CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

• 3.1 - Research Design
• 3.2 - Participants
• 3.3 - Procedures
• 3.4 - Treatment of Data
• 3.5 - Limitations
  

3.1: RESEARCH DESIGN (back to top)

This is a qualitative study with exploratory and descriptive research.  A face-to-face interview design with open-ended questions was used to assemble primary data and to effectively address the research questions.  The dialoging nature of interviews allowed researcher to probe more thoroughly, and discover factors that may have been left out in a survey design.

The researcher is fluent in Turkish and English, familiar with both Turkish and American cultures and knowledgeable regarding the historical and social context of nonprofit organizations in Turkey and the United States.  She, therefore, was able to provide a safe and supportive space for the subjects to describe their experience with Community Volunteers Foundation and their observations regarding its growth. 


3.2: PARTICIPANTS (back to top)

The data for this research was gathered from the organization’s past and present stakeholders who consist of founders, trustees, board members, staff and supporters (donors, volunteers, partners, etc.) as well as other community leaders in Turkey. An eligibility criterion was established and used to find suitable stakeholders that could be subjects to participate in this study.  Access to stakeholders was achieved through introductions from either the Executive Director or the Chairman of Community Volunteers Foundation, and 21 subjects were interviewed in person.  

As this is evaluation research, the subjects’ background and experience with the organization were vital to the study.  Participants, therefore, were chosen among (1) those who have been involved with the organization since its first two years of existence; (2) those who have been engaged in the organization for at least three years; and (3) those who have taken on a minimum of two different roles and engaged with the organization in various capacities. This selection provided the research with a comparative perspective over time for performance and a better understanding of milestones for a successful transition from start-up to maturity stage.

Diversity of age, gender, role, and contribution level were also considered in the selection of interview subjects.


3.3: PROCEDURES (back to top)

The researcher wrote the initial questionnaire in English and then translated it to Turkish.  The Chairman as well as the Executive Director reviewed it for content and appropriateness for its constituents.  They also volunteered to take the test interviews.  The researcher then revised the interview questions based on the feedback she received from them.  This resulted in a shorter and more focused interview tool.  Once the questionnaire was finalized, scheduling with prospective subjects started.

The subject pool was formed by the recommendations of the Chairman and Executive Director based on the researcher’s criteria for eligibility.  Subjects were contacted via introductory phone call or electronic mail correspondence with a follow-up phone call.  If they refused to participate, they were thanked for their consideration and response.  If they agreed to participate, an appointment was made for the interview.

Interviews were mostly conducted at the headquarters of the organization, and occasionally at another location, as was convenient for the subjects.  A consent form was signed by all participants prior to the start of the interviews.

The interview tool consisted of two parts: (1) standard questions that were asked to all participants and (2) list of specific topics and key words that were discussed based on the involvement level of subjects.   Each interview was recorded using a digital audio recorder, and notes were also taken during the meeting.  In the course of data analysis, when new questions arose or clarifications became necessary, participants were re-contacted and re-interviewed by email and phone, as was convenient for them.

In addition to the interview data, the researcher collected collateral information from the organization, such as annual reports, brochures, and press releases.  Furthermore, external perceptions about the organization were gathered through media search to substantiate the observations of individual subjects and provide neutral or contrasting perspectives. 


3.4: TREATMENT OF DATA (back to top)

The interview questions were designed to determine the elements that contributed to the early-stage growth of Community Volunteers Foundation and to identify the challenges that were faced during this transitionary period.  Data was analyzed to search for common themes as signified by consistent responses among the variety of participants and the use of similar words and phrases.  The anecdotes as well as examples used by the participants were included in the analysis and grouped with the most fitting concepts.  The researcher developed a key word based coding protocol to provide further consistency and reliability.

Following the interview, the data gathered was transcribed from the audio recordings, and notes taken during the interview were reviewed.  The researcher played each of the audios several times, listening for pertinent themes.  Raw data was processed through open, axial, and selective coding.  Tables and figures were utilized for processing.

The researcher’s involvement with this organization in 2002-2003 gives her first-hand knowledge and insights regarding the organization’s initial founding stage.  The researcher feels comfortable incorporating her personal observations and perspective in an unbiased manner since she has not been actively engaged with Community Volunteers Foundation after relocating to the Bay Area in 2003.  Her background and experience with nonprofit organizations in the United States and in Turkey create an opportunity for a comparative perspective.


3.5: LIMITATIONS (back to top)

This study is limited in that the sample was not randomly chosen, and it is not representative of the general population.  Therefore, the findings reported in this study may not represent all constituents’ experience.  Furthermore, the sample is demographically and geographically biased, and it is too small to reach any definitive conclusions.

Although the questions were phrased in such a way as to gain empirical information, it is possible that the interview questions would be perceived differently based on the background as well as involvement level of the subjects so as to bias the responses.  Similarly, there might have been a tendency to embellish as the study was reliant on self reporting on the interviewees’ part.

Another limitation to the study is that translating the data from another language and coding it based on subjective interpretations may have caused a loss of information and misclassification of findings.  These, however, should be viewed within scientific errors of margin.

Finally, this study uncovers qualitative data through analyzing emerging patterns and themes.  Thus, the results only provide a base for future empirical research rather than a strong statistical analysis.