Interviews

Interviews, considered to be as the most important data source for case studies (Yin 2009:106), are a key source of information for this thesis. Interviews are the best way to elicit information on the respondents’ interorganisational relationships and dynamics and how such interactions impact on the service delivery outcomes as documentary information mainly provided information on the legal, political and performance aspects of the Metro Manila water and sewerage concessions.

I adopted the snowball or referral sampling process in selecting the interviewees by first identifying key informants who could introduce me to other potential interviewees and from then on the snowball became larger (Edwards & Holland 2013; Burnham et al. 2008). Since the research problem was formulated from the perspective of the concessionaires, I conducted the initial interviews with key personnel from the two companies who were

involved or had some involvement in the implementation of sewerage projects. The

interviewees were asked to identify the organisations they worked with in order to fulfil their company’s sewerage service obligations. I interviewed a total of ten persons from the two concessionaires whose designation ranged from project staff to the vice-president level.

In determining the number of interviewees, I was guided by the concept of saturation. This concept does not set a prescribed or ideal number of interviewees; instead, it guides the researcher to gauge the number of interviewees based on the range of meanings gathered from the interviews (Edwards & Holland 2013, p.66). The saturation point of interviews has been reached when the interviewees are not telling anything that has not been mentioned by other interviewees or when the interviews are not adding anything new to the stock of information (Edwards & Holland 2013; Burnham et al. 2008). I did not set a particular number of interviewees but aimed to interview at least one person from each of the organisations identified by the concessionaires. Most respondents were interviewed exclusively for one arena but a few acted as resource persons for at least two arenas. A total of 34 people coming from the public, private and non-government sectors were

interviewed for this research, yielding around 40 hours of interview, as enumerated in Table 3.3. Of the 34 interviewees, 12 are from the private sector, ten hail from national

government agencies, six work at the local government level in five different cities, two from the House of Representatives, while the rest are consumers or from non-government organisations. Some respondents acted as informants in more than one arena.

Table 3.3 Number and types of interviewees

Arena Number of informants Organisations/affiliations

Tariff setting 8 Private sector

National government agency Financing institution

STP construction 21 Private sector

National government agency Local government units Local resident

Interagency monitoring 11 National government agency

Private sector

Sectoral experts 3 Former high ranking national

and local government officials

The interviews were open-ended and guided conversations, which is characteristic of case study interviews (Yin 2009, p.106). I prepared an interview schedule based on the

analytical framework that would elicit responses addressing the research questions. The questions were formulated based on four themes: (1) the interviewees’ role and functions related to sewerage service, (2) their experiences in working with other

agencies/organisations in performing their functions, (3) the challenges they encountered when dealing with agencies/organisations and (4) the strategies or actions undertaken to overcome these challenges and the outcomes of these strategies. To ensure that the line of inquiry would prompt interviewees’ to share their experiences, questions were framed in the form of ‘hows’ and ‘whys’. For instance, a question I asked on the collaboration process was, ‘How does working with actor A help your organisation fulfil its sewerage function?’ or if they encountered difficulties in interorganisational collaboration, I asked, ‘Why is it challenging or difficult working with actor A?.’ My line of inquiry was organised based on the arena in the sewerage network that the interviewee belonged to (Table 3.4). The interviews also served as an opportunity to corroborate the data gathered from documentary sources and other interviewees. Table 3.4 shows the thematic framework for the interviews.

Table 3.4 Thematic framework for interviews

Interview themes Interview questions Analytical framework

The interviewee’s and his/her organisations direct or indirect role in providing sewerage service

What is your role/participation in the implementation of this project?

Decision making arenas

The organisations they have to work with in order to perform their functions

 Did you have to work with other agencies in the course of this project?

 Which agencies did you work with? What are the support/resources you require from these agencies?

 How does working with these agencies help your organisation fulfil its sewerage function?  Are you satisfied/dissatisfied in with your

working relationship with these agencies?

Network features (resource

interdependence, goal congruence)

The challenges they encounter in the pursuit of their functions

 What were the challenges/obstacles you encountered when working with agencies?  Why do you think it is difficult to work with

these agencies? Where/with whom do you think the problem lies?

 Do you think working with these agencies is important to your project? Do you think they can be eliminated from the process? How and Why?

Network feature (resource

interdependence), network effect

The strategies adopted or actions undertaken to overcome these challenges.

 What actions did you take to overcome these challenges?

 How are problems resolved and decisions made to resolve these problems?

 How do you think these difficulties/challenges can be eliminated? What would be the ideal situation?

Network feature (network management), network effect

I conducted in-depth and focused interviews. In-depth interviews are useful for case study interviews because respondents are asked not just about facts but also their opinions on and insights to certain events, which can be the basis of further inquiry (Bouma & Ling 2004; Yin 2009). The interviewees in in-depth interviews are considered to be informants because they can suggest other persons who can be interviewed or initiate access to corroboratory or contrary sources of evidence (Yin 2009, p.107). My key informants for this research were the interviewees from the two private concessionaires in view of their extensive involvement in all aspects of sewerage services and their constant interaction with other actors in the network. The rest of the interviews conducted were focused interviews wherein the respondents are interviewed at one time for a short period of time (Yin, 2009, p. 107). The focused interviews usually lasted from 30 to 45 minutes. It is similar to in-depth interviews in the way that these interviews are also open-ended and conversational in nature. In addition to eliciting information for my main line of inquiry, these interviews also served as an opportunity to corroborate data gathered from other interviewees or other sources such as news articles.

The interviews were conducted either one-on-one, in couples or in groups. Most interviews were conducted one-on-one but there were a few interviews that I conducted in couples or groups. The couple or group interviewing technique is useful in yielding the best information when a respondent may be hesitant to provide information in one-on-one interview, the interviewees are cooperative with each other and/or when time to collect information is limited (Creswell 1998, p.124). A few organisations opted for the couple or group interviews for practicality and accuracy, i.e., to save time by setting the interview with the team in one interview appointment and to verify information with other team members right away. During these interviews, I had to ensure that all participants talk and no individual

dominate the conversation. A total of eight couples or group interviews were conducted for this research: five with the two private concessionaires (three management teams and two project teams), one with the secretariat of the monitoring committee, one with a

government department, and one with a legislator who invited the president of an activist group to join the interview.

The elite interviews conducted were one-on-one interviews. Elite respondents possessed ‘high levels of knowledge of the subject matter under discussion,’ favoured for their

‘general intellectual and expressive abilities’ and wielded more influence than others on the decision making process (Burnham et al. 2008, p.231). Because of their stature, these people are usually very busy and getting an appointment for an interview is the biggest challenge for the researcher, which is ‘more art than science’ (Goldstein, 2002 as cited in

Burnham et al. 2008,p.235). In the latter part of this chapter, I will discuss the challenges I encountered in getting elite interviews and how I managed them.

For the interview protocols, I initially sent letters to the targeted respondents, stating the purpose of the interview and the nature of my research, followed by a phone call to schedule the date and time for the interview. Most, if not all, interviews were conducted in the workplace of the respondents located around Metro Manila. Before every interview, respondents were given a copy of the research information sheet and verbally informed of the nature of the research project and their rights as interviewees. My research information sheet, consent forms and interview guide were in English. Interviews were mostly

conducted in English and Taglish, which is a term for mixing English and Tagalog when speaking.1 _{Most interviews were audio recorded with the consent of the respondents. For}

the few interviews that were not audio recorded, I took notes and informed the respondents that all data gathered during the session will be used for my research.