3.3 Sources of data for case study research
3.3.2 Interviews
Face to face interviews formed the core research tool used for acquiring data regarding this study. They were regarded as a worthy tool for revealing the respondents’ views, opinions and interpretations regarding their organisation’s sustainability and in this way served as a mechanism for the explication of their mental models regarding this issue. Before such interviews were conducted, a sample had to be selected.
3.3.2.1 Selection of the research sample for interviews
Interviews were conducted with members of the Oxfam GB branches in Johannesburg and Pretoria. Organisational members who were closely acquainted with the issue of this NPO’s sustainability were the prime targets of such interviews. The sampling methods utilised to select
98 research participants were based on two types of Non-probability sampling known as Convenience and Judgemental sampling:
Convenience sampling is the selection of a sample (or a group of interviewees) on the basis of convenience and accessibility to the researcher (Lunsford & Lunsford, 1995). Thus, Oxfam GB members were selected due to the fact that they were in relatively close proximity to the researcher and because they were eager to engage in the research process and made themselves readily available to the researcher before, during and after the fieldwork.
The researcher’s desire to engage in this study with an international NPO with local branches, to investigate an NPO of sufficient size and complexity, and to engage with respondents who possessed a global and holistic perspective regarding non-profit organisational sustainability rendered a sample based also on Judgemental sampling methods. Judgemental sampling occurs when the researcher makes particular judgements about characteristics that the sample should possess and/or exhibit in order to contribute to “better” research (Lunsford & Lunsford, 1995) such as the ones mentioned above.
Both convenience and judgemental sampling methods however, introduce a great degree of researcher bias or subjectivity into the research since they are based on the researcher’s personal preferences or choice of a research sample (Lunsford & Lunsford, 1995). Thus, the researcher immediately influences the direction the research will take and the quality thereof, by making these choices. However, stating why they have selected the particular sampling strategy (as done here), will assist in acknowledging and thus, reducing the influence of this bias on the research process.
It was recognised that targeting only members of the Johannesburg and Durban branches of the Oxfam affiliate in SA would not reveal the overall dynamics at play in the sustainability of the whole Oxfam Confederation. However, this was the only viable option considering the time and resource constraints of the study.
Even though only members internal to the organisation were interviewed, while external stakeholders such as funders, government and corporate agencies, etc. were excluded, internal members were able to provide ample information regarding the dynamics between Oxfam and its external stakeholders. However, future studies may wish to address this limitation in order to
99 allow a more complete picture of the NPO’s sustainability in the context of its external stakeholder environment to be etched.
3.3.2.2 The Interview Schedule
The interview schedule (Appendix 2) was formulated by the researcher and did not use an existing template. This was due to the fact that the investigation of non-profit sustainability using a systems thinking approach was non-existent at the time of the study and therefore, no prior templates had been developed for this purpose. It was also a challenge to formulate questions that would be “systemic” in nature as there existed no guidelines as to how this should be done. However, interview questions were crafted in such a way so as to elicit from respondents as much information as possible on the variety of factors at play in the NPOs sustainability and the dynamics or relationships between such factors.
Interview questions were all open-ended meaning that they could not simply be answered with a yes or no reply, but required more in-depth and lengthier answers from the interviewees. This exemplified the qualitative and interpretive nature of this research as it attempted to understand the varying interpretations and perceptions held by key members regarding Oxfam’s sustainability. The open-ended nature of the questions also encouraged interviewees to reflect on the questions before providing their answers and provided the space for them to voice their personal insights regarding the area/s covered by the questions, as well as to point the researcher in the direction of relevant sources of data and/or other key informants. This was all conducive to the extraction of the mental models pivotal to the SD methodology as mentioned earlier. In addition, all interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for reference by the researcher after the interviews were concluded.
Although, the researcher formulated specific questions to be asked during the interviews, interviewees were allowed to digress from the questions asked when the researcher felt that such digressions could provide valuable information. Thus, the interview process was semi-structured and open to adaptations as the interview proceeded. This required the researcher to pay attention during the course of the interview at two levels (Yin, 2003, p. 90): firstly, to focus on the actual line of questioning as indicated by the interview schedule and secondly, to listen closely to what the respondents were saying so as to formulate follow-up questions when the circumstances warranted deeper exploration of what was revealed by the respondent. This enabled data to be obtained that moved beyond superficial answers to the questions in the interview schedule, to
100 responses of greater depth, meaning and consideration on the part of respondents. This kind of data was especially important when trying to identify the deeper lying feedbacks involved in the state of sustainability of the NPO. Thus, the interview schedule was an extremely beneficial and effective aid in contributing to learning about the sustainability of Oxfam GB.
The questions asked during the interviews were closely aligned with the objectives this study sought to achieve and the interview schedule was constructed with the purpose of answering the research questions. The table below indicates which interview questions in the schedule (Appendix 2) were meant to answer which research questions:
Table 3-3: Relationship between research questions and interview questions
Research question one:
How does the Oxfam GB affiliate in SA define ‘sustainability’?
1) How would you define ‘sustainability’
generally?
2) How would you define sustainability from a non-profit organisational perspective or context?
3) In what way is non-profit sustainability different from the sustainability of conventional businesses or enterprises?
4) How is it alike?
5) Is there something unique to your understanding of the concept of sustainability that is not included in the normal conception of it? If so, elaborate.
6) What factors inside your organisation influence its sustainability?
7) What factors from outside the organisation
101 Research Question 2:
What factors impact the sustainability of the Oxfam GB affiliate in SA?
influence its sustainability?
8) Your organisation is a single branch of an international network…how does this setup impact your sustainability…does it support your sustainability or hinder it, or both, and how so?
9) Are there any historical factors that support or hinder the sustainability of your organisation? If so, what are they?
10) Describe any global/international factors that support or hinder the sustainability of your organisation?
11) What are some of the factors unique to your domestic environment that influences the sustainability of your organisation?
12) Rate these factors (as identified above) in order of most to least important in terms of their impact on the sustainability of your organisation.
Research Question 3:
How do these factors influence each other in impacting the sustainability of the Oxfam GB affiliate in SA?
13) You have identified a number of factors earlier as impacting the sustainability of the NPO…are these factors linked, do they influence one another?
If yes, how so? If no, why do you think so?
How do these factors influence one another to influence the overall sustainability of your organisation?
14) Why do you think these factors are linked?
15) Do you think that the sustainability of your
102 organisation depends on any one single factor, or multiple factors, mentioned earlier?
Which one/s?
Explain why.
Research Question 4:
How does the complex environment in which the Oxfam GB affiliate in SA is embedded influence the functioning of such an organisation?
16) Your organisation is embedded in an
‘environment’ that refers to everything outside of your organisation, but that nevertheless influences your organisation’s sustainability.
If you had to define such an ‘environment’ in the context of your own organisation, what would it consist of?
17) What are some of the things from this environment that influences the sustainability of your organisation?
18) Does your organisation exert any influence over this environment? How so?
Why do you think so?
19) What would an ‘enabling’ environment or an environment that promotes the sustainability of your organisation look like?
20) What is the biggest environmental challenge to your sustainability? Why do you think this is so?
21) Your organisation is the domestic unit of an international NPO.
How does this influence your operations?
How does it influence the funding you receive/
What kind of funding model has this created for your organisation?
103 How does this influence the manner in which you use this funding?
22) Are you often awarded funding or grants that provide the resources for a project, but do not cover the operational costs (water, electricity, rent, equipment costs, petrol, etc.) of such a project?
How do you feel about this?
Does it influence the success of the project in any way? How so?
Does it create any dilemmas or difficulties with regard to the project/s, or for your organisation?
How does this issue influence your organisation’s overall sustainability?
Are you satisfied with this state of affairs? If not, what do you believe should rather be done?
Research Question 5:
What lessons can we derive from the examination of the sustainability of the Oxfam GB affiliate in SA, through a SD framework?
This question was answered by the researcher once the SD methodology was applied to the data acquired from the interviews and the analysis of existing documentation and archival data. Therefore, it was not a question for the research participants themselves.
104 3.3.2.3 The Pilot interview
A pilot interview is an interview that is conducted with an interviewee or respondent, or multiple interviewees or respondents, that will not be part of the final sample of people to be interviewed.
The purpose is to gauge the effectiveness of the interview in eliciting the appropriate information from the interviewee. It also serves as a mean of assessing the interviewees’ level of understanding of the interview questions, as well as picking up on any apprehensions they may demonstrate towards particular questions. Challenges in understanding the questions, or apprehensions towards answering them, will prompt the researcher to adjust the problematic interview question so that it may be more easily comprehended by the interviewee, or they may decide to remove it altogether if there is no way to do this. These adjustments, revisions and/or omissions are facilitated by the feedback the pilot interviewee provides to the researcher, as well as any observations on the part of the interviewer. For instance, if during the course of questioning the interviewee, the interviewer notices that they are uncomfortable, or apprehensive about answering a particular question, they may explore why the interviewee feels this way and discuss how the question can be changed to elicit a better response rate. Thus engaging in the process of conducting pilot interviews is of crucial significance in the fieldwork process, especially when interviews are the main source of data collection as was the case with this study.
The iterative process of conducting the pilot interview, receiving feedback from the interviewee and adjusting the interview schedule accordingly can contribute to an interview schedule that is more effective in eliciting vital data, thus strengthening the research as a whole.
With regard to the pilot interviews conducted in this study, most questions were understood by the pilot respondents. Some suggested that the interview schedule was too long, in response to which it was shortened. There were also some areas which they felt were not adequately covered in the schedule, such as the dynamic created by funding provided only for projects without recognition of operational costs. Therefore, questions of this nature were then added in.
There were a few Systems Thinking concepts that arose through conversation with the interviewer (ancillary to the interview schedule, but not included in it) that had to be clarified, especially since the respondents were not familiar with such terminology. This was explained in the course of the interviews. Concepts specific to SD were not utilised in the interview schedule so as to avoid confusing the respondents. This did not hinder the discoveries emanating from the interview process as the researcher was focused more on identifying the factors at play in the
105 organisation’s sustainability and the feedback relationships between them, for which it was not necessary to use systems thinking or SD-specific concepts.