Yes it can be used as a guide, but don't forget environmental factors, working style, organizational structure and culture differ from organization to organization. There may be some other factors too that must be considered and can be found from existing literature.

Is it recommended to use best practice guides as a means to devise a conceptual framework in a research?

Not sure the statement "best practice guides" are based on certain theoretical frameworks / empirical tested models etc.  In a typical research, the conceptual framework is recommended to underpin on / refer to certain theoretical frameworks / theories / empirical tested models as a result of literature review.  If there is no appropriate theoretical frameworks etc. to underpin on, the researcher is advised to choose the closest theoretical framework etc.  Reason being some theses examiners / article reviewers disagreed a conceptual framework being created in vacuum i.e. not underpinning on previous theoretical frameworks etc.  To many researchers, those theoretical frameworks etc. are important as they are serving as base / float for research in which without them, the research might sink miserably as theses examiners / articles reviewers can question the basis of the research.

Yes, but to be sure the audience will take it like an example and not like a standard to follow or copy. Placing into the right environment, and explaining the culture, legislation, economic conditions, organizational maturity, it is extremely important. Adjustment to strategic objectives it is a must, in order to have some tangible connections with the real life.  Good luck!

I would want to review the "best practice guides" first, especially as the assembly of a conceptual framework is a creative stage in a research process.  This is the exploratory stage where you assemble the concepts from the relevant fields; akin to assembling a puzzle without confidence that you have all the parts.  It is a messy but most important stage. I would hesitate to turn it into a 'paint by numbers' exercise.

I am assuming you are a PhD student trying to write a dissertation.  I assume this, because that's the group that commonly asks this kind of question.

Rather than answer it, I will point out that most "conceptual frameworks" have little theoretical value and are hard to publish.  Gregor calls such "Type I" theories and they are the least worthy of the theories.  Gregor argues such should only be considered worthy if one is working in an area with little theoretical development.

Gregor, S. 2006. "The Nature of Theory in Information Systems," MIS Quarterly (30:3), September, pp. 611-642.

How should data analysis in a case study be done?  There's a lot written about this.  See for example 

Yin, R.K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989. "Building Theories from Case Study Research," Academy of Management Review (14:4), pp. 532-550.

Walsham, G. 1995. "Interpretive Case Studies in Is Research: Nature and Method," European Journal of Information Systems (4:2), pp. 74-81.

Strauss, A.L., and Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

My own thinking is as follows.  The researcher should first have a good general question in mind.  The researcher should read and be sensitized to the issues in the phenomenon being studied.  If the researcher is an interpretivist, the researcher should also have some kind of familiarity with the standard sociological theories (structuration, ANT, institutional theory, etc.)

The researcher then gathers data.  While the researcher gathers data, the researcher is sensitized to emerging issues in the data and constantly compares such data against existing theory.  Over a relatively short period of time, certain theories will emerge as particularly salient.  The researcher then shifts interview questions/analysis of archives etc. to focus on a mapping between the salient theories and the collected data.  Invariably something interesting will emerge.

Basically, the real way of doing this is a messy one that isn't amenable to step-by-step thinking.  You need to be sensitive to both theory and what is happening in the field and match one to the other.  Think of driving a car- yes, there are principles, but the real act of driving is about adapting the principles to the present road conditions.

I'd be happy to have a chat about it.

I’m not sure why one would admit to starting a project with someone else’s ‘best practices guide’. This always raises the issues of 1.) what metrics support the word best; 2.) practices are temporal in nature and are a poor choice from  which to build a conceptual framework; and; 3.) a practice will usually have a number of embedded assumptions that may take time to assimilate and articulate.

Cecil’s (Chua) points are well made. Specifically his point “The researcher should have a good general question in mind.” I would personally add the phrase “ … that piques the researcher’s interest”. I would encourage you to take Cecil’s offer to chat. Good luck to you.

Mr. Gedion Firdawek (Arba Minch University)

My humble opinion is:

Part 1. Is it recommended to use best practice guides as a means to devise a conceptual framework in a research?. It is not possible, but orients itself to find what was the systematic review which supported the development of this guide, where if you find the concepts you need.

Part 2. Is it recommended to use a best practice guide that is made on other organizations… which to guide data analysis…?. It can serve to adapt the procedures of data analysis, always in when matches the objectives of the guide with his goals.

From a personal perspective, I think developing a conceptual framework something should not be done at early stages of research. Some systems enforce student to adopt a specific well defined conceptual framework at the beginning of the journey. What I understood from the above discussion '' Research is a process'' shifting all the time and this is entail an extra mental and cognitive effort to keep student's mind on a specific track. In my opinion, yes, indeed defining a broad but focused conceptual framework is essential at the early stage. But we should not forget  conceptual frame work will always be a subject of change based on not only the emergent analytical issues in the gathered data. But also there are other issues which will enhance and may change the conceptual framework such as the researcher capability and maturity.

Four contexts condition our lives and "best practice" only helps in one of these. In simple contexts, cause-and-effect relationships are repeatable, perceivable, and predictable: there, we can apply best practice. In complicated contexts, cause-and-effect relationships are separated over time and space; we must apply good practice. In complex contexts, cause-and-effect relationships are only coherent in retrospect and do not repeat: we must sense emergent practice. In chaotic contexts, no cause-and-effect relationships are perceivable: we must figure out novel practice. Understanding Complexity, available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266476979_Understanding_Complexity, explains further.

Article Understanding Complexity