Data Collection

In line with suggestions made by Stake (1995), and Yin (1994), information for this case study relied on data collected from multiple evidential sources. These are outlined in Table 4.

Table 4: Evidential Sources Used

Source of Evidence Types of Evidence Collected

Documentation Letters, memos, administrative documents, personal records (such as diaries and file notes), audit reports, newspaper articles. Archival Records Maps, organisational records, survey data.

Interviews Structured interview/surveys, informal interviews. Direct Observation Casual data collection, site visits.

Participant Observation Site visits, participation in various organisational meetings.

Source: Yin (1994)

From a documentary and archival perspective, information used for Chapter 5.4 and 5.5, are predominantly drawn from my own records and the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) external forensic audit carried out in March 2007 (including an attached supplementary report), and, to a lesser extent, on the findings of an internal investigation (headed up by myself but carried out under the auspices of NGO-Int’s Regional Office, in October 2006). The PWC audit is now part of the public domain100, whilst in the case of the internal audit, the Regional Office of NGO-Int gave permission to use the information on the proviso that the organisation’s name was not mentioned.

Data collection was further supplemented by information such as letters and memos written in my capacity as country director, along with personal file notes and diary entries made during the period under review. Whilst a number of other administrative documents and organisational records were referred to, the bulk of these provided background information and context only (such as that used in Chapter 5.2).

Further key sources of information were an internal and an external survey carried out between October 2008 and January 2009. Involving 71 participants, the main aim of the

94 surveys was to explore participants’ general attitudes to corruption, and their perceptions and knowledge of its prevalence within their respective organisations. Both surveys were carried out in English and pre-tested on one internal and two external sources (including the external research assistant contracted to undertake the internal survey). The time required to complete the survey varied from between 60 and 90 minutes101). Details of both surveys are outlined below, with copies of the actual questions included in Appendices B and C respectively:

A. Internal Survey: A total of 60 surveys (representing 29% of employed staff members) were carried out within NGO-X between November and December 2009. Information collected was “anonymous”, with the survey itself being conducted by an external research assistant.

Participants were randomly selected from a staff-list (containing employees’ names and job titles only) provided by the Human Resource Manager (HRM), with the only criteria being to ensure that the participant list reflected a good cross-section of employees at all levels and from all facilities102. Involvement was voluntary, with employees given the opportunity to decline should they not wish to be involved. A breakdown of participants by location is detailed in Table 5.

Table 5: Survey Participants by Location Location Number of Facilities at location Number of Participants % of Total Participants Interviewed Lilongwe 7 34 57% Mzuzu 4 21 21% National Office 1 5 8% Total 12 60 100% Source: Author

101 _{In order to reduce the time required for the interview, a Support Sheet was prepared for participants to}

enable them to see the various “choices” in cases where the answers were in multiple-choice form.

102 _{Employees located in the facilities based in Blantyre were not included in the survey as the bulk of the}

95 The survey was aimed at obtaining staff perceptions of various cultural and corruption related issues including not only the prevalence of corruption within NGO-X, but also its various drivers and forms. Made up of 17 questions, it was divided into the following eight parts:

i. Demographic characteristics of participants.

ii. Value Systems within Malawian society (1 question): Respondents were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed with ten statements covering different aspects of Malawian culture.

iii. Definition and Attitudes to corruption (3 questions).

iv. Perceptions of corruption (4 questions). The first three questions asked respondents their perception of the “seriousness” of corruption within Malawi and more specifically within NGO-X. They were also asked how many of the employees within NGO-X they perceived to be corrupt and whether this had changed over the past four years.

The fourth question was divided into three parts. A brief description of thirteen scenarios depicting different types of conduct that could potentially occur in the organisation was given. Respondents were asked to rate, on a scale of one to four, how ‘acceptable’ followed by how ‘justified’ they considered the behaviour to be. They were then asked their opinion on which of the scenarios they felt was corrupt.

v. Perception of prevalence of corrupt activities within their organisation (3 questions). The first two questions asked whether the respondent had directly or indirectly experienced somebody in their organisation undertaking activities they considered to be corrupt, whilst the third listed 15 different types of corrupt activity (from nepotism and dishonesty/withholding information to bribery and

96 theft), and asked how frequently, if at all, these activities happened. They were then asked to rank the top five.

vi. Systems of internal controls (1 question). Respondents were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed to five statements on a number of different aspects from their awareness of corruption, the need for internal controls, to the impact of leadership/ management style on the level of corruption.

vii. Attitudes to reporting corruption (4 questions). Explored the respondent’s attitudes to and likelihood of reporting a corrupt act, who they would report it to, and whether a number of factors would influence this. The fourth question referred to the thirteen scenarios covered above and asked what specific action the respondent would take if they were faced with them.

viii. Perceptions on the causes of corruption (1 question). Made up of three parts, respondents were given eight possible causes of corruption and were asked which of these they felt were contributing factors. They were then asked to rank them, on a scale of one to four, how strongly they would influence someone to undertake corrupt behaviour. The final part of the question asked respondents to rank the top four of the influencers marked.

In order to mitigate a number of the ethical dilemmas outlined in Chapter 4.1.2, an external research assistant was recruited to carry out the survey. This sought to create sufficient “distance” between the researcher and the participants, thereby reducing any potential power imbalance and enhancing the credibility of the overall process. In addition, it reinforced participant confidentiality, and improved the chances of obtaining less biased responses to the questions asked. Given his background103, valuable additional information on the observations made and trends seen were provided via a separate report for each of the two main locations. The survey questions were

103 _{The researcher is a lecturer at Bunda Collage of Agriculture, a constituent college of the University of}

97 discussed with the research assistant beforehand in order that he fully understood them, and was able to provide additional explanations to participants should it be required. Regular meetings were also held to discuss progress and address any issues arising. In line with the requirements contained in Massey University’s Code of Ethical Conduct (Massey, 2006), information regarding the research being undertaken and the participant’s involvement, were shared with prospective participants prior to any interview taking place. This included their right to withdraw participation at any time, to refuse to answer questions, and to receive a copy of the findings if desired. A copy of the Information Sheet that was given to participants has been included as Appendix D.

B. External Survey: The second survey targeted external non-indigenous senior managers who had been working in Malawi for more than five years. Whilst constrained by the limited size of the target group, 11 surveys were undertaken between December 2008 and January 2009. The main purpose of this survey was to:

1. provide additional insights into corruption;

2. counter any potential bias or differences in cultural perception arising from answers given in (a) above; and,

3. provide a certain level of comparative data on the extent of corruption within other organisation (albeit from the non-NGO sector).

Adapted from the internal survey, it contained 14 questions, mainly related to the level of perceived corruption both in Malawi and within their organisation. In addition, it included a number of questions regarding participant´s assessment of their staff’s perceptions on different issues. Unlike the internal survey, it was not confidential, with all participants signing a Participant Consent Form.

In addition to the data sources referred to above, a number of informal interviews and discussions were held with various people both within NGO-X and outside. Whilst in some

98 cases the interviews were on specific subjects, they also included casual conversations, with the type and amount of information shared being heavily dependent on the style and surroundings in which the discussions took place. Information was also collected via various forms of observation including visits to the NGO-X’s facilities and locations, as well as formal involvement in various meetings with board members, management, staff, and at times beneficiaries.

Complementing data sources outlined above, supplementary information was collected from a number of secondary sources, including books, newspaper articles, published reports, and promotional material.