Research process overview and candidate’s contribution

As this thesis was conducted as part of the collaborative Community Water Plus project, this section makes clear the role of the candidate in the overall project. After providing an overview of contributions made by the author to different stages of the research it then focuses on his role in the design and implementation of the cross-case study analysis, which forms the primary contribution towards the thesis. Figure

4.1 provides a summary of the role of the candidate during different phases of the Community Water Plus research.

Figure 4-1 - Community Water Plus Research Process with Candidate's Contribution In Phase 1, in which the overall project methodology was developed, the author’s role was as a contributing author to the concept and methodology working paper (Smits et al., 2015). Specific contributions focused on “Section B – Research Methodology” in terms of: overall research design for the case selection and sampling sections; comparative frameworks for qualitative-quantitative data processing tools; approach for understanding contextual factors and history of case studies; and, overall editing of the remaining document (although final copy editing and print setting was also conducted separately by a specialist agency). Secondary contributions were also made to “Section A – Conceptual Framework” in terms of the literature review for the community participation, community management and organisational partnering and relationships sections.

Phase 6 - Cross-case analysis and synthesis Lead Researcher (individual contribution)

Phase 5 - Case Study Data Collection, Analysis and Write-Up Contributing Author (one case study)

Phase 4 - Sampling Frame and Case Selection Contributing Researcher

Phase 3 - Pilot Study and Testing of Data Collection Tools Lead Researcher

Phase 2 - Data Collection Protocols Developed Lead Author

Phase 1 - Overall Community Water Plus Methodology Developed Contributing Author

Overall, the collaborative methodology set the trajectory of the Community Water Plus project and, by extension, this thesis through providing the foundation for the cross-case study analysis. This was in terms of the basic comparative frameworks that were used in this thesis to compare different case studies, as explained in Section 4.3.1. However, how these were operationalised into data collection and processing tools was part of Phase 2 of the Community Water Plus project, which was the responsibility of this author. This included designing the data collection methods, data processing tools and data analysis approach for individual case studies, with the associated protocols totalling over 90 pages as presented via Appendix B. Part of the associated activities in this stage involved conducting workshops and training sessions with research partners, as discussed in Section 4.10. In Phase 3 of the research, these data collection protocols were piloted, tested and refined by this author during a three-week pilot study in what would become the

“Tamil Nadu – Public-Private Hybrid” (Hutchings, 2015) case study (which was also used to confirm that suitability of that case study for full inclusion within the research).

In Phase 4 of the research, this author contributed to the sampling and case selection processes by conducting a literature review of case studies from India to contribute to an overall sampling frame. Case selection was then directly actioned by in-country researchers in terms of the selection process that involved review of secondary evidence, speaking to local informants (i.e. civil servants) and pilot studies. This process was conducted by this author for the “Tamil Nadu – Public-Private Hybrid” case study only. In Phase 5 the data collection, analysis and write-up of each individual case study was conducted by research partners. This author completed this process for the Tamil Nadu – Public-Private Hybrid” and was also involved in data collection in six other case studies and provided guidance and checked the veracity of the data analysis on all twenty case studies.

Phase 6 of the Community Water Plus project on the cross-case study analysis was completed solely by this researcher and forms the core empirical contribution to this thesis. The overall research process is visualised separately in Figure 4.2. As explained above, the overall project methodology set the broad trajectory for the research. However, it did not specify how the synthesis should be conducted so Phase 6.1 involved developing, refining and clarifying the approach to the cross-case

study analysis. The approach brings together principles from the comparative ranking systems of the case survey method (Yin and Heald, 1975) with basic qualitative and quantitative analysis from multi-case study research projects (Yin, 2003). With this mix-methods design, the principle was to ‘ring-fence’ the qualitative and quantitative data separately during the analysis stage but then promote triangulation of those findings during the combined analysis and write-up phases.

Figure 4-2 – Research processes for community

Phase 6.2 on case study processing and Phase 6.3 on case study consolidation are explained in Sections 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 of this chapter. However, in summary, they involved assessing whether individual case study report contained all the requested information as per the fieldwork protocols. This was in terms of the completeness of the information but also an assessment of its quality. Significant work was

Write-up

Phase 6.6 - Combined analysis

Triangulation Interpretation Conclusions

Phase 6.5 - Quantitative analysis

Service level analysis Financial analysis Phase 6.4 - Qualitative analysis

Immersion Case summary

production

Organisational arrangement classification Phase 6.3 - Case study consolidation

Build database Populate database

Phase 6.2 - Case study processing

Data cleaning Data harmonisation

Phase 6.1 - Cross-case study approach developed

undertaken verifying and harmonising data through discussion and consultation with the fieldwork partners. Four overview databases were built for the main analytical levels of the research – enabling support environments, community service providers, household service levels and financial costing. These were then populated with data from each of the twenty case studies which was then subject to quantitative analysis as discussed below and in Section 4.8. The qualitative data for this research were the case study reports themselves and, as the reports were peer-reviewed by a team of core researchers (including this author), the data cleaning process had already been completed for these documents.

Phase 6.4 on the qualitative analysis and Phase 6.5 on the quantitative analysis are explained in Section 4.7. In summary, the qualitative analysis followed an immersive approach in which the case study reports were read and then summarised in terms of key features of that case study. This ‘recursive abstraction’ approach (Stebbins, 2001) to data analysis was considered appropriate as compared to the more common thematic coding approach for qualitative analysis, as the case studies were already arranged thematically by the prescribed structural set-up of the case study. It follows the principles advocated by Ritchie et al. (2013) in large-scale qualitative policy research in which the process of summarizing case study features promotes learnings and research insights about key trends and patterns. A process of classification was also applied to the organisational arrangements found in each case study at the enabling support environment and community service provider level. This involved developing typologies that covered the organisational forms described in the reports and then allocating the case studies within these groups.

The results of that classification process are presented in Chapter Five. The quantitative analysis sought to provide a descriptive statistical overview of key trends and patterns across the case studies in terms of the service levels reported via the household surveys and the financial costs reported in the case study reports. Basic descriptive analysis was also applied to the qualitative-quantitative data from the scoring tables related to participation, partnering and other institutional elements.

The precise tests used are presented in Table 4.9 later in this chapter.

In Phase 6.6 on the combined analysis, the emphasis was on data triangulation between the different analysis streams – a key strength of a mix-methods approach (Teddlie and Yu, 2007). For example, this means assessing whether the

qualitatively-defined organisational typologies had different quantitatively-assessed characteristics, such as financial cost sharing arrangements or service level outcomes. It also involves checking the empirical and theoretical-logical coherence of the findings from each form of analysis and using this to inform any interpretation of the findings. The interpretation of the findings and the conclusions drawn from the study have been shaped by the literature review chapters and, in particular, the comparison of the two sets of paradigmatic claims associated with community management and community management plus. In the main discussion of findings, presented in Chapter Seven, the author has sought to further develop institutionalised co-production (Joshi and Moore, 2004) as a key concept for explaining and interpreting the results. In summary, this section has described the author’s significant contribution to the broader Community Water Plus project through all phases of the research. It has then focused on the author’s primary and individual contribution to the design and implementation of the cross-case study analysis. Further details on the different stages of the methodology are presented throughout the remainder of this chapter.