Pathfinder Kick-off Meeting Research Methodology Introduction, Cardiff 2 nd March 2011 Richard...
-
Upload
gerald-parsons -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of Pathfinder Kick-off Meeting Research Methodology Introduction, Cardiff 2 nd March 2011 Richard...
Pathfinder Kick-off Meeting
Research Methodology Introduction, Cardiff
2nd March 2011
Richard Redfern, Steve Tarry
2nd March 2011
Welcome and Introductions from presenters and participants
Content:
• General introduction to the day
• Introduction to the research to be undertaken
• Evaluation overview
• Baseline and contexts for the research
• Project Officers’ role – the monitoring, recording, reviewing and reporting of data and relevant information
General Introduction to the Day:
• A recap on what was covered in day 1:– Study participants, roles and responsibilities– Pivotal role of Pathfinder Officers (POs)
• Aim of day 2:– To present an overview of the planned research – Explain how POs will help in developing the evaluation approach and
populating the study Evaluation Framework – Address any questions or concerns about what is proposed– Begin work on developing some of the tools required
• How the day will run:– Presentation of particular topics associated with the research methodology– Discussion of PO role in particular and any issues arising– Interaction required to ensure POs have confidence in what is required
Hand Out Agenda at This Stage
General Introduction to the Day (cont):
• Agenda: – Before lunch:
• Introduction to the research and overview of evaluation approach– Lunch 12.30 – 13.15– After lunch:
• Specific context for the study, the role of case studies and the work of the POs– Finish at 16.15
• Expected outcome:– insight into what will constitute an appropriate evaluation programme and an
clear understanding of PO role
• Required deliverables:– Tools required to support POs in their particular role
• What will follow on:– Day 3 - Exploration of individual sectors within the study– Meetings with host authorities to being process of engagement
Introduction to Planned Research
• The objectives of the Pathfinder Community Research project are to:– Generate robust evidence of which projects work in reducing greenhouse
gas emissions;– Support the trial of different approaches to community action on climate
change;– Evaluate the different ‘models’ of community based project interventions;– Evaluate the delivery of the pathfinder project programme by the programme
management team; and– Assess the role of Pathfinder Officers in delivering programmes.
• These are to be achieved through the evaluation of 18 case study initiatives spread across 6 Local Authority areas.
• The exact nature and location of the Case Studies is to be determined during this scoping phase of the project– this will define the structure and scope of the research activities undertaken
in subsequent phases of the project
Introduction to Planned Research (cont)
• In each of the six Local Authority areas the following outputs are to be achieved by the end of the two year pilot:
– A ‘map’ of communities who are already engaged in action• and those which have potential and/or have demonstrated interest in engaging
in action in the future.
– A ‘map’ of the communities who could be persuaded and encouraged to take action
– A record of carbon reduction work being undertaken by the community
– Specific community groups identified as willing to reduce their carbon footprint
– Baseline data for the carbon footprint of the willing community
– A carbon reduction target of 10 to 20% in the willing community within two years
Research Approach
• The research will look at initiatives within different sectors– Energy– Transport– Water– Food
• Research will look at behaviour changes / effects achieved by initiatives both within and across different sectors
• ‘Theory of Change’ will be used to explore the differences noted and the logic behind what has transpired
• The detailed approach will need to reflect the specific nature of the initiatives that are taken
Participants to think of the nature of the initiatives that might be taken:EnergyTransportWaterFood
Record these; then
Review with results of previous Brainstorm – as summarised on next slides
Possible Initiatives?
Energy· Energy efficient appliances· Energy efficient equipment· Energy efficient lighting· Energy efficient homes· Green buildings and homes· Green business· Green energy· Retrofitting insulation· Programmeable thermostats· Energy conservation
Transport· Anti-idling· Biking· Carpooling· Fuel efficient vehicles· Mass transit· Telecommuting· Vehicle maintenance· Walking
Possible Initiatives?
Water· Drinking water· Greywater· Lawn watering· Low flow showerheads· Low flow toilets· Maintaining wells· Water tanks· Water efficiency· Water restrictions
Food• Local food·Fertiliser use·Reducing meat and dairy consumption·Biodiversity·Forestry·Pesticide use·Organic food·Reduce packaging
Theory of Change
• Robust framework for considering:• What has changed ?• Why ? • In what context ?
• Tailored to address complex interventions, packages or programmes
• ‘Mapping’ produced to record and test underlying logic of investment:• Links between investment and short term outcomes• Hypotheses of links between short and long term behavioural
change• Work with stakeholders to review mapping and recognise their role
within individual ‘blocks’ and in relation to specific ‘links’
Logic Mapping – the Theory:
What is invested, e.g. money, skills, people, activities
What is invested, e.g. money, skills, people, activities
What has been produced What has been
produced
Short and medium termresults
Short and medium termresults
Long-term outcomes Long-term
outcomes
InputInput OutputOutput OutcomesOutcomes ImpactImpact
The frame-work within which an intervention is
located
The frame-work within which an intervention is
located
Context Context
Analysis of context Analysis of
context Analysis of objectives Analysis of
objectives
Analysis of the logic of the intervention Analysis of the logic of the intervention
Logic Mapping – an Example
Activities OutputsShort-term outcomes
Accredited schemesaudited &
standards maintained
% pupils recruited,completed training
and in receipt of awards
Intermediate outcomes Long-term outcomes
Increased no of school cycling clubs,
networks, & use of promotional tools
Reduced duplication,enhanced collaborationand access to funding
in target schools
Cycle ParkingGrant funding for school
cycle parking/travel grants
Links to SchoolIdentify and develop (via signage, lighting,
crossings and calming)existing traffic free routes
between schools and community facilities
Increased no quality & accessibility of
cycle parking at targeted schools
Increased % of bikes parked in availablefacilities each day
Increase in quality & safety
of % of existing routes linking school and
community
Increase usage of enhanced routes
for cycling to school,wider commuting
and leisure
Package of school interventions measures for the CCTS
Inp
uts
S
taffin
g,
Ma
na
ge
me
nt,
Fu
nd
ing
, P
art
ne
rsh
ip,
Co
llab
ora
tion
Enhanced and safercycling environment
Maintain % of town population
currently regularly cycling
Increase % of town population who
are occasional cyclists
Increase % of town population whoare regular cyclists
Cycling increasingly seen as
social norm
Cycling increasingly seen as acceptable for transport& leisure in school setting
Increase % of those linked to school
setting cycling for leisure& non-work commuting
Increase % of school population
(pupils & staff)commuting to/from
school by cycle
Increase % of town population
cycling from X to Xby 2012
Longer term impacts Modal shift
Reduced congestionReduced pollution
Enhanced environmentReduced Accidents?
Enhanced safety?Increased Physical Activity
Enhanced Health
Increased knowledgeof benefits of cycling and
how to promote it (in teachers parents, pupils)
Increased no (and effectiveness)of school interventions resulting
in increased participation in these by target groups
% of authorities/institutions recruited,
and training accredited
Promotional programmes (targeted at parents, teacher and pupils),
curriculum programmes, travel plans, safety
and training delivered in X% schools/classes.Increased use of good
practice guides
School Champions &Active Recreation
START school championscoordinating school
interventions expanding network of school cycle clubs.developing and implementing
school promotional tools
Increased membership ofand participation
in cycling as part ofschools clubs &
networks &tailored interventions
BikeabilityImplementation of
training (and related certificates) for bike handling
and safe on/off road cycling (3 age related levels)
Increased knowledge & skills& confidence for bike handling and for on and off road cycling
for x% of three age groups(Up to 9, 10-11, secondary
school aged) in CCTs
Bike ItBike It officers
working with school clusters (educating pupils,
teachers, parents, authoritiescoordinating interventions,
curriculum programme, addressing safety,
embedding good practice)
Hand out Spreadsheet example for capturing appropriate data from which to develop appropriate Logic Map
Practical Example - Specific to the Study
Activities Short Term Outcomes Medium Term Outcomes Long Term Outcomes
Cycle Training for Year 5/6
Children
More positive attitude to cycling by
parents/children
Increased cycle skills
Increased risk awareness
Increased propensity for parents to let children cycle
Increased cycling to school
Reduced accidents
involving child cyclists
Reduced carbon emissions
Cycle Training for Year 5/6
Children
More positive attitude to cycling by
parents/children
Increased cycle skills
Increased risk awareness
Increased propensity for parents to let children cycle
Increased cycling to school
Reduced accidents
involving child cyclists
Reduced carbon emissions
Poorly delivered trainingCourse not well designed
Low take-up rateMisses ‘at risk’ children
Role of Case Studies
• Case Studies will give us practical examples of Inputs and Outputs
• Inputs are the investment, resources and processes applied in the implementation of case study interventions, including Local Authority and other stakeholders’ time and investment. Accurately monitoring, analysing and reporting the full range of inputs will be a primary focus for the evaluation framework
• Outputs are the initiatives delivered, as a result of the inputs directed towards the Pathfinder programme. These will cover the range of intervention types (to be defined), including transport, energy, water and food
Categorisation of Initiatives
• Categorisation of initiatives:– provides a focus for data collection– assists when reviewing the transferability of findings about
similar types of interventions.
• Typology of initiatives according to, for example: – Primary objective – Primary target population – Scheme ownership – Geographical scale
.
The Research Programme • Short term
– Engagement– Identify possible Case Studies– Identify data sources– Set up evaluation processes– Identify Indicators of success (and possibly failure)
• Medium term– Data collection– Look at inputs and outputs– Review evaluation approach
• Longer term– Interim
• Look at outcomes and impacts• Review research approach
– Final• Look at outcomes and impacts• Address specific research questions
Q and A
Evaluation Overview - What is Evaluation?
• “Evaluation is the post implementation assessment” of:• Programmes• Policies and strategies• Investment ‘packages’• Individual schemes/interventions
• Two key areas in evaluation:• Outcome or Impact evaluation• Process evaluation
• Both apply to the Pathfinder Research
Evaluation within the Programme / Project Lifecycle
Rationale
ObjectivesFeedback
AppraisalEvaluation
Monitoring
Implementation
Benefits of Evaluating
Benefit Detailed Consideration
Planning and Policy Setting
• Improve carbon reduction plans and policies • Improve decision-making for policy makers and communities• Identify benefits and impacts of individual schemes
Implementation
• Improve the efficiency of carbon management interventions• Better policy delivery across sectors (transport, water, energy)• Develop delivery processes for businesses and community groups• Target engagement approaches and activities
Institutional Strengthening
• Improve co-operation of partners• Promote inter-partner working and carbon management
Accountability
• Evidence and justification for investment (emission reductions)• Ex-post evaluation of value for money and effectiveness• Carbon trading and management outcomes
Knowledge Production
• Identify what has worked well in different circumstances and why• Contribute to the ongoing learning process• Develop and refine project development procedures• Learn lessons
Relationship to Logic Mapping
Impacts
OutputsInputsObjectives
Outcomes
Rationale
• Rationale – Policy context
• Objectives – Local priorities for investment
• Inputs – capital investment and human resources
• Outputs – delivered interventions
• Outcomes – changes in key indicators
• Impacts – longer term changes
Traditional realm of monitoring
Realm of evaluation
Phases of Delivery
Phase 1: Evaluation Scoping
Phase 2: Interim Evaluation
Phase 3: Outcome Evaluation
This phase defines the specific focus of the evaluation and, importantly, the
interventions to be included. It includes the development of the evaluation
framework and its constituent parts.
This phase will identify existing evidence gaps and design data collection activities
to fill these. Initial stakeholder and community engagement will be
undertaken and process evaluation work will be undertaken.
Ongoing data collection and detailed process evaluation activities undertaken
during and after the implementation phase of measures. This will include
further engagement and action research activities.
Phase One (Scoping) – Overview
Evaluation Scoping
Define interventions and packages
Confirm evaluation objectives
Select research questions
Select evaluation indicators
Select core indicators
Select contextual indicators
Stakeholder liaison Conduct ToC mapping
Identify new data needed
Define evaluation approach
ToC mapping
Objectives of the Research
• The objectives of the Pathfinder Community Research project can be grouped around three general themes:
• Outcomes:– Generate robust evidence of which projects work in reducing greenhouse
gas emissions;
• Engagement:– Support the trial of different approaches to community action on climate
change;– Evaluate the different ‘models’ of community based project interventions;
• Processes:– Evaluate the delivery of the pathfinder project programme by the programme
management team; – Assess the role of Pathfinder Officers in delivering programmes.
• The nature of research questions reflect the specific theme under consideration
Participants to think about the nature of questions / hypotheses under each objective on preceding slide
Record; then
Compare with what is on the following slides
Research Questions
• Objective 1: To generate robust evidence of which projects work in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
• Questions in terms of impacts:
· What levels of greenhouse gas emission reductions have been achieved?
· What are the key techniques/factors/activities that have reduced green house gas emissions?
· How do the reductions vary between investment themes?
· What are the timescales for outturn reductions?
Research Questions
• Objective 1:
• Questions in terms of behavioural change contributing to outcomes:
· What changes in behaviour have been generated, how and why? Are these sustainable?
· What are the key drivers and motivators for behavioural change? Do they vary in the different themes? Do these vary between locations and population sub-groups?
· Which approaches and techniques have generated the highest levels of behavioural change?
· To what extent has investment generated low-carbon communities?
· How was the long term sustainability of the project planned for and secured?
Research Questions
• Objective 2: To support the trial of different approaches to community action on climate change
• Questions in terms of community engagement:
· What approaches have been adopted to engender community action?
· Which approaches achieve greatest community engagement and support and why?
· Which project theme generated the greatest level of community engagement and why?
Research Questions
• Objective 2:
• Questions in terms of penetration and sustainability:
· How does the delivery of impacts of different approaches vary between locations, across socio-economic groups and why?
· What are the key factors in a given approach that accelerated success?
· What are the key factors that resulted in less than expected good results?
Research Questions
• Objective 3: To evaluate the different ‘models’ of community based project interventions
· What are the different models/approaches to community based project development?
· Which models/approaches are the most efficient in terms of costs/benefits?
· What are the key processes involved in each model/approach and what lessons can be transferred to other locations/projects?
· Which elements of approaches are most effective/important in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and why?
· Which approaches generate the best advancement in community knowledge and skills in addressing climate change? How do these vary between locations and case studies?
Research Questions
• Objective 4: To evaluate the delivery of the pathfinder project programme by the programme management team
· What co-ordination/leadership approaches by the programme management team facilitated dialogue and collaboration with key stakeholders and between Pathfinder Officers (POs)?
· What approaches acted as barriers to meaningful dialogue and collaboration?
· What support, training and direction provided for clarity of work by the POs?
· How effective was the Advisory Group in helping to deliver the work of the POs?
· What key strengths of the programme management team enabled action by the POs and what gaps/weaknesses acted as barriers?
· What other barriers challenged work of the whole programme?
Research Questions
• Objective 5: To assess the role of Pathfinder Officers in delivering programmes
· What role did the PO have in accelerating the work of the community projects they supported?
· What particular skills, knowledge and abilities of the PO supported the success of the community projects?
· What approaches to community participation taken by the individual POs supported community projects?
· What barriers did the POs face that acted as a barrier to the delivery of the work of the community project? How were they removed, if removable?
Phase One (Scoping) – Overview
Evaluation Scoping
Define interventions and packages
Confirm evaluation objectives
Select research questions
Select evaluation indicators
Select core indicators
Select contextual indicators
Stakeholder liaison Conduct ToC mapping
Identify new data needed
Define evaluation approach
ToC mapping
Participants to consider what would make a Good Indicator
Record, then
Discuss individual merits
What Would Make a Good Indicator
• SMART:– Specific– Measurable– Achievable– Relevant– Time based
What Would Make a Good Indicator (cont)
• But, what will be Practical?:– What data are available?– Who owns or has access to the data?– What are the timescales for anticipated change?
Q and A
Lunch
Baseline and Contexts
Top Down Policy – Bottom up Community Actions
Current Baseline Emissions
FutureTarget
Policy
Act
ions
What Differences are Made as a Result of Pathfinder Officer Actions?
Need to Look Back as well as Record the Future (for lessons to be laerned) No PO Involvement
PO Engagement? PO Engagement?
Project Timeline
Problem Concept Development Implementation Outcome Impact
Project Lifecycle
Time
Impact of PO
Project might progress at a faster pace – with impact felt sooner
How to assess what would have happened without engagement?
Informed by ‘backward’ review and comparison with other similar projects without PO engagement
What Differences are Made as a Result of Pathfinder Officer Actions?
Need to Look Back as well as Record the Future (for lessons to be laerned)
PO Engagement? PO Engagement?
Scale of Impact No PO Involvement
Level of Community Engagement / Take-up
Impact of PO
Overall impact of Project might increase
The availability of data for reviewing the baseline / activities prior to PO engagement will be a factor in the selection of case Studies
Q and A
Phase One (Scoping) – Overview
Evaluation Scoping
Define interventions and packages
Confirm evaluation objectives
Select research questions
Select evaluation indicators
Select core indicators
Select contextual indicators
Stakeholder liaison Conduct ToC mapping
Identify new data needed
Define evaluation approach
ToC mapping
Monitoring and Recording
• Following initial engagement with Stakeholders– Focus will be on collating basic ‘headline’ data for each potential case study
(within a long list of, say, 120)– This will enable actual case studies to be selected for evaluation
• Criteria to be determined to facilitate the selection of final case studies – Criteria should allow comparisons to be made across candidate case studies– Should aim for a representative cross section of case studies, covering all
relevant sectors and differing approaches to community involvement, project development and delivery
• More detailed data will then to be recorded for selected case studies, to fully define and characterise the case study in advance of the evaluation phase
• The actual basic data to be collated will reflect the nature of the initiative and the criteria used for choosing between candidate case studies
Participants to brainstorm some of the criteria / data needs
Record
Handout initial draft schema for reviewing projects (seeking financial support under sustainable communities programme)
Participants to take this away and provide feedback on how this can be adapted to the needs of the Pathfinder research
Q and A
Evaluation is Not Just About the Data
• Data
• Facts
• Information
• Intelligence
Insight
Journal to be kept :
For each activity undertaken:
Describe the activity Reflect on: what went well what didn’t go well
and why notwhat should be done
differently next time
Note down progress and additional information as required
Capturing the Data (Facts, Information, Intelligence and Insights)
• Precise Tools to be Developed
• But, likely use of dedicated site to store information and share this across the study team
• Possible input from Development Officers in designing appropriate data capture proforma
Hand out example field sheet
Participants to review this and feedback later how this might be adapted - to meet their needs / needs of the study team
Wrap-up
• Future Actions
Q and A