Using the Evaluation Sciences to Understand How" and "Why" the University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy Leadership Program Works"

Abstract

Aims. The first aim was to identify key variables related to “how and “why” the University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy leadership program works/functions, based on individual stakeholder perspectives. The second aim was to identify the education outcomes, strengths, and opportunities for program improvement through application of the science of theory-driven evaluation to an examination of the program’s activities, intended goals and outcomes.Methods. Current pharmacy students, leadership program alumni, and leadership program directors participated in the study. Aim 1 was addressed using dyadic and one-on-one interviews, focus groups, and artifact reviews. Data were analyzed from all stakeholders and themes were developed. Aim 2 was addressed using the science of theory-driven evaluation (TDE). A preliminary logic model for the program was developed through a participatory evaluation approach and later superimposed with a social science theory from the leader/leadership development literature, Day’s Integrative Theory of Leader Development. Any lack of alignment between the program’s planned outcomes and the evaluation evidence, theoretical elements, and/or participants’ self-reported strengths and improvements, showcase opportunities for discussion and program improvement. Results. Sixteen themes describe “how” the leadership program works/functions (three major and thirteen supporting themes). An example of “how” the program works includes providing opportunities for real world application throughout the program. Fifteen themes describe “why” the leadership program works/functions (four major and eleven supporting themes). An example of “why” the program works includes students are able to discover their passions and develop a sense of self as a leader. Four major Educational Outcomes were also defined, with forty-five supporting themes. A strength of the program was helping students understand what a leader truly is by recognizing roles and responsibilities of leaders. A potential area for program improvement was helping students seek mentorship and leadership role models in better ways. Conclusions. Learning about the “how and why” a program works/functions allows investigators to identify important elements of the program, their inter-relationships, and their cumulative effects. Other pharmacy educators can use the findings to design their own leadership programs. Additionally, the study provided an opportunity to focus efforts on gathering evidence of strengths and program improvement.