INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides the research aims and questions for this study. It describes the development of a conceptual and empirical framework, so as to operationalize the theoretical concepts explored and discussed in the literature review in Chapter Two. It develops the research strategy, methods and techniques, and data collection methods. The chapter describes the strengths and potential limitations of the study, arising from its design, which include possible threats to reliability and validity; and the delimitations of the scope of the study.
RESEARCH AIMS AND QUESTIONS
As set out in the preceding chapters, the research focus of this study is the exploration and development of theoretical ideas tested through empirical work that will contribute to knowledge about the concept of organizational capacity in public organizations and how capacity can be developed to improve public services.
The review of the literature in Chapter Two revealed that the various streams of writing and discussion about organizational capacity and capacity building leave many unanswered questions. First, the concept of organizational capacity is relatively undertheorised. Second there is a need for a clear
definition. Third, organizational capacity may be perceived as being conceptually distinct from capacity building. Operationalization of the concepts and empirical research are needed that help to explain the relationship between organizational capacity and organizational capacity building. Fourth, context matters. The public policy context, described in Chapter Three, where organizational capacity building is intended to improve public service performance, makes this a significant area of enquiry. One of the aims of the study is to assess the extent to which the context of public organizations affects organizational capacity and capacity building.
The aims and objectives of this study can be stated initially as five main research questions. Having reviewed the literature, the first aim of the research is to construct a theoretical framework capable of being operationalized into a measurement tool, suitable for the UK public service context. The first question relates to the meaning of organizational capacity, the need to develop its currently limited conceptualization, and to develop and test a model of organizational capacity and capacity building: What do we mean by organizational capacity and can we build a plausible model of organizational capacity?
Having developed, tested and assessed the reliability of the model of organizational capacity, the next steps in the enquiry will be to apply the model to explore organizational capacity in the context of UK public
organizations. In particular the model will be applied to examine differences between Beacon and nonBeacon local authorities, and to examine changes over time in the capacity of these two types of local council.
The second question relates to the relationship between conceptualizations of organizational capacity and the public organizational context. In other words, what theories, definitions and models of organizational capacity might be relevant to UK public service organizations? The relative lack of research into organizational learning and knowledge and into organizational capacity and capacity building suggests that there is a need to apply theories and develop measures to understand and explain such phenomena in public service organizations.
The literature review has identified that there is a need for research which explores and explains differences in capacity within and between public organizations. This leads to the third research question, what is the extent of organizational capacity in English local authorities? This question is aimed at investigating the possible existence of differences in organizational variables that can explain the extent of organizational capacity in English local authorities. This in turn suggests that factors that explain organizational capacity also contribute to explanation of organizational knowledge, learning and improvement.
The fourth research question examines changes in organizational capacity: what is the extent of change over time in organizational capacity in English local authorities? Prior research into organizational capacity and capacity building has for the most part neglected an explanation of changes that illustrate an increase in capacity over time. If an increased extent of factors related to organizational capacity is found, it may be related to increases in organizational knowledge, learning and organizational improvement, or to other factors. This study offers a means to explore capacity factors that lead to performance changes in an organization and amongst populations of organizations. The fourth research question is also intended to explore the distinction and overlaps between the concepts of organizational capacity and capacity building, which the literature review found to derive from different perspectives.
Finally, the fifth question focuses on one specific policy intended to increase capacity and improve performance in local government and local public services: the Beacon Scheme. Part of the rationale for capacity building is to reduce the differentiation between high performing and lower performing councils. The assessment process for the award of Beacon status is robust: Beacon status is awarded to those councils that have demonstrated service excellence and the capability to share their expert knowledge with others. The Beacon Scheme provides the opportunity to examine explanations of capacity that may be associated with first, better performing councils; and second, with
organizational sharing of knowledge and service improvement. The fifth research question is: is the award of Beacon status associated with greater organizational capacity and greater capacity building?
One important aspect of this study is the potential contribution to knowledge that can be made by studying public organizations. As noted in the literature review, public organizations tend to be underrepresented in organizational research in general, and in relation to organizational knowledge, learning and capacity in particular (Rashman et al, 2008, forthcoming). Public organizations of particular theoretical interest to this study are active in the acquisition and assimilation of knowledge, thus increasing their capacity to anticipate change, and to transform their potential for innovation and improvement. The research questions inform the selection of the type of organization to be studied in the research. Beacon councils have an established and nationally recognized reputation as pioneers of excellent practice and there is research evidence that Beacons acquire, assimilate and adapt knowledge (Rashman and Hartley, 2002; Downe et al, 2004; Hartley et al, 2007; Hartley et al, 2008). The study will include the comparison of Beacon and nonBeacon local authorities. It is reasonable to hypothesise that councils that have been awarded Beacon status will be more active in capacity building activities than those councils that have not achieved the award. The argument is made that both internal and external organizational factors influence changes in
organizational learning and in organizational capacity. Therefore, the assumption is made that it is possible to distinguish and test variables that can explain differences in levels of organizational capacity.
PHILOSOPHICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY
The design of the research strategy to study organizational capacity, and to take into account the contextual features of public organizations, poses questions about the selection of an appropriate approach and methodology for understanding social phenomena. The choice traditionally rests on a distinction between philosophical paradigms, each of which has been primarily associated with specific methodological approaches to the research process and methods of data collection and analysis. The positivistic paradigm, based on the notion that the study of social reality should be similar to the study of natural sciences, is largely concerned with the collection of quantitative data. Phenomenological or constructivist research by contrast, emphasises the socially constructed nature of social interaction, and is usually associated with qualitative methods. The review of previous studies of organizational capacity revealed relatively few examples of empirical research: these were drawn from both quantitative and qualitative approaches.
Each of the two dominant paradigms, positivist and phenomenological, has an established tradition and has evolved in part as a reaction to competing
perspectives (Morgan and Smircich, 1980). They may be described as extreme positions on a continuum, which include ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions of the two main paradigms (Collis and Hussey, 2003), as illustrated in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1 Assumptions of the two main paradigms. Source: adapted from Collis and Hussey (2003: 4960).
Positivistic Approach to social sciences Phenomenological
Ontological Reality is objective, concrete and apart from the researcher. Epistemological Researcher is independent from that being researched. Methodological Deductive process Static design Contextfree Tends to produce quantitative data Associated methodologies Crosssectional studies Experimental studies Longitudinal studies Surveys Ontological Reality is subjective, multiple, as seen by participants in a study. Epistemological Researcher interacts with that being researched. Methodological Inductive process Emerging design Contextbound Tends to produce qualitative data Associated methodologies Action research Case studies Grounded theory Participative enquiry
The quantitative methods of the positivist approach are likely to be underpinned by a theoretical framework and to include testable hypotheses and propositions about relationships between a relatively small number of phenomena. Systematic observations and experiments provide an explanation of relationships among selected variables. Critics of the positivistic approach argue that the “standard view” of science is inappropriate for social sciences (Smith, 1998) and that scientific facts cannot be observed objectively nor understood separately from their social context. Social reality
is not objective but an outcome of subjective meanings and the aim of social science should be to uncover and interpret socially and historically constructed perceptions and meanings (Smith, 1998; Robson, 2002). The research “objects” are human individuals whose behaviour cannot be fully evaluated but can be described and partially understood by seeking their underlying meaning, as well as record observations of material activity and causal links. In contrast to positivist assumptions, phenomenologists regard reality as subjective, valueladen and multiple, represented through the perceptions of participants (Smith, 1998).
Interpretivism is one of a number of phenomenological approaches. It suggests a broader philosophical perspective that is not exclusively associated with qualitative research design and methods (Moses and Knutsen, 2007). Interpretivist assumptions about the nature of reality focus on its dynamic nature and multiple realities. Social structures are assumed to be in a constant state of flux and individuals’ perceptions, activities and interpretations of meaning interact with social structures within a social context. Interpretive theorists and researchers make use of their own prior knowledge and interpretations, drawing on “common sense and experiential understandings” in their study of meanings of people in groups and organizations (Hatch, 2006: 43).
The strong associations between paradigm, methodology and research methods have implications for both the choice of research problem and expression of research questions (Collis and Hussey, 2003). One common solution to the relative strengths and risks of the two approaches is to combine or mix qualitative and quantitative research methods. This study will take an alternative design approach, which will test a conceptual framework through subsequent survey research, which will be analysed interpretatively, drawing on the researcher’s prior contextual knowledge. The philosophical argument is made in the following section.
QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METHODS
The nature of the phenomena under investigation in organizational analysis (relationships between people, systems, processes and structures) challenges the use of positivist approaches. Phenomenological or interpretivist approaches are not often associated with measurement or statistical studies (Collis and Hussey, 2003; Moses and Knutsen, 2007) but some scholars have argued for a different way of considering the relationship between philosophical and methodological approaches.
Organizational research needs to employ research techniques appropriate to the task (Morgan and Smircich, 1980) that are focused on interactions and meanings in context, to gain new knowledge within a particular setting. Some critics have argued that positivistically based theoretic studies of change and
innovation in organizations have failed to produce robust findings and that it has proved difficult to transfer research findings to different social and cultural settings of organizations (Pettigrew et al, 1992). Interpretive research may be associated with qualitative research methods but as there are no prescribed methods, both qualitative and quantitative methods may be combined within an interpretive approach: quantitative data collection (such as use of surveys) may be complemented by consideration of social meaning.
It is sometimes claimed that statistical approaches may be problematic for a constructivist scholar due to the need for distance from the context of the study and loss of interpretation through the process of quantification (e.g. Moses and Knutsen, 2007). However, the dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative methods is an unhelpful, artificial “relic of the past” (Moses and Knutsen, 2007: 292). Indeed, “some of the most sophisticated ‘quantitative’ strategies can be associated with constructivist methodology” (Moses and Knutsen, 2007: 294) because it is possible to specify and interpret the context of a study and to develop an understanding interactively with the data. This “methodological pluralism” (Moses and Knutsen, 2007) allows the interpretation of measurable data, as well as the preservation of meaning and context that are important to constructivists.
The implication of this argument for the research design for this study is the intention to bridge the artificial divide in the philosophical continuum. Rather
than be constrained by the traditional associations of polar positions, the research design will combine: an interpretivist approach; a contextual mode of research appropriate to the study of organizational capacity; and methods that will encourage hypothesis formation, verifying and theory building. Quantitative methods are appropriate and will be used to develop and interpret research into capacity in the public service context.
Survey research is one method of collecting, organizing and analysing data that is often contrasted to qualitative methods. Qualitative methods, such as case studies, focus on particular cases to develop a rich picture and depth of understanding but do not rely on comparing cases. In contrast, surveys can provide large amounts of data about many cases. Surveys are frequently carried out for descriptive and analytical purposes and “can go beyond the descriptive to the interpretive…to provide explanations of the phenomena studied and the patterns of results obtained” (Robson, 2002: 235). Interpretation depends upon inclusion of a substantial number of variables and sophisticated analysis of the pattern of correlations.
The approach to the interpretation of the survey data will incorporate important aspects of symbolicinterpretive influences, including understanding of organizations as socially constructed and institutionalised within specific sociocultural and political contexts (Hatch, 2002: 46). The interpretive researcher acknowledges their own subjective understanding, becoming self
reflexive, and recognising that “knowledge is being generated between people, negotiating meanings in an intersubjective way” (Radnor, 2001: 29). Reflexivity calls for the researcher to question the assumptions underlying the research design and process (Hatch, 2002); and it acknowledges the relevance of prior contextual knowledge that the researcher contributes to the research design (Radnor, 2001). In the next section, the empirical framework is developed into a model that can guide the preparation for survey design and data collection.
THE EMPIRICAL FRAMEWORK
The literature review identified a number of theoretical frameworks, models and measures of organizational capacity and capacity building. In this section, the discussion focuses on the synthesis of prior research to inform the development of a conceptual framework for the empirical study. These guiding frameworks derive predominantly from the context of public service organizations. This study will focus on the explanation of organizational capacity within contemporary UK policy intended to improve public services in general and local authorities in particular.
Explanations of organizational capacity derive from analysis of capacity deficits (Martin, 1999; Sanderson, 2001; Rashman and Hartley, 2002), as well as existing or theoretical antecedents and “dimensions”. The achievement of the appropriate level of organizational capacity that can lead to learning and
improvement, including the acquisition, assimilation and utilization of “potential” capacity, can be perceived to be valuable for superior organizational performance. Incomplete or inadequate capacity is likely to be manifested by deficits in performance. Differences between an inadequate, adequate, or optimum level of organizational performance may be explained by the extent of organizational capacity. Therefore it is important and necessary to construct a conceptual framework that can analyse the differences in capacity that contribute to changes in organizational performance.
This study draws on the limited previous conceptualizations and research into organizational capacity to create a conceptual and empirical framework. Comparisons between private and public organizations suggest that there is variation within public organizations as well as between sectors that influences how capacity may be conceptualized, operationalized and measured. The models explored in the review of the literature derive predominantly from public policy and public service organizations. As previously stated in this chapter, the aims of the study are to develop an understanding of organizational capacity and capacity building in public organizations, as one means to assess the effect of context on organizational capacity. The development of concepts and theoretical models to create clear relationships between various policy instruments for local government reform is largely absent.
The features of the organizational context of capacity are important. The locus of the research will be in local authorities in particular and the intention is that research results will illuminate capacity in wider contexts of public services and other sectors. The study will focus on one policy instrument intended to improve corporate and service performance in English local government. The Beacon Scheme is recognised to have a number of elements which constitute capacitybuilding, (e.g. organizationlevel of sharing and creating knowledge and skills as a means to improve performance).
The design of the empirical framework, which will be discussed in the following sections of this chapter, draws predominantly on three sources: the literature review in Chapter Two; previous relevant studies identified in the literature review; and wider knowledge of the public policy context developed through prior research. The literature review identified a limited number of frameworks related to organizational capacity and capacity building features and characteristics (Figure 2.6).
However, relatively few of these conceptualizations provided empirical evidence (Figure 2.8), which weakens the explanations of capacity in these studies. The most robust research study was found to be Newman et al, 2000 (Figure 2.10), which will be reviewed to develop the investigative approach to this study.
Literature review: Key capacity features and characteristics One of the key original contributions that my research will make is to create a model or conceptual framework of organizational capacity. In Chapter Two, I reviewed the literature and from careful analysis and synthesis, I put forward a conceptual framework which will be tested in the empirical research. The six elements that this researcher has developed from the literature review into the conceptual framework are the following factors associated with organizational capacity: the characteristics of knowledge and learning; external and internal contexts; enabling internal conditions; structural relationships; management and leadership; and performance management, planning and evaluation. The discussion now turns briefly to each of these six features.
Characteristics of knowledge and learning
Many previous studies of capacity consider the organization as a knowledge institution in which knowledge creation and organizational learning are central to organizational adaptation, and improved performance. The conceptualization of the knowledge organization places particular emphasis on knowledge and learning as underpinning characteristics of organizational