SPEaR Good Practice Guidelines 2008: Understanding the Government Agency Research or Evaluation Project Cycle
The principles and associated practical advice should be applied to all stages of the government agency research and evaluation process undertaken within or with government agencies. For example, when a request for research or evaluation is first considered, someone, usually the Research Manager, but if not, then the Project Manager should ask and attempt to answer:
- What is already known on this topic/question? (own agency e.g. files, other staff, library search; other similar agencies; SPEaR Mapping)
- What are the gaps in knowledge? Can research/evaluation fill those gaps given the time scale and resources?
- Is research or evaluation necessary?
- What are the client requirements? This may involve several clarification meetings and various iterations, and may result in mutual decisions to proceed with other forms of information provision.
Such an approach is ethical in that it utilises existing knowledge, helps avoid unnecessary research, helps avoid over-researching particular populations/locations, improves alignment between expectations and potential delivery, improves the application of scarce resources, helps avoid inappropriate research (methods, time lines) and enhances credibility.
Once a decision to proceed with a particular research or evaluation project is made, the Research Manager or Project Manager needs to consider what people resources are available (in-house and/or external), budget (for in-house and/or external) and timeline. Questions can include: Are the resources adequate? Are increased resources necessary? What is negotiable? Following this stage a Request for Proposal (RFP) or a call for Expressions of Interest (EOI) may be developed and publicised as part of a selection process.
The selection process occurs and some time later a report may appear. Most existing guidelines concentrate on what the researcher does between those two stages. These Guidelines have been developed to cover all the process stages, before the researcher undertakes the actual research and through to report completion, data saving, possible publication and dissemination. The SPEaR approach to good practice is holistic in that the principles and guideline content cover all the stages of the R & E process, unlike much other guidance. For example, most Codes of Ethics relate to the 'undertaking' of research and participant relationships rather than the researcher/commissioner, and few Guidelines exist for commissioners other than contract legalities.
However, the practical realities of R & E in the social policy context can mean that while we should always strive for good practice, there will be situations where time, budget, deadlines and agency prescriptions constrain people and hence their ability to achieve desired utility. The SPEaR Uptake project 2005 identified four key requirements policy people have of research for it to have utility - it must be accessible, relevant, timely and credible
A principles-based approach enables people to ensure they cover basic standards and, where possible, they follow the principles through the layers of advice. Seeking advice from peers with more experience of the choices and trade-offs involved in social policy R & E will assist in the navigation of the ideals and realities involved.
If officials cannot achieve all the aspects of good practice, they need to be very clear why particular decisions are made. There are likely to be other projects where such issues have been faced and people with experience about what was done and why and what the consequences were. It is that sort of experience that we are trying to gather in the good practice programme and to bring it together in an accessible way.
The government agency research process is represented in the following flow diagram and represents the typical steps undertaken in the initiation, developmental, undertaking and communications/dissemination phases of projects. Note that a Flow diagram for researcher initiated research, involving an application to a contestable fund would involve only some of the steps above (i.e. form team, apply for funds, receive funds (stop if do not), undertake project stages, produce findings and results, save data for eventual sharing). Some research would include the University Ethics Committee and/or Health Ethics Committee.
