Written material

After identifying the sample I collected the written material I was to analyse. At this point I had not planned to conduct interviews. Therefore, my initial contact with the

organizations was only a request for access to written material. I sent emails to the FBOs presenting the research project and myself. The emails were forwarded to individuals within the organizations who worked with aid management. These were the ones who responded to my email and who provided me with the written material I needed. I had initial meetings with representatives of four organizations – NLM, NMA, Y Global and NCA. In the case of NMS, whose office is in Stavanger, I informed about the project through email correspondence.

The basic documents are documents in which the organizations present themselves and their work – to their members, supporters and donors. The organizations have different kinds of basic documents, both in terms of topics covered and in terms of volume. To be able to compare the different organizations basic documents I had to limit my sample and identify documents that 1) address the organization as a whole, such as principle

documents and statutes, and 2) documents that address the organizations development work, such as strategies, program documents and/or diakonial documents.

Although these documents have been written at different times, they were all valid at the time of the analysis. Initially I viewed the difference in document types and volume as a barrier for comparison, but as I proceeded I understood that this variety also reflects the differences between the FBO’s and therefore becomes a part of the analysis.

The basic documents are interesting because they are the formal documents in which the organizations describe who they are and what they do. I assume that these documents are the result of internal processes within the organizations and thus what is emphasized in the documents can help us understand how the organizations view themselves as an FBO. The focus of these documents in terms of target groups is often both internal and external, but there are variations between the organizations. Some basic documents are more accessible than others. Still, I regard the basic documents as first and foremost being written for the organizations themselves.

The annual reports from the FBO’s were sent from the organizations in 2012 and they all report on the activities conducted in 2011. At the time, not all organizations had

completed their 2012 reports. Therefore the focus is on the reports from the year before. What can be seen to constitute a challenge is that the reporting is conducted in different formats. In terms of volume the reports range from a 10-page report from a mission organization to a 90-page report from the Norwegian Church Aid. In terms of the type of reports, the NLM, NMS and NMA send organizational reports to Digni, which in turn reports to Norad on the activities of their members. The NCA and Y Global report directly to Norad, but while NCA reports on the activities of the entire organization, Y Global reports only on their Norad-funded projects. Although this, in a research

perspective, can be seen as a challenge, this variety in ways of reporting is a part of the FBO heterogeneity that I am exploring. Similarly to my perspective on the basic

documents, I viewed this not variety not as a methodological barrier, but as just another factor in the study of Norwegian FBOs and their relationship to Norad.

Why are the annual donor reports interesting to me? First of all, these reports represent one stage in the upward communication in the aid system. The reports are written for the donor. It is through these reports that the FBOs communicate the results of their

organizations projects to their donors (either directly to Norad or through Digni). The reports, together with applications for funding, represent a majority of the formal

communication between the FBO’s and their donor(s). Thus, as I wanted to research the FBO-Norad relation, the reports were a natural source of material.

Some view an organization’s written materials as “windows into social and

organizational realities” (Bryman 2012:554). They reveal something about an underlying reality. Others would argue that the documents are a distinct level of reality in their own right. That they should be examined in terms of the context they were produced and their implied readership. “They are written to convey an impression” (Atkinson and Coffey 2011, in Bryman 2012). Both views are interesting. In the case of the reports to Norad it is obvious that the implied readership influences the documents and how the FBOs present themselves. I assume that in the basic documents, the identity of the FBOs is reflected differently. Still, either as windows to a reality or a distinct reality in their own right, the documents cannot say all there is about the organizations. But they can

definitely provide us with interesting insight.

For the analysis of the written material I applied traditional qualitative content analysis where coding is a central process (Bryman 2012:557,568). From my research questions I already had two main codes: Identity and relation. In addition, related to identity, was the code added value. As I went along I found that the concepts of mission and diakonia were central to the FBO’s understanding of their faith base. Therefor these codes were given much attention, especially in the analysis of the basic documents.