Skills and Work in the Emerging Digital Public Service: project methodology
The proposed methodology and approach focuses on the synthesis of existing research knowledge and the identification of knowledge gaps. This Knowledge Synthesis project will critically assess the state of knowledge around the skills needed for a digital-ready public service, evaluate the quantitative and qualitative research data, assess the methodological approaches of current work in the field, and highlight leading approaches and best practices for training and skill development for the digital public service. The highlighting of knowledge strengths will support evidence-based decision making and the application of best practices to training and skill development efforts across governments, academic, and the private and non-profit sectors. In identifying knowledge and research gaps, we will map out future research agendas in the capacities needed for the public service to meet these challenges, and the strategies necessary for building that capacity. And in linking these knowledge and research assessments with current practice, we will engage a range of stakeholders throughout the project to uncover promising policies and practices and share our findings (see knowledge mobilization attachment).
We will undertake a scoping review, which is appropriate given our focus on assessing an emerging body of literature, clarifying concepts, and identifying knowledge gaps (Munn et al., 2018). Scoping reviews (also referred to as mapping reviews or scoping studies) are useful for synthesizing research evidence, especially when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed and the topic lacks precision. Scoping reviews are conducted to explore the extent of the literature, to map and summarize the evidence, and to inform future research. They are also useful for examining emerging evidence when it is unclear what future specific questions might emerge, what Peters et al. (2015) call “reconnaissance’ of an emerging topic or field. Scoping reviews may also be used to develop policy maps that identify and map evidence from policy documents and reports that guide practice in a particular field (Anderson et al., 2008).
Originating in evidence-based healthcare where primary research is increasingly synthesized, scoping reviews follow an original framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005), where the methodology has been refined over the past decade and a half focussing on rigorous conduct, transparency, and trustworthiness. Peters et al. (2020) synthesize this framework and its modifications, which should be seen as an interactive, rather than linear, process.
Identify the research questions: what issues are being explored?
Clarify and link the purpose with the research questions
Align the objectives with the research questions
Identify relevant studies through electronic databases, reference lists, websites of relevant organizations, conference proceedings, etc.
Balance feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness
Develop and align the inclusion criteria with the research questions
Select studies relevant to the research questions
Use a team approach to select studies and extract data
The planned approach to evidence searching, selection, data extraction, and presentation of the evidence must be described a priori in the research protocol.
Chart the information from the selected studies
Develop a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis
Collate, analyze, summarize, and report the results
Identify the implications of the study findings for policy, practice, or research
Consult
Consult with researchers, public sector managers, stakeholders, policy makers, and relevant experts
Such consultation will happen through the review, including in the topic prioritization, planning, execution, and dissemination
Focus on identifying research and practice
Test results from analysis
Present the results
narrative integration of the relevant evidence
The above steps will form the basis for the synthesis report to be written during the first six months of the project. The two-page evidence brief will be derived from the synthesis report.
Detailed guidance for conducting health research related scoping reviews is presented in Peters et al. (2020), which will be adapted to guide our scoping review for this knowledge synthesis project. Scoping reviews do have limitations, as they are neither easier nor faster than a systematic review, with multiple, broad, and less-defined searches producing more citations to screen. And the less defined structure for the review can lead to inconsistency in their conduct (Pham et al., 2014). However, since the interest is in the identification of characteristics or concepts related to the skills and capacities required for the future public service rather than the evidence related to a specifically identified issue, a scoping review is preferred in this case to a systematic review.