Shadowing is a data collection method that involves following a person, as they carry out those everyday activities relevant to a research study. This article explores the use of shadowing in a formative evaluation of a professional development school (PDS). Specifically, this article discusses how shadowing was used to understand the role of a professor-in-residence (PIR) working with a PDS, and how this role facilitates capacity building at the school. After describing what shadowing is, its uses, and challenges, a brief overview of the PDS model and the role of a PIR, the authors describe their experiences with (1) developing and managing a relationship with the PIR and (2) how validity was established for the study. The article concludes with suggestions for integrating shadowing in formative evaluations.
AbmaT. A. (2005). Responsive evaluation: Its meaning and special contribution to health promotion. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 279–289.
2.
AlfordC. L.CurrieD. M. (2004). Introducing first-year medical students to clinical practice by having them “shadow” third-year clerks. Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 16, 260–263.
3.
CarterS. M.LittleM. (2007). Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: Epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1316–1328.
4.
ChoC.GaoF. H. (2009). Reflections on a job-shadowing experience. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 47, 749–759.
5.
CzarniawskaB. (2008). Shadowing and other techniques for doing fieldwork in modern societies. Copenhagen, Denmark: Liber and Copenhagen Business School Press.
6.
DenzinN. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
7.
FougnerM.HorntvedtT. (2011). Students’ reflections on shadowing interprofessional teamwork: A Norwegian case study. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 25, 33–38.
8.
FreemanM. (2014). The hermeneutical aesthetics of thick description. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 827–833. doi:10.1177/1077800414530267
9.
FreemanM.deMarraisK. D.PreissleJ.RoulstonKSt. PierreE. (2007). Standards of evidence in qualitative research: An incitement to discourse. Educational Researcher, 36, 25–32.
10.
FreemanM.HallJ. N. (2012). The complexity of practice: Participant observation and values-engagement in a responsive evaluation of a professional development school partnership. American Journal of Evaluation, 33, 483–495. doi:10.1177/1098214012443728
11.
Gilliat-RayS. (2011). ‘Being there’: The experience of shadowing a British Muslim hospital chaplain. Qualitative Research, 11, 469–486. doi:10.1177/1468794111413223
12.
GrahamP.TsoS.WoodE. (2011). Shadowing a foundation-year doctor: A third-year medical student’s perspective. The Clinical Teacher, 8, 156–159.
13.
GreeneJ. C.DeStefanoL.BurgonH.HallJ. N. (2006). An educative, values-engaged approach to evaluating STEM educational programs. In HuffmanD.LawrenzF. (Eds.), Critical issues in STEM evaluation (special issue). New Directions for Evaluation (Vol. 109, pp. 53–71). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
14.
HallJ. N. (2010). Investigating internal accountability and collective capacity: Taking a closer look at mathematics instruction. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 4, 9–32.
15.
HallJ. N.AhnJ.GreeneJ. C. (2012). Values-engagement in evaluation: Ideas, illustrations, and implications. American Journal of Evaluation, 33, 195–207. doi:10.1177/1098214011422592
16.
HemmingsA. (2006). Great ethical divides: Bridging the gap between institutional review boards and researchers. Educational Researcher, 35, 12–18.
17.
HoodS.HopsonR. K.FriersonH. (Eds.). (2005). The role of culture and cultural context in evaluation: A mandate for inclusion, the discovery of truth and understanding. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
18.
HopsonR. K. (2009). Reclaiming knowledge at the margins: Culturally responsive evaluation in the current evaluation moment. In RyanK. E.CousinsJ. B. (Eds.), The Sage international handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 429–446). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
HunterC.JemielniakD.PostulaA. (2010). Temporal and spatial shifts within playful work. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 23, 87–102.
20.
LarssonM.SegerstéenS.SvenssonC. (2011). Information and informality: Leaders as knowledge brokers in a high-tech firm. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 18, 175–191. doi:10.1177/1548051810390048
21.
LawrenzF.KeiserN.LavoieB. (2003). Evaluative site visits: A methodological review. American Journal of Evaluation, 24, 341–352.
22.
LeCompteM. D.GoetzJ. P. (1982). Problems of reliability andvalidity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52, 31–60.
23.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
24.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1986) But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. In WilliamsD. D. (Ed.), New directions for program evaluation. (Vol. 30, pp. 73–84). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
25.
McDonaldS. (2005). Studying actions in context: A qualitative shadowing method for organizational research. Qualitative Research, 5, 455–473. doi:10.1177/1468794105056923
26.
MintzbergH. (1970). Structured observation as a method to study managerial work. Journal of Management Studies, 7, 87–104.
27.
MonahanT.FisherJ. A. (2010). Benefits of “Observer Effects”: Lessons from the Field. Qualitative Research, 10, 357–376.
28.
NadlerJ. T.CundiffN. L. (2009). Applied Research Consultants (ARC): A vertical practicum model of training applied research. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 592–602.
29.
NewmannF. M.KingM. B.RigdonM. (1997). Accountability and school performance: Implications from restructuring schools. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 41–74.
30.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
PerlowL. A. (1998). Boundary control: The social ordering of work and family time in a high-tech corporation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 328–357.
32.
PerlowL. A. (1999). The time famine: Toward a sociology of work time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 57–81.
33.
PeshkinA. (1988). In search of subjectivity–One’s own. Educational Researcher, 17, 17–22.
34.
PoliteV. C.McClureR.RollieD. L. (1997). The emerging reflective urban principal: The role of shadowing encounters. Urban Education, 31, 466–489.
35.
QuinlanE. (2008). Conspicuous invisibility: Shadowing as a data collection strategy. Qualitative Inquiry, 14, 1480–1499. doi:10.1177/1077800408318318
36.
SimkinsT.CloseP.SmithR. (2009). Work-shadowing as a process for facilitating leadership succession in primary schools. School Leadership and Management, 29, 239–251.
37.
StakeR. E. (1975).To evaluate an arts program. In StakeR. E. (Ed.), Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach (pp. 13–31). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
38.
SteinA. (2010). Sex, truths, and audiotape: Anonymity and the ethics of exposure in public ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39, 554–568.
39.
TisdaleK. (2004). Being vulnerable and being ethical within research. In deMarraisK.LapanS. (Eds.), Foundations for research: Methods of inquiry in education and the social sciences (pp. 13–30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
VukicA.KeddyA. (2002). Northern nursing practice in a primary health care setting. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40, 542–548.
41.
Weaver-HightowerM. B. (2008). An ecology metaphor for educational policy analysis: A call to complexity. Educational Researcher, 37, 153–167.
42.
WeissC. H. (1998). Evaluation (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
43.
YbemaS.YanowD.WelsH.KamsteegF. H. (2009). Organizational ethnography: Studying the complexity of everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
Zimmer-GembeckM. J.MortimerJ. T. (2006). Adolescent work, vocational development, and education. Review of Educational Research, 76, 537–566.
