Drawing from the justification of the research design, strategy and methods, as well as digesting, adapting and transferring the knowledge gained from the literature review, this section now formulates a conceptual framework. For this motive too, the research rejects the notion of programme evaluation which determines that programme evaluation should be based upon a theory. This was mentioned several times in Chapter Four, whereby scholars (Chen and Rossi, 1983; Chen, 1989, 1990; Pawson and Tilley, 1997, 2004; Pawson et.al, 2004, 2005) affirmed the use of theory in programme evaluation. To start with, the conceptual framework is a mixture of the various ideas delivered by the scholars whose work was discussed in the earlier chapters or else introduced in this chapter. The conceptual framework was therefore derived and arranged through the adaptation and combination of the various ideas gained from
99
the literature review. To further explain this, the research revisits some of the key principles and thoughts that were placed as priority conceptions into the construction of this conceptual framework.
The statement by Shadish et al. (1991) generally encouraged this proposed framework. They claimed that “We can evaluate anything- including evaluation itself” (Shadish et al., 1991:p19), therefore indicating that the benchmarking exercise has a prospect for assessing regional park programmes. In addition to that, the research also evokes the idea set in Chapter One (Section 1.2) which informed that evaluation is an essential approach in examining programme performance (Pollitt, 2003; Hall and Hall, 2004; Stockmann, 2011b).
At this point too, the thesis recollects the research context elaborated in the first chapter which justified the rationalisation of this topic. It was the call for a robust evaluation approach in measuring regeneration initiatives that had activated this inquiry (see Evans, 2005 in Chapter One, Section 1.2). It was also the dearth of literature in the practice of benchmarking for regional park programmes that had strengthened the motivation to proceed with this topic. Also, another important drive was the absence of literature and the study on Realistic Evaluation for regional park programme assessment. In relation to this, it is also crucial to consider the perception of Policy Action Team 16 (2000:p21) which argued that there is “no reliable system for learning what works (and what doesn’t) and ensuing this knowledge inform the development of future programmes”.
In the case where ‘evaluation’ was thought to be a separate practice from ‘basic research’, this thesis and its conceptual framework reflects both characteristics. This research therefore operates with the purpose of carrying out fundamental research but also engages with some of the evaluation’s elements. This mixture of ingredients forms this thesis as an evaluation research; an embodiment of the two. Table 5.2 below had marked down the differentiation between an evaluation and research outlined by Shaw (1999:p8). The descriptions (components) shaded show the work in this research therefore validates this work as part of an evaluation research. From Table 5.2, it is obvious that the act carried out for this research will include some aspects of evaluation practice; the research intends to tackle the practical problems of the case studies; it will make judgments of the programmes’ worth/merit; it will also look upon the short-term issues; and it does follow the benchmarking approaches.
100
Table 5.2: The difference between a research and an evaluation
Evaluation Research
Addresses practical problems Addresses theoretical problems Culminates in action Culminates in description Makes judgments of merit/worth Describes
Addresses short-term issues Addresses long-term issues
Evaluation methods Research methods
Is non-disciplinary Is disciplinary
Includes insider evaluation Is always conducted by outsiders Sources: Adapted from Shaw (1999:p8)
Apart from that, this research was also influenced by Spendolini’s benchmarking definition (see Chapter Three, Section 3.2.1). Even though there were many definitions provided which reflected the definition provided by the first author of the benchmarking book (Camp, 1989), this thesis nevertheless finds Spendolini’s definition as a practical guiding framework to steer the benchmarking procedure for the case studies. It is worth, therefore recalling his definition of benchmarking:
“A continuous (1), systematic (2) process (3) for evaluating (4) the products (5), services (5), and work processes (5) of organisations (6) that are recognised (7) as representing best practices (8) for the purpose of organisational improvement (9)” (Spendolini, 1992:p9).
Through Spendolini’s idea, the delineation of the each key element to benchmarking is marked and these separate components establish the operation of conducting the exercise for this research. In this instance, his idea shapes this conceptual framework to a (1) methodical (2) approach by (3) assessing the (4) delivery of (5) programmes which are (6) widely recognised and (7) and demonstrating good model, in order to (8) evoke for future improvement. To briefly conclude, the conceptual framework adopts his idea.
Further to that, the research addresses the types of benchmarking for the purpose of conducting the assessment. For this matter, the research opted to choose process benchmarking for evaluation. This subject of benchmarking (benchmarking of what?) is parallel with the research’s purpose as it looks into examining the methods and practices of a programme. In relation to this, this research selects the generic benchmarking as the comparative measure (benchmarking against whom?). This in turn will tease out Andersen and Pettersen’s (1996) belief that process benchmarking best suits generic benchmarking (see Chapter Three, Section 3.3.2, Table 3.1).
In this research too, the benchmarking process was built upon the standard procedure outlined by the scholars and practitioners. Figure 5.6 below illustrates the flow of this research process in performing a benchmarking exercise for primary case studies. Figure 5.6 therefore demonstrates strategic steps conducted for a standard benchmarking process. This replication of benchmarking phases were derived and adapted from the various procedures recommended (see Chapter Three, Section 3.4.1, Table 3.2-
101
Variations on Camp’s original idea). In general, the process had not changed but has a slight alteration to it. This was done to arrange the work process systematically. The only difference in this design is that the cyclical process was not drawn into the exercise as this research is only a PhD thesis, therefore the process applied for the procedure ends after the last stage of evaluation (proposal). Needless to say, the research supports the cyclical process as the key principle to an effective exercise.
Figure 5.6: The benchmarking procedure for case studies. Source: Author
Consequently, at this point, the conceptual framework also informs the intended outcome of the whole process. In relation to this, the research adopts the idea by Eaton (see Chapter Three, Section 3.4.1, Table 3.3) which suggests that the appropriate purpose of performing a “generic benchmarking” is to outline recommendations for the delivery process. This notion of belief inevitably relates very much to the cause of the case study examination. In the later work (the empirical work), the research will prove this. The conceptual framework also justifies that this evaluation research indicates a summative evaluation as MW has been completed. For that reason, it evaluates the outcomes of MW in order to assess its performance and success or failure.
Further discussion focuses on the correlation between the benchmarking method and case studies. This research therefore justifies that there are two main phases for this purpose (see Figure 5.7 below). The
102
first level (Stage 1) is designed to examine and compare the performance and practice of both case studies as this is the research’s central scheme. The second phase of benchmarking (Stage 2) comes upon gaining the findings from the first level. However, besides conducting the benchmarking examination, the realistic evaluation is scheduled to take place simultaneously. A strategic approach has been adopted here: the first step is to analyse both case studies separately, then comparatively and this is when the CMO configurations are incorporated. By performing the benchmarking and the realistic evaluation concomitantly, the research is expected to produce an overall result of the investigation in terms of regional park programme delivery and the use of the benchmarking method and realistic evaluation as a combined method for assessment.
Accordingly, the conceptual framework (Figure 5.7) demonstrates the use of the CMO configurations in assessing regional park programmes. This is merely to check and counteract the issue addressed by Ho (1999) which suggested that the CMO framework is appropriate for a local scale programme but debateable for a bigger scale programme like regional and national programmes. Similarly, this research goes beyond the original idea put forward by Pawson and Tilley (1997) who had applied the method for local initiatives. Additionally, results from case study investigations formulate recommendations for urban regeneration initiatives delivered through regional park programmes. And the combination of both methods will provide recommendations in terms of regional park evaluation method.
103
Figure 5.7: Conceptual Framework
Source: AuthorA hypothetical example of this procedure is provided in Figure 5.8 below. Overall, the conceptual framework and the phases of actions throughout the whole research process, depict the work of an inductive direction. The course had begun with empirical data, followed by theoretical ideas, and synthesising the findings and theory, and finally ending with a creation of new ideas.
104