Research methodology applied in GKC best practice studies strives to move beyond the cage of ‘best practice syndrome’. In actual practice this ‘best practice’ focus is also likely to divert attention from good practices which could not be accredited and have preferred to work in the solitude of their local boundaries. Thus the primary approach to evaluation is to apply a method that is based upon an understanding of what works and what does not and why? Hence it does not reduce administrative practices into simply ‘best’ or simplistically into mere ‘innovations’.
It has been found that in attempting to study administrative practices a greater use of laboratory studies is encouraged with civil servants and activist grassroot NGOs rather than academic scholars. This has so far helped to attain a form of an action packed research in evaluation.
Even though much of the data available on the ground is an aggregated one for various historical reasons having roots in diffused community governance hence a design for extracting data from passive participants was required. For this the groups of evaluators are classified and a set of indicators specified
8-Main indicators selected to bridge the assessment subjectivity:
- TRANSPARENCY
- PARTICIPATION
- ACCOUNTABILITY
- EASE OF SERVICE DELIVERY
- SOCIAL WELL BEING
- REPLICABILITY
- PARTNERSHIP
- SUSTAINABILITY
Most of the best practices have emerged out of individual efforts but wherever departments and organizations as a whole is found involved indicators for evaluation were set forth. In practices where neither money, deadlines or performance standards could be obtained in a tangible manner, an evaluation criteria for evaluating subjective outcomes was developed. In such practices relationships are measured and researchers tend to explore how two or more variables are associated or related to one another or a change in one variable can affect change in the other.
Separate groups are dispatched to the field and a primary data is obtained through surveys, interviews with beneficiaries and partners in implementation. Different set of questionnaires and semi-structured interviews are being used besides obtaining data from decision makers and local offices. The primary and the secondary data is matched to reach out to the truth about the degree of success.
A study of best practices is in fact a study of measuring relationships and their sustainability which in turn also becomes the fundamental task of data analysis. Regression analysis is a statistical procedure to determine the relationship which may exist between one dependent variable and its impact upon the independent variable. This also leads to a kind of predicting responses or reactions to changes in the independent variables.
Many different types of research methods have been employed in the study of these micro experiments. Some of the most frequently used methods are that of Case Study Method, Ethnographic Action Research and the Historical-Legal Approach. A major component of research method is the participant observation in the midst of culture based behaviours, group based reactions, individual motivations and a record of social achievements which construct historical artifacts for case studies. Lately Eva Schiffer’s (2007) Net Mapping has proved to be an important research methodology to use in regions where people do not disclose much of the information on service delivery due to lack of knowledge or awareness. Net Mapping is a social network analysis tool invented by Eva Schiffer a post-doctoral fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington DC.http://www.ifpri.org/PUBS/dp/ifpridp00703.asp She was working on a project in Ghana with the Challenge Program on Water and Food The White Volta River Basin Board in rural Ghana, responsible for overseeing local water resources, was looking to enhance decision making among its many collaborators.
Research in micro-level practices has turned the tables or brought a ‘major paradigm shift’ (Lan and Anders, 2000) for the users of objective, positivist research principles . Now there is greater need for a multidimensional approaches to research . White and Adams (1994) have summarized this argument as follows
“ We are persuaded by the weight of historical and epistemological evidence that no single approach- even if accorded the highly positive label Science – is adequate for the conduct of research in public administration. If research is to be guided by reason, a diversity of approaches, honoring both practical and theoretical reasons, seems necessary.” |
However to sum it all, the Global Innovators Research from the Ash Institute suggests ( Kelman 2008) that best practices research should begin to make much greater use of laboratory studies , with civil servants rather than college sophomores as subjects, if possible
Evaluations represent a scary subjective land but are the most important part of sustainable governance . Hence what one can do is to put it as one sees it and then strive hard to see the real true picture in it so that one could.
Pick battles big enough to matter and small enough to win. |
Jonathan Kozol |
View Presentation
References-
- Kelman,Steven, 2008 The “Kennedy School School” of Research on Innovation in Government, in Stanford Borins 2008, Innovations in Government, Ash Institute of Democratic Governance and Innovation, Brookings Institution Press, Washington D.C.
- Eva Schiffer’s (2007).http://www.ifpri.org/PUBS/dp/ifpridp00703.asp
- White,Jay D., and Guy B. Adams , eds.1994, Research in Public Administration, Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
- Lan,Zhiyong and Kathleen K. Anders, 2000, ‘A Paradigmatic View of Contemporary Public Administration Research’ Administrtaion & Society,32,(May) 138-66.
- Kettl, Donald, 2005 The Global Public Management Revolution 2nd. Ed. Brookings, p.1.
- Hoods, Christopher, 1991 “A Public Management for All Seasons?” Public Administrtaion 69:3-19.
|
