Data Analysis

As this is a descriptive and exploratory study, the investigator‘s strategy for data analysis was to develop an adequate case description as it related to the concept of Development 2.0. The investigator used the technique of ―pattern matching‖ to link the data to the study‘s four main propositions; pattern matching involved ―the specification of a theoretical pattern‖ (Development 2.0 principles, in this case), ―the acquisition of an observed pattern,‖ (the Kiva data, in this case), and ―an attempt to match these two‖ (Trochim, 1989). The investigator also looked for ―rival patterns‖ (Yin 2009: 139), or alternate explanations, which were other Web 2.0 characteristics exhibited by the empirical case that were not included in the initial definition of Development 2.0.

The process of data analysis was continual due to the exploratory nature of the study. As the investigator gathered data through participatory observation at the beginning of the study, she used it to sharpen her inquiry and to ask further questions throughout the fieldwork (Green & Browne, 2005: 77). She examined ideas expressed by certain stakeholders against experiences and statements of other stakeholders. The results of this analysis are presented in the next chapter.

68 5.5 Ethical Considerations

The main ethical considerations in this study revolved around the fact that the investigator had both implicit and explicit obligations to various stakeholders; she was equally aligned to Kiva, to K-MET, to lenders, to borrowers, to other Kiva Fellows, (including her husband/co-worker), but she was also committed to conducting truthful and impartial research. The investigator was very aware that her actions in any capacity during her eleven weeks in Kenya (as a Kiva Fellow, a K-MET volunteer, or a researcher) would impact her other roles and responsibilities. She made a consistent and concerted effort to act in a forthright manner with each of the stakeholders involved in the study.

Formal, written permission was granted by Kiva as well as K-MET in order to conduct the investigation. Permission from K-MET had to be granted by a member of the Board of Trustees of the organization. The investigator also requested permission from K-MET to use a staff person as a translator during working hours. She financially compensated K-MET for the use of their room during the focus groups, and she offered a small stipend, 100 Kenyan Shillings (approximately $1.33), to focus group participants in exchange for their time. All of this was done to make sure that the investigator was not taking advantage of any of the people or organizations that she interacted with.

The investigator took special care to clarify her role as a researcher to borrowers involved in the focus group interviews. Several times she clarified that neither she nor K-MET nor Kiva would change the loan amounts or loan terms based on the borrowers‘ participation in the focus group interviews. A one-page letter describing the study and the use of a recording device was given to each person and explained in Dholuo in order to assure that participants understood what they were doing. The investigator showed the participants the digital voice recorder that she was using, and was explained that when she wrote up a report, she would change their names in the report. Each participant signed the letter, or worked directly with the translator, who signed on his or her behalf if he or she was unable.

69

It was important to the investigator that the study was edifying to both the borrowers, who are the subjects of development, but also to the organizations who are involved in the process. Therefore, she used the focus group as an opportunity not only to collect information from Kiva borrowers, but also to give them information about something that was affecting their lives – the stories behind their loans. Furthermore, prior to finishing her Kiva Fellows placement, the investigator produced a preliminary report on her research, and met with the K-MET stakeholders to discuss her findings from the focus groups. (This report is also available on the appendix website.) K-MET received her recommendations and assured her that the borrowers‘ comments would be heard. K-MET‘s Executive Director later recounted the story of coming across a focus group participant in a Kisumu market, and the participant asked the Executive Director to make sure that other borrowers knew about where their money came from. The Executive Director claimed to be committed to finding ways to implement this and other recommendations made by the investigator.

The investigator has committed to providing the interested parties with a copy of the completed dissertation. The Kiva Fellows who participated in the study, as well as Kiva staff will be able to access the document if they choose. Throughout the study, the intent has been to analyze Kiva‘s work in a real-world context and to provide reflexive feedback that could benefit the different parties related to the organization, especially the borrowers, leading to ‗better development.‘

70

Chapter 6: Results

The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings from the empirical study; the author‘s conclusions will not be presented until the final chapter of this document. This chapter is divided into two parts. Part 1 (Section 6.1), addresses Research Question 2, describing the nature of Kiva‘s operations, starting with a brief history of the organization and then a description of its use of Web 2.0 technology and principles. The data provides several examples of how Kiva reflects the Web 2.0 model and integrates Web 2.0 technology.

After a detailed description of Kiva‘s operations and principles, Part 2 (Section 6.2) addresses Research Question 3. This involves relating Kiva‘s operations to Development 2.0. The results of the Kiva comparison are presented in terms of the four principles of Development 2.0 and in regards to the different Kiva stakeholders. Throughout this chapter, the data is referenced as it is appropriate for each medium.13 The full transcripts, documents and web links are available via the appendix website.

Chapter 6 is divided into the following sections: 6.1 Results Part 1: Kiva‘s Operations and Principles

6.1.1 Kiva’s beginning and its core operating principles Kiva‘s beginning.

Kiva‘s core principles. 6.1.2 Kiva’s operations

The Kiva lender experience. The Kiva borrower experience. Kiva logistics.

6.1.3 The Kiva/K-MET partnership K-MET as a field partner.

The functioning of the Kiva/K-MET partnership. 6.1.4 Current and future Web 2.0 integration for Kiva

Kiva and Web 2.0 thinking. Kiva and Web 2.0 technology. Overall Web 2.0 integration. Future integration.

13 _{Kiva Fellows who participated in the Kiva Fellows online interview are referred to by the name that}

they provided during the interview. For the borrower focus groups, the names of borrowers were changed to reference codes for the purpose of anonymity. The researcher‘s field notes are referred to by date, with all notes taking place in the year 2009. References to the three staff interviews are made using the surname of the staff person.

71 6.2. Results Part 2: Kiva and Development 2.0

6.2.1 Encouraging collaboration 6.2.2 Increasing transparency

Transparency and Kiva lenders. Transparency and Kiva‘s partner MFIs.

Transparency for Kiva staff and Kiva Fellows. Transparency and Kiva borrowers.

6.2.3 Enabling relationships Relationships for borrowers. Relationships for Kiva lenders. Relationships for Kiva Fellows. Relationships for MFIs.

Real-world community building for Kiva stakeholders. 6.2.4 Increasing citizen participation and voice

Participation for borrowers. Participation for lenders. Participation for Kiva Fellows. Participation for partner MFIs. Are Kiva stakeholders being heard? 6.2.5 Other Results

Continual improvement and sustainability. Generating rich data.

The long tail.