Time scale of the study

The findings are shown through three action research cycles. The research study was conducted through three cycles with different durations that occurred between October 2010 and July 2012. The first cycle of the study covers the foundation/groundwork of social impact measurement within Norcare. The first cycle covers the period of October 2010 (when the research started) to July 2011, when the first outcomes report was produced internally for Board meetings. Cycle one reflected on the initial plans and the start of the researcher within the system, finding starting points and negotiating the study with the case organisation. The first part of cycle one occurred in a period of October 2010 until January 2011, the time when the project reached the agreed point on actions towards a process of social impact measurement. Cycle one as the first step influenced the further research process (Wicks and Reason, 2009). Wicks and Reason (2009) refer to this stage as ‘opening up the communicative space’ where difficulties encountered in encouraging open communication, participation and engagement will be

102

highlighted. This cycle helped by identifying the resources and finally initiated a list of actions based on the problem identification and the objectives of development of social impact measurement system within the case organisation.

Cycle two represented work in progress based on revised plans as well as new plans as a consequence of the events in cycle one. Cycle two addresses the time frame between August 2011 and December 2011. Cycle two ended in December 2011 because the organisation decided after review to introduce a new structure and the addition of a new joint partnership that would influence the outcome measurement work. This cycle included redefining and developing the framework for capturing outcomes for reporting purposes. The last cycle (cycle three) included an interval of six months (January 2012 to June 2012) that took place to produce the first outcomes report for external

stakeholders. Dick (2002) suggested that based on the results of earlier cycles, including both data collect and literature review, the researcher can challenge the information and interpret them in later cycles. Through the process, the participants refined their

understanding of the situation of the study. 3.8 Summary of the chapter

This chapter has presented an insider action research as the chosen methodology for the investigation of the development and implementation of social impact measurement within the case organisation. The core principles of an action research methodology are relevant to this study, i.e., action research integrates research and action and investigates innovation by a collaborative partnership of participants and researchers. It involves the development of knowledge and understanding of a unique kind that involves

exploratory engagement with a wide range of existing knowledge.

Multiple methods have been used in order to gather results that provide in-depth insight and analysis of the case organisation. The particular methods have been chosen to address the reliability and validity threats and overcome any data access limitations. The instruments of multiple collection help the research achieve triangulation of the data that includes a well-rounded view of the study from a variety of perspectives.

The chapter has defined the theoretical action research approach and the variety of methods that provide a methodical structure for implementing and analysing the process

103

of change and development of social impact measurement and the production of social accounts through systematic and conscious data collection, data analysis and reflection. The chapter describes the participants of the current study, those involved in the present study, the researcher (myself) and the case organisation (Norcare) and their role and function. The author’s intention was to identify the main participants and each

individual role and interest within the current research setting. Thus the chapter briefly included the role of the key actors in the research study described within the case organisation Norcare. The chapter also emphasised how the study was conducted in the format of the time sequence of the current study and the rationale for choosing to include the three action research cycles within the study. Therefore, all the

characteristics of the action research method were incorporated and involved within the project and organisation over the 22 month period. The period from October 2010 to July 2012 served as a time boundary for the current research. Presentation of the

findings follows the timeline represented in the next section of the thesis. The next three chapters explore the various events and actions that occurred over the period of the study in regard to developing the practice of social impact measurement in Norcare. Furthermore, the chapter identified and described the role of the participants in the research process including the researcher as an insider and the key roles within the case organisation.

The following section provides an account of the three action research cycles. The focus is on the development of social impact measurement and social accounts, through the case organisation and the author’s experience with action research and reflection. The next chapter will investigate the background of the case organisation in detail and their involvement in social impact measurement development.

104

Section C: Development and practice of social impact measurement

in Norcare

105 Introduction to section C:

Knowledge gained through people’s lived experiences and aims to empower the organisation to produce future knowledge and action that will benefit them directly in the short and long term (Reason and Bradbury, 2001). Fieldwork is usually undertaken to address a specific research question in a particular situation that each may be unique and not able to be repeated. Action research requires a problem focus and a change orientation and in reality the whole action research process involves the complexity of multiple activities accruing during the research process. Therefore, there are ongoing challenges of fundamental conflicts of interest and perspectives in relation to the issue of power in a project (McSweeney, 2000).

I remained with the organisation for over a two-year, observing and participating in real-life situations. The situation of my involvement into Norcare; the unusually powerful position of the new appointed management team and support of the project; my strong motivation to conduct the research and becoming closely involved in the project resulted in quit beneficial engagements for both parties. These arrangements had advantages and positive outcome for the organisation and me in order to finalising my thesis.

This study conducted a two years field experiment that was designed to examine how the social impact/outcome measurement (social accounting) could be developed to evaluate a third sector organisation such as Norcare by an integration of theory and practice. In addition, how a social accounting framework is implemented and what dimensions of accountability are involved within an organisation engaged in social impact measurement. Additionally the organisation’s stakeholders may have an

intangible influence on social accountability within this context. This study focused on issues in nonprofits setting. This fieldwork research is representative of a growing segment of social accounting demand and identified barriers to the practice of and links to the theory of accountability which seeks to change not just the social setting in which the nonprofits exist, but the larger society.

106 Establishing contact: meeting the participants

The research study started officially in October 2010 and I had the opportunity to have an introductory session with the Head of Quality Assurance14 and recently appointed Information Officer. These members of staff were responsible for the project and they were my direct contacts during the project.

In an attempt to establish communication and gain access to the case organisation during October 2010 to January 2011, the main objective was to learn as much as possible about the participant as well as the factors underlying their practice of social impact measurement. In order to engage with the organisation, the starting point for me was to develop an understanding of Norcare and the story of the experience and

reflection of the journey of social impact measurement by liaising with and

understanding the perspective of staff. I applied participant observation to gain the required knowledge.

My plan of action was to participate in as many meetings as I could to gain as much information as possible from Norcare in regards to their organisational environment and staff to overcome the challenge of being accepted as an insider prior to the research study. On top of all the attended activities and meetings, individual meetings were arranged to meet all the staff that were to be involved in the research study, such as the Chief Executive, Service Improvement Manager and Performance and Needs Analyst. At this stage, I did not have full access to investigate inside the organisation. Thus, the information was limited to my observations from my participation in meetings,

informal/unstructured interviews with participants, and limited access to the organisational documents.

In this study due to the involvement of Norcare before the execution of project activities, there was considerable preplanning (diagnosing) and management had already decided that extensive changes were required. Therefore, the issue for Norcare was not whether changes were required, but how much change and which changes. The initial objectives were agreed with the ‘Head of Quality Assurance’ and the

‘Information Officer’ in line with my overall research objectives as the following topics:

107

a) Informed understanding of the organisation’s system and its potential benefit which may improve Norcare’s future performance.

b) Linking the social objective into strategic planning and establishing social accounting as codes of practice.

c) Developing a management information system that includes social impact measurement as its main measurement indicators.

d) Research the potential of employing the developed system for other similar organisations.

e) Investigating the link and possibility of integrating the Quality Assurance

Framework (QAF) external auditing of performance and social impact measurement. The whole process was informed by underlying theories related to the research and it was the interaction between theory and practical action that provided the interactive to undertaken improvement. The dynamic relationship between theory and practice was the essential requirement during the course of the project.

The action part of the project started during January 2011, when the project reached the agreed point on action towards a process of developing the practice of social impact measurement and producing the outcomes report through social accounting.

Layout of the section C: This section was designed around three cycles of action research each ranging from six to eight months per cycle, the research took place from October 2010 to July 2012. The work was undertaken using the action research

framework described in chapter 3. Planning (Figure 9) for each cycle of the study was measured by the progress against the steps in social accounting (Pearce and Kay, 2008): step 1: Understanding process (Background study); step 2: What difference do we want to make? (Organisational Mission Clarity); step 3: How do we know we are making a difference? (Data Collection); step 4: What is the difference we are making? (Analysis and Draft Accounts); and Step 5: Can we prove that we made a difference? (Audit). During cycle one the main focus was on step one and two and all the underlying issues that influence the outcome of this stage of a social account. Cycle one served as

groundwork and the action planning cycle for the research study. The actions from cycle one were integrated within the overall plan for cycle two. Cycle one included access to the organisation and served to establish contact early in the research during the summer

108

of 2010. Cycle one continued with a study of the history and background of how social impact measurement had been initiated within the organisation.

Cycle two, the action taking cycle, occurred when the scheduled plans developed in cycle one were implemented. The second cycle was also a period of development for the framework for outcomes reporting that reflected on the results generated in cycle one. Step three of the social accounting process mapping occurred within the timeline of cycle two and was followed by step four occurring during cycle three.

The third cycle was the final stage and this occurred over a six-month period to July 2012 during which the overall results were evaluated and the resulting learning was consolidated. During this time the first outcomes report was published for all external stakeholders. The end of cycle three also marked the end of the research period.

However, step five of the social accounting frame did not occur within the scope of the current study timeline (Figure 9).

109

Figure 9- Three action research cycles overview within the study timescale

Figure 9 describes the sequence of three action research cycles within the study timescale and follows the social accounting process mapping (Pearce and Kay, 2008).

110

As the findings are shaped in three cycles of action research, section C will be presented in three chapters as follow:

 Chapter 4: Cycle one