Methods of Data Collection and Analysis

After the matched pairs of SEPPS were chosen, the researcher designed a set of guidelines for field research defining the guide questions for field interviews and documents to be requested from the case subjects. This 2-page document entitled Guidelines for Field Research is attached in Appendix 12.2.

A formal letter introducing the research, containing the aforementioned guidelines and a Memorandum of Understanding between the Case Subject and Researcher (attached as Appendix 12.3.) was then sent to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of each of the case subjects. Field research dates were set based on the mutual availability of the case subjects and the researcher. Follow-up research activities were undertaken as needed.

As required, multiple data collection methods were used. Key informant interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) together with a study of internal organizational documents and a review of previous studies on the case subjects was undertaken to gather data. Key informant interviews with a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 30 people were conducted for each of the cases. For all cases, these key informants included:

x Top management (current and past); x Middle managers or senior staff;

x Chair or representative from the Board of Directors or Trustees; x Representatives of key program and/or funding partners; x Purposively selected partners among poverty sectors served; and x Experts from the concerned subsector, sector or industry.

A list of the key informants per case subject is contained in Appendix 12.6.

Triangulation of perspectives among key informants and data sources was used to establish the reliability and validity of case study results (Yin, 2003). Case study notes were in the form of hand-written field notes, tape recorded interviews, and narratives written by the researcher on various aspects of the research. Case study drafts were written and submitted to the case subjects for data validation.

A dialogue ensued between the case subjects and the researcher leading to the finalization of the case studies. In four of the cases, substantive dialogue ensued with some key informants based on their comments on the case study drafts. The dialogue,

taking off from the comments of some of the key informants, generally improved the quality of data contained in the final case study. In two of the cases, the changes introduced substantively altered the researcher’s analysis. However, in the other two, the changes introduced did not. This may be because the researcher had done research and consultancies with the latter two case subjects in the past and her familiarity with their external and internal environment facilitated a more accurate interpretation of the data.

With the last two cases, no substantive dialogue ensued after the case study drafts were submitted to them for data validation. This may have been due in part to the unexpected departure of staff that had played key roles in facilitating the case research. The researcher notes this as a limitation that may or may not have affected the quality of the data on these cases. Notwithstanding such, the researcher believes the minimum data required for their inclusion in the thesis was met, and they still have valid contributions to the overall analysis.

Within the theoretical sample, the first pair that was identified and studied was Alter Trade Group and Upland Marketing Foundation Inc. The panel of experts was interviewed in February 2008 and the field research for Alter Trade Group started shortly after. Field research for the Alter Trade Group was completed in January 2010, although follow-up interviews and email exchanges continued up to the time that the case study was finalized in May 2011. It was through studying the Alter Trade Group that the research question evolved from one that explored enterprise strategy content and strategy formation processes among social enterprises to finally focusing on stakeholder engagement strategies. It was for this reason that the level of case research done on Alter Trade Group was the most intensive. Alter Trade Group proved to be a very rich case as well in terms of content. This is because it is a story of distinct but interrelated cases on stakeholder engagement with two segments of the poor: one in relation to their experience with organic sugar farmers and the other in relation to their experience with Balangon banana growers. Given these reasons, the Alter Trade Group has been considered by the researcher as a centerpiece case for the thesis. As such, the chapter on Alter Trade has been deliberately given double the usual number of pages allotted for a case.

The panels of experts for the other two pairs were convened and interviewed in July 2009 (for the cluster of social enterprises serving persons with disability or PWD SE cluster) and August 2009 (for the cooperatives in the VICTO National network). By then, refinements on the research questions had already been made, facilitating the conduct of more focused research activities. Field research was conducted for these two pairs of cases from November 2009-February 2010, although some follow up interviews were conducted after. In one of the cases, a research associate assisted the conduct of follow up interviews.

From the database generated for each of the social enterprises in the theoretical sample, case descriptions were made with the aid of chronologies of the most

62

important events. Patterns and relationships were established with the help of tables and diagrams. The focus was to establish patterns and relationships about roles and changes in the roles enacted by the poor as primary stakeholders of the social enterprise, how and why these changed, and the impact of these role changes on the poor, poverty and the social enterprise.

Using the inductive method, within-case and cross-case data analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007) between each of the three pairs and across all six case subjects was done towards contributing to building a framework for understanding how social enterprises engage the poor and address poverty.

2.11. Mintzberg’s Theory of Strategy Formation as Major