence of responsiveness as an attribute within an OI imply that they always possess that attribute irrespective of their processes and actions toward their clients (or their institutional enforcers) in the future? Is responsiveness an always, already existing attribute in an EI/NPO or is it (re)defined each time based on the EI/NPO’s processes
directed at a particular stakeholder or group? Thus, if the EI/NPO is not responding to its clients or consumers at a particular point in time could it still be considered responsive?
All of the above questions remain unanswered. Thus, the shortcomings of the different understandings of responsiveness within the field of business management indicate the need for clarity regarding a common understanding and definition of responsiveness.
Responsiveness in political science. In the field of political science, once again, divergent conceptions of responsiveness exist. Fried and Rabinovitz (1980) for instance, define responsiveness as the ‘congruent relationship’ between public preferences and public policies such that the public finds the work and endeavors of the institution as being useful and valuable to them. Pennock (1952), on the other hand, defines
responsiveness as “reflecting and giving expression to the will of the people” (p. 790).
It is evident once again that responsiveness is conceptualized quite differently within the same field. Specifically, one definition of responsiveness focuses on responsiveness being a process of meeting community needs and checking in with the community that its needs have been met, and the other focuses on it being a relationship between the EI/NPO and its people. In these conceptions of responsiveness within the field of political science, it is clear that responsiveness is not seen as an attribute, but what it is—be it a relationship or a process—remains unclear.
Responsiveness in evaluation. Stake (1973) described a certain way of conducting educational evaluations that would make them ‘responsive.’ His definition articulates responsiveness as an attribute.
Stake (1973) stated:
An educational evaluation is a responsive evaluation (1) if it orients more directly to program activities than to program intents, (2) if it responds to audience requirements for information, and (3) if the different value-perspectives of the people at hand are referred to in reporting the success and failure of the program. In these three separate ways an evaluation plan can be responsive. (p. 5)
Within this definition of responsiveness as an attribute or quality of an evaluation there is some clarity regarding what processes result in the existence of the attribute.
However, what is unclear is what level of adherence to the above described processes is required for the attribute of responsiveness to exist? Additionally, given that an earlier understanding of responsiveness in evaluation (cultural responsiveness) refers to the term as a process and an attribute, once again there is a lack of clarity in the field regarding responsiveness being a process or an attribute or both. This question and similar questions once again indicate the need for clarity regarding the concept of responsiveness.
Research Questions
The limitation that inheres throughout the various disciplinary conceptions of responsiveness is that it is variously (and sometimes simultaneously) seen as both an attribute and process. Having this dual understanding of responsiveness creates a problem in being able to identify, measure, monitor, or achieve it. Additionally, the term
responsiveness is often used in scholarly literature without being defined at all (Bates, Drits, & Ramirez, 2011; Bester& Scholtz, 2012; Maskiewicz & Winters, 2012;
Schellenberg & Grothaus, 2009, to name just a few recent studies).
Given these multiple meanings and fragmented conceptions of responsiveness in different fields, and given how dated they are (some as old as 1952), a lingering problem, as Pennock (1952) noted more than half a century ago, remains: “just what
responsiveness calls for… is not entirely clear” (Pennock, 1952, p. 791). Having explored the existing fragmented definitions of responsiveness it becomes important to define and theorize responsiveness anew. That is the purpose of this dissertation.
Three research question sets are posed to guide this theory-building work.
1. How can responsiveness be defined, measured, and monitored? What are the perceived and lived barriers faced by EIs, NPOs, and evaluators in practicing responsiveness? What factors contribute to a gap between the espoused theory of EIs and NPOs and their enacted theory?
2. What does a framework/ model/ strategy that addresses these possible barriers and catalyze responsiveness look like? What are its unique elements? What does it offer that the other evaluation models/ approaches thus far have not?
3. What are the model’s strengths and limitations? What is the applicability and relevance of the model/ framework (or lack thereof) in addressing responsiveness in the context of a case-study? What conditions make the model/ framework applicable and relevant in bridging the possible gap between espoused and enacted theory?
The next few chapters attempt to address these questions. They theoretically offer some answers by drawing from current scholarship and literature and thereafter
empirically confirm and validate those answers to further theorize responsiveness.
CHAPTER III
DEFINING RESPONSIVENESS AND UNDERSTANDING THE GAP