Data collection and sampling

Data collection – a case-study approach

A multiple case-study approach was chosen, and four upgraded case-study communities were selected as the primary units of analysis. The case-study approach provides the contextual background necessary to a study of social capital: case studies “excel at investigating the in-depth causal processes that lead to certain outcomes” (Grootaert and van Bastelaer, 2002b:344). Additionally, it can provide a depth to the analysis and yield insights which are difficult to generate with a purely quantitative technique. Though a case-study approach means that conclusions cannot be generalised for every community, it can still provide valuable insight into likely outcomes, and why they might occur.

Primary data was gathered in the form of interviews with community residents, community leaders, government officials and academics. Discussion groups were held with the community members, and community and slum network meetings were attended for participant-observation. In addition to this primary data, relevant material from secondary sources was collected. CODI produces many pamphlets regarding Baan Mankong, about communities that have already completed the process, and instruction booklets for communities wishing to participate. Additionally, it produces English-language newsletters with progress reports, through the Asian Coalition of Housing Rights. Newspaper articles

relating to low income housing and government policy towards the poor were also consulted.

The multiple levels of data sources allowed for triangulation (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2: Triangulation of data sources

INTRA-COMMUNITY

Due to the qualitative nature of the concept of social capital, including trust and solidarity, use of semi-structured interviews was regarded as the best approach. However, surveying the communities only once they had completed the Baan Mankong process meant there was no baseline data about the levels of social capital within the community before the upgrading process had commenced, data necessary for an assessment of the impact of undergoing upgrading on community relations. CODI did not carry out baseline surveys of social capital, though communities may have been assessed for the strength of their community savings groups and previous collective action, in order to begin by upgrading the communities where the scheme had the highest chances of success. Consequently, retrospective questioning was used in interviews.

Retrospective questioning raised the risk of biased answers, as respondents’ memories may

been to match upgraded communities to communities that had yet to be upgraded, on the basis of size, type of tenure and other characteristics, and use the social capital characteristics of these communities as proxies for the upgraded communities, in a similar manner to the SIF evaluation. However, this method was beyond the resources and time available to the researcher, and it makes assumptions about similarities between communities which may not actually exist. All the communities differ with regards to their age, social structure and previous experiences of collective action, and relations within the communities may be dependent on the inhabitants’ region of origin or type of work. Hence retrospective questioning was used to obtain the necessary data for comparison purposes, to try and correlate the levels of social capital pre-upgrading with the outcome of the upgrading process.

In the future, it would be preferable to assess the forms of social capital within communities prior to project implementation, since they can critically affect a project’s probability of success. A community which is divided over rival leaders is less likely to succeed in a collective project than one which has already attempted collective action, whether or not the action resulted in a successful outcome. It is also more likely to undertake a collective project, in a selection effect.

Pilot Survey

The first stage of the research was a pilot survey carried out during the summer of 2007, in Klong Lumnoon community, selected for its small size of only 49 households. The intention of the pilot survey was to test the questionnaire design. Local academics were consulted on the pilot questionnaire’s design, which consisted of close-ended multiple choice and ranking questions. It contained in-built checking mechanisms – for example, to measure satisfaction with the upgrading program, a question about whether the respondent had plans to leave the community was followed by one asking whether they would recommend the upgrading program (Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3: Structure of pilot questionnaire

Community organisation

Satisfaction Upgrading

process

Evaluation

-group membership -performance of

community organisation -spirit of participation -borrow fish sauce?

Demographic information -satisfaction

-outcomes -process

-participation -plans to leave -recommend to others?

-trust -corruption

The pilot survey revealed a number of changes needing to be made to the survey design. It highlighted potential difficulties in getting a representative sample, due to the prevalence of elderly persons at home during the day, whilst younger persons were out at work.

Additionally, it revealed that some questions were not phrased simply enough, some respondents struggled with the concept of ranking, and the choice of responses for certain questions did not always coincide with the response that the person wanted to give. Hence, a shift was made to a semi-structured interview style for the final surveys, allowing for open-ended responses. However, the ranking questions were retained. In certain instances, it was apparent that the respondent was uncomfortable about answering the question, which was also borne in mind when questions were re-written.

Final survey design and procedure

The semi-structured interview questionnaire (Appendix 2) was written in English and translated into Thai. Due to the ‘fuzzy’ nature of social capital as a concept, it was important

to ensure that no meaning was lost in translation. The design also had to ensure that there were no leading questions, especially the retrospective questions regarding social capital.

Because slum inhabitants, as the beneficiaries of the Baan Mankong scheme, are central to the study, the interview questions used to collect their opinions needed to be correctly geared to obtain the maximum amount of information. The information gathered from interviews with community members make up the backbone of the analysis. Interviews were carried out in the four case-study communities that underwent upgrading, as well as two control communities that were not doing any upgrading under the Baan Mankong program. The aim of the survey interviews was primarily to establish what the slum inhabitants thought of the upgrading process and its outcomes, as well as to find out whether they thought the implementation of upgrading caused any change in community relations, in terms of linkages, trust and collective action. The questions were split into three parts: the first dealing with the interviewee’s experience during the upgrading process, the second assessing the levels of social integration in terms of trust, group membership, collective action and vertical linkages, and the third dealing with demographic information.

The questionnaire design drew on World Bank questionnaires for measuring social capital.

Because social capital is an elusive concept, basing the questions on purpose-designed, tried-and-tested tools ensured more consistency and validity. These questionnaires included the qualitative Social Capital Assessment Tool (SOCAT), and the indicators used by the Thailand Social Capital evaluation, which are adapted to the Thai situation, making it an appropriate framework on which to base this study’s measures. Grootaert and van Bastelaer suggest three proxy indicators for social capital: membership in local associations and networks, indicators of trust and adherence to norms, and indicators of collective action (2001:23). The OECD agrees that trust is an acceptable measure of social capital (2001:45).

Before doing the household surveys within the communities, the leader of each community was interviewed, to gain background information about the community, providing a basis for comparison to the views of the community members themselves. With the community leader’s permission, community residents were then interviewed. In addition, key stakeholders in the upgrading process were interviewed, providing a basis for triangulation:

the landowners, government officials from the relevant agencies, and academics who had

After analysing the community interviews, discussion groups were held in the case-study communities to discuss the issues that arose from the analysis. This was the third stage of fieldwork. The discussion groups provided more information on matters affecting the community as a whole, for example what the community still wanted in terms of communal facilities, what problems remained, and the relationships between the community and organisations. The discussion groups were a chance to find out what the community wanted to gain from the upgrading process, and compare this to what was actually achieved. They were an opportunity to bring up matters that people were reluctant to raise when being surveyed individually.

The notes, transcripts and observations of all interviews, discussion groups and meetings observed, once translated into English, were coded manually. These codes allowed the main themes to emerge and concepts to be developed, and to be compared to the themes in secondary sources.

Sampling

The study was centred on Bangkok, in four upgraded case-study communities. The aim was to use random sampling in the household interviews, with a target 20% sampling rate of completed houses for each community. In practice, random sampling of every nth house was difficult due to householders being away, at work, too busy or unwilling to respond. The author tried achieve a physical spread of respondents, for example, two households per lane, in order to have respondents from a spread of community sub-groups, which are formed of physical clusters of houses. The respondent had to be an adult already living in the community before the upgrading began. Household heads who were the holders of the housing right, male or female, were targeted, though the main criterion was that the interviewee be involved in the day-to-day running of the household. The right to the house was often in the name of an elderly parent who lived with their children and grandchildren – in these situations, those who contributed towards the repayment of the housing loan were targeted. In many cases, women were more knowledgeable due to their role in managing household finances.

When organising focus group discussions, the original aim was to get community members to volunteer themselves to take part in the discussions, by asking the community leader to announce over the tannoy that participants were needed for the discussion group. However, the first attempt at this failed, as the community leader instead asked his friends to participate, most of whom were on the community committee. Though it was valuable to have the committee gathered together for a discussion, in order to get “ordinary” community members to participate, the following discussion groups were organised by distributing invitation letters randomly, explaining to recipients what would be involved.

Figure 4.4: Discussion group in Klong Toey 7-12 community

Participant observation

Observation of community and slum network meetings formed another part of the primary data (Appendix 4 lists all interviews and events attended). Community meetings were attended, for example regarding the allocation of housing rights in a future phase of upgrading, or a fire safety session. Meetings of local-level slum networks were attended, such as that of the Bang Bua canal communities. Meetings organised by larger-scale slum networks were observed, such as the SOC meetings where training was provided to new communities hoping to enter the upgrading program, as well as CODI-run events.

During these meetings, impartial observations were made, by taking notes and observing interactions between the different participants. These meetings provided important insight into the way in which community members planned their strategy for upgrading their own communities, other communities, and influencing policy reform. It demonstrated the strength of community organisations and networks in achieving things for themselves, as well as providing insight into how community members are regarded by other groups such as government officials. Therefore, by attending meetings the author was able to observe directly whether or not factors such as social cohesion and social engagement were present, and to what extent people were participating. Where officials were present, their role provided an insight into their attitudes towards urban poor communities and the Baan Mankong policy.

Contribution to methodology

As previously stated, much of the research on social capital relies on quantitative methods.

This study takes a multi-method qualitative approach, using interviews, discussion groups, participant observation, and secondary sources, both in Thai and English. Use was made of open-ended questions in semi-structured interviews, rather than polls, as previous surveys of Baan Mankong have done, allowing the opinions of the stakeholders to emerge. This demonstrated to the community residents that their views matter, and are perhaps not taken into account frequently enough. By adapting the framework from the SIF Social Capital evaluation, it allows for an assessment of social capital in urban contexts through a qualitative approach. As well as the community case-studies, the outcomes of the upgrading process were examined from various angles in order to observe any shifts in communal and institutional relationships, by examining the role of slum networks, and the attitudes of official institutions such as district offices. This multi-method and multi-level approach can provide a deeper insight into the outcomes and impacts of the Baan Mankong scheme, and an understanding of why these occurred.

The majority of the research carried out in Thailand on the Baan Mankong upgrading project relies heavily on questionnaires focussing on physical and monetary aspects, such as the type of housing built and how it was funded. The social and institutional aspects are not very commonly studied, despite being important factors in the ultimate aim of “building

aspects of slum upgrading, and can provide lessons in how upgrading through a participatory approach can best be achieved.