Education, Faculty of
DSpace
UBCV
Cunningham-Dunlop, Catherine
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
University of British Columbia
The research problem that this study addresses is two-fold. First, the persistance of poverty gives rise to a real world concern for improving the effectiveness of international development efforts. To address the link between the alleviation of poverty, adult education, and a grass-roots approach, this study focuses on planning within an organization that offers adult education programs overseas, specifically a nongovernmental organization (NGO). An understanding of the dynamics of planning in such an NGO will help in articulating more effective approaches to planning practice in international development. The second aspect of the research problem is that the relationship between the planning process and the planning context seems not to have been fully explored in the literature on adult education program planning. There is a need for a more complete set of analytical tools that captures the complexities of planning and sheds light on the relationship between the planning context and the planning process. The purpose of this dissertation is to address the main theoretical question raised by the research problem: How do nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) plan so as to maintain themselves and be effective given the pressures on them? This theoretical question was investigated through a case study method, specifically ethnography. Ethnographic fieldwork, which included seventeen months of participant observation, twenty-five interviews, and document analysis, was carried out at an NGO, refered to here by the pseudonym of "Global Faith." The conceptual framework developed in this dissertation builds on the negotiation approach to planning. The first part of the conceptual framework links two strands of research: leadership theory and negotiation theory. Through this juxtaposition, I was able to examine the process of planning in a new light - as the negotiation of meaning. The second part of the framework shows how a deeper understanding of the context of planning is accomplished by applying a subjectivist, multi- perspective approach to analyzing cultures in organizations. This approach - which incorporates the integration perspective, the differentiation perspective, and the fragmentation perspective was used to see Global Faith cultures in three different ways. These same ways of viewing culture at Global Faith were matched with the varying interpretations held by staff members in order to characterize the cultural contexts for specific episodes of planning involving the negotiation of meaning. The findings show that by including the negotiation of meaning in planning activities, Global Faith is able to motivate staff and deal effectively with confusing requirements, conflicting expectations, and diverse demands that they face in their interactions with CIDA, general public donors, the Board of Directors, and overseas partner organizations. There is a recursive relationship between planning processes involving the negotiation of meaning and Global Faith cultures whereby the cultures are both precursors and products of negotiation of meaning episodes.
16575051 bytes
application/pdf
THE NEGOTIATION OF MEANING: AN ETHNOGRAPHY OF PLANNING IN A NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION by C a t h e r i n e Grace Cunningham-Dunlop B.A. (High Honours), Middlebury C o l l e g e , 1982 M.Sc, The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1986 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of E d u c a t i o n a l S t u d i e s We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard . /> THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1997 Ca t h e r i n e Grace Cunningham-Dunlop, 1997 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT The research problem that t h i s study addresses i s two-fold. F i r s t , the p e r s i s t a n c e of poverty gives r i s e to a r e a l world concern f o r improving the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l development e f f o r t s . To address the l i n k between the a l l e v i a t i o n of poverty, adult education, and a grass-roots approach, t h i s study focuses on planning w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n that o f f e r s a d u l t education programs overseas, s p e c i f i c a l l y a non-governmental o r g a n i z a t i o n (NGO). An understanding of the dynamics of p l a n n i n g i n such an NGO w i l l help i n a r t i c u l a t i n g more e f f e c t i v e approaches to planning p r a c t i c e i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l development. The second aspect of the research problem i s that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the planning process and the planning context seems not to have been f u l l y explored i n the l i t e r a t u r e on a d u l t education program planning. There i s a need f o r a more complete set of a n a l y t i c a l t o o l s that captures the c o m p l e x i t i e s of planning and sheds l i g h t on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the planning context and the planning process. The purpose of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s to address the main t h e o r e t i c a l question r a i s e d by the research problem: How do non-governmental o r g a n i z a t i o n s (NGOs) plan so as to maintain themselves and be e f f e c t i v e given the pressures on them? This t h e o r e t i c a l question was i n v e s t i g a t e d through a case study method, s p e c i f i c a l l y ethnography. Ethnographic f i e l d w o r k , which i n c l u d e d seventeen months of p a r t i c i p a n t observation, t w e n t y - f i v e i n t e r v i e w s , and document a n a l y s i s , was c a r r i e d out at an NGO, r e f e r e d to here by the pseudonym of "Global F a i t h . " i i The conceptual framework developed i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n b u i l d s on the n e g o t i a t i o n approach to planning. The f i r s t p a r t of the conceptual framework l i n k s two strands of research: l e a d e r s h i p theory and n e g o t i a t i o n theory. Through t h i s j u x t a p o s i t i o n , I was able to examine the process of pla n n i n g i n a new l i g h t - as the n e g o t i a t i o n of meaning. The second part of the framework shows how a deeper understanding of the context of plan n i n g i s accomplished by applying a s u b j e c t i v i s t , m u l t i -p e r s p e c t i v e approach to an a l y z i n g c u l t u r e s i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . This approach - which incorporates the i n t e g r a t i o n p e r s p e c t i v e , the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n p e r s p e c t i v e , and the fragmentation p e r s p e c t i v e -was used to see Global F a i t h c u l t u r e s i n three d i f f e r e n t ways. These same ways of viewing c u l t u r e at Global F a i t h were matched w i t h the v a r y i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s held by s t a f f members i n order to c h a r a c t e r i z e the c u l t u r a l contexts f o r s p e c i f i c episodes of planning i n v o l v i n g the n e g o t i a t i o n of meaning. The f i n d i n g s show that by i n c l u d i n g the n e g o t i a t i o n of meaning i n planning a c t i v i t i e s , Global F a i t h i s able to motivate s t a f f and deal e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h confusing requirements, c o n f l i c t i n g expectations, and di v e r s e demands that they face i n t h e i r i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h CIDA, general p u b l i c donors, the Board of D i r e c t o r s , and overseas partner o r g a n i z a t i o n s . There i s a r e c u r s i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between planning processes i n v o l v i n g the n e g o t i a t i o n of meaning and Global F a i t h c u l t u r e s whereby the c u l t u r e s are both precursors and products of n e g o t i a t i o n of meaning episodes. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v i LIST OF FIGURES v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i i CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 The Problem Statement 5 Research Purpose and S i g n i f i c a n c e 21 Research Questions 2 2 O r g a n i z a t i o n of the D i s s e r t a t i o n 2 7 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK . . 2 9 L i t e r a t u r e Review: Planning, Context, and Consequence 3 0 Conceptual Framework 5 8 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 85 An Ethnographic Approach 85 Where S e l f and Subject J o i n 8 9 P i l o t Study and S e l e c t i o n of Research S i t e . . . . . . 100 N e g o t i a t i n g Access 101 A Fishbowl of Roles 109 Data C o l l e c t i o n and A n a l y s i s 122 W r i t i n g the Ethnography 143 A d d r e s s i n g T r u s t w o r t h i n e s s C r i t e r i a 144 L e a r n i n g from the Outside In 154 CHAPTER FOUR: THE PUBLIC SHELL 157 Good Works or God's Work? 157 A Tour: There's no Pl a c e L i k e Home 161 Meat and Potatoes 167 Beyond the S h e l l 171 CHAPTER FIVE: THE CORRIDORS OF COMMITMENT 172 Going Back i n H i s t o r y 172 A C h r i s t i a n Ideology 176 From P r a y i n g to Pl a n n i n g 184 F u n d r a i s i n g : An I n d u s t r y and a M i n i s t r y 192 E x t e r n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s 200 What Makes Them T i c k ? 212 CHAPTER SIX: THE INNER SANCTUM 214 A C o l l a g e of People 214 The Workings of the Peg Board 238 A View from the I n s i d e 247 i v CHAPTER SEVEN: GLOBAL FAITH CULTURES AND THE NEGOTIATION OF MEANING 2 4 9 A C u l t u r a l P u z z l e 2 5 0 The N e g o t i a t i o n of Meaning a t G l o b a l F a i t h 2 6 9 Comparison and A n a l y s i s 3 2 7 CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND LIMITATIONS . 3 3 6 Summary of the Study 3 3 6 Summary of R e s u l t s 3 3 9 C o n t r i b u t i o n s to Knowledge 3 4 1 I m p l i c a t i o n s 3 4 2 L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study 3 4 8 Suggestions f o r F u r t h e r Research 3 5 0 C o n c l u d i n g Remarks 3 5 1 REFERENCES 3 5 2 APPENDIX 3 6 2 v LIST OF TABLES Page Tabl e 2.1: D e f i n i n g P l a n n i n g i n A d u l t E d u c a t i o n 33 Tabl e 3.1: Record of Interviews 131 Tabl e 7.1: M a n i f e s t a t i o n s of G l o b a l F a i t h C u l t u r e s - Autonomy Themes 254 Tabl e 7.2: M a n i f e s t a t i o n s of G l o b a l F a i t h C u l t u r e s - A l t r u i s m Themes 255 Tabl e 7.3: M a n i f e s t a t i o n s of G l o b a l F a i t h C u l t u r e s - Cooperation Themes 256 Table 7.4: M a n i f e s t a t i o n s of G l o b a l F a i t h C u l t u r e s - P a r t i c i p a t i o n Themes 257 Tabl e 7.5: M a n i f e s t a t i o n s of G l o b a l F a i t h C u l t u r e s - E f f i c i e n c y Themes 258 v i LIST OF FIGURES Page F i g u r e 2.1: Framework f o r Understanding N e g o t i a t i o n of Meaning Episodes 75 F i g u r e 2.2: M a r t i n ' s M a t r i x Framework f o r Understanding C u l t u r e s 80 F i g u r e 3.1: G l o b a l F a i t h O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Chart 13 0 v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The process of c r e a t i n g a d i s s e r t a t i o n i s long and slow and t h i s one has been e s p e c i a l l y so. I am g r a t e f u l to the members of my Research Committee f o r t h e i r patience over the years and f o r t h e i r a b i l i t y to s u s t a i n a high l e v e l of i n t e r e s t i n t h i s work. S p e c i f i c a l l y , I would l i k e to thank Dr. Thomas J . Sork, my Research Supervisor, f o r h e l p i n g me to explore what I wanted t o know by remaining open-minded, e n t h u s i a s t i c , and c o n s i s t e n t l y supportive. I would a l s o l i k e to thank Dr. A l l i s o n Tom f o r h e l p i n g me to see what I already knew by p o i n t i n g out my own bl i n d s p o t s and by p r o v i d i n g guidance throughout the ethnographic f i e l d w o r k . F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank Professor Peter Boothroyd f o r h e l p i n g me to a r t i c u l a t e what I saw by asking i n s i g h t f u l questions and p r o v i d i n g c o n s t r u c t i v e suggestions. I am a l s o g r a t e f u l to the people of "Global F a i t h " f o r g i v i n g me access to t h e i r world. Their p a r t i c i p a t i o n made t h i s research both p o s s i b l e and i n t e r e s t i n g . In p a r t i c u l a r , I would l i k e to thank "Richard" f o r i n i t i a l l y suggesting to h i s colleagues that I be allowed to c a r r y out research at Global F a i t h and a l s o "Gerald" f o r h i s w i l l i n g n e s s to s i t down and t a l k and share h i s own sense of meaning wi t h me. My f r i e n d s have been very supportive throughout the l i f e of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . I would l i k e to thank K e l l e e n , Heather, Frances, Sandra, Monica, Tamiko, Pauline, and Marina - f o r p a t i e n t l y asking and l i s t e n i n g and encouraging. An a d d i t i o n a l thank-you i s extended to Jim and Ke l l e e n f o r h e l p i n g w i t h our v i i i c h i l d r e n and unruly computers and to Heather f o r l a t e night v i s i t s w i t h coffee and t r e a t s . I would a l s o l i k e to thank the care g i v e r s of our c h i l d r e n - e s p e c i a l l y , Grandma K e l l y and Tanya. Knowing that our boys were safe and happy i n t h e i r care gave me peace of mind and the space to concentrate. I am a l s o g r a t e f u l to M i l a and Joan f o r h e l p i n g so much during the f i n a l and most s t r e s s f u l stages. My f a m i l y near and f a r has proven to be an i d e a l c heerleading team. A l l the good wishes, words of wisdom, ca s s e r o l e s and phone c a l l s helped enormously. Thank you Gramma, Mom, Dad, C h r i s , Annie, and Janet. And to our b e a u t i f u l three sons - Geordie, Graeme, and Dylan - thank you f o r the constant joy you b r i n g . F i n a l l y , to my husband, George Kennedy, t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i dedicated to you. You gave me your steady and strong support on our climb up the c l i f f t r a i l to Namche Bazaar i n Nepal a l l those years ago. I f e l t the same support throughout t h i s Ph.D. journey Thank you f o r your constant l o y a l t y , your sunshine smile, and your f a i t h that we would a l l come through t h i s i n one p i e c e . You w i l l always be my f a v o r i t e n e g o t i a t i n g partner. i x CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION This i s the context i n which i n t e r n a t i o n a l NGOs [non-governmental organizations] operate. The dilemmas i n t e g r a l to vo l u n t a r y agencies are c r i t i c a l to the i n t e r n a t i o n a l NGOs. Questions of mandate, of relevance, of independence - e s s e n t i a l l y questions about whose i n t e r e s t s are u l t i m a t e l y served by the a c t i v i t y of the NGOs and how w e l l these i n t e r e s t s are served - a l l begin here .... (Murphy, 1991, p.168) To p l a n i s to hope. We make plans today w i t h the hope that tomorrow our expectations w i l l be r e a l i z e d . We b e l i e v e that our present a c t i o n s and d e c i s i o n s can a f f e c t the course of f u t u r e events. Somehow, somewhere, something w i l l be p o s i t i v e l y transformed as a r e s u l t of our planning e f f o r t s . We do not e n v i s i o n the fu t u r e as a pre-determined scenario imposed upon us, d i c t a t i n g our de s t i n y . Rather, as planning c r e a t u r e s , we c l a i m authorship of our own s t o r i e s . While the concept of planning i m p l i e s hope and a c t i o n , numerous planning attempts have r e s u l t e d i n j u s t the opposite. Cynicism and p a s s i v i t y are the remnants of many w e l l - i n t e n d e d plans, e s p e c i a l l y i n the f i e l d of i n t e r n a t i o n a l development. A f t e r more than 30 years of development a s s i s t a n c e from c o u n t r i e s i n the North to those i n the South, widespread poverty continues to e x i s t . 1 Mistakes have been repeated over and over again and the people who were intended to b e n e f i t from i n t e r n a t i o n a l 1 According to the World Development Report ( I n t e r n a t i o n a l Bank f o r Reconstruction and Development, 1990), "more than one b i l l i o n people i n the developing world are l i v i n g i n poverty....Progress,...however welcome, must not d i s t r a c t a t t e n t i o n from t h i s massive and con t i n u i n g burden" ( p . l ) . 1 development e f f o r t s have not b e n e f i t e d as much as had been hoped (Drabek, 1987). My own experience l i v i n g and working i n r u r a l Nepal i n the l a t e 1980s taught me that there are as many approaches to i n t e r n a t i o n a l development work as there are types of o r g a n i z a t i o n s funding and implementing the programs. Watching alongside bemused farmers yet another s t r i n g of f o r e i g n c o n s u l t a n t s s t r o l l from t h e i r jeeps to the tea house to d i s c u s s the v i l l a g e i nventory of imported f e r t i l i z e r , I had to wonder. I wondered too when I came upon s e v e r a l s t a f f from a l o c a l non- • governmental o r g a n i z a t i o n (NGO) speaking N e p a l i w i t h a group of women farmers t r a n s p l a n t i n g seedlings from the v i l l a g e fodder t r e e nursery to t h e i r own f i e l d s . I wondered: Why do d i f f e r e n t development o r g a n i z a t i o n s spawn such d i f f e r e n t programs? How are these programs conceived of and how are they planned? Who i s i n v o l v e d i n the planning process? What are they t h i n k i n g about and what are they t r y i n g to do? Whose needs take precedence? What i s r e a l l y going on here? . These questions formed the s t a r t i n g p o i n t s f o r t h i s research. My i n t e r e s t i n e x p l o r i n g the "taken-for-granted" aspects of planning w i t h i n the f i e l d of i n t e r n a t i o n a l development l e d me to research the assumptions, the s t r a t e g i e s and the i n t e r a c t i o n s of the people i n v o l v e d i n planning that are r a r e l y a r t i c u l a t e d but nevertheless i n f l u e n c e how problems are defined, how needs are addressed, and how programs are shaped. In a d d i t i o n to l e a r n i n g how the people i n v o l v e d i n planning approach t h e i r 2 work, I a l s o wanted to understand how the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context i t s e l f i n f l u e n c e s - or i s i n f l u e n c e d by - the process of planning. How does the context motivate planners and how does the context become enacted through the process of planning? In simple terms, t h i s study i s rooted i n a deep-seated c u r i o u s i t y about the dynamics of planning. In order to understand the dynamics of planning, i t i s necessary to i n v e s t i g a t e who the people i n v o l v e d i n p l a n n i n g are - both as i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h t h e i r own biographies and b e l i e f systems and a l s o as i n s t i t u t i o n a l a ctors i n f l u e n c e d by s p e c i f i c o r g a n i z a t i o n a l contexts. This i s the s t o r y of planning w i t h i n one o r g a n i z a t i o n - a Canadian NGO that I c a l l "Global F a i t h " 2 - t o l d through the words, ideas, and h a b i t s of the people who p a r t i c i p a t e i n planning and decision-making there. I t i s a s t o r y t o l d - u s i n g the framework of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l ethnography 3 -"from the i n s i d e out" (Schwartzman, 1993, p.4). The t e l l i n g of t h i s s t o r y i s important because i t i s based on the assumption that "there i s no s i n g l e path to the f u t u r e . I t i s the mission of development agencies to give form and focus to human hopes f o r change: how they t r a n s l a t e i d e a l i s m i n t o s t r a t e g y w i l l determine t h e i r continued relevance" (Brodhead & Herbert-Copley, 1988, p.156). Ideals can be t r a n s l a t e d i n t o a c t i o n s 2 "Global F a i t h " i s a pseudonym. 3 Because I am concerned w i t h i n t e r p r e t i n g the c u l t u r a l context of an NGO, I chose ethnography as the methodology f o r the research. The ethnography i n v o l v e d seventeen months of f i e l d w o r k u s i n g the techniques of p a r t i c i p a n t observation, in-depth i n t e r v i e w i n g , and document a n a l y s i s . 3 through the process of planning - planning that i s c a r r i e d out by people making commitments, compromises, and concessions based on what they b e l i e v e to be at stake. As w i l l be shown i n the remaining s e c t i o n s of t h i s chapter, planning i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l development, s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h i n an NGO s e t t i n g , i n e v i t a b l y i n v o l v e s the o f t e n c o n f l i c t i n g or confusing challenges of meeting government requirements, s a t i s f y i n g general p u b l i c donors' demands, remaining responsive to the needs and i n t e r e s t s of overseas pa r t n e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and s t a y i n g commited to a cause that i s d i f f i c u l t to de f i n e . This i n t r o d u c t o r y chapter helps to ground the d i s s e r t a t i o n i n the r e a l - w o r l d problems r e l a t e d to planning i n NGOs and a l s o serves to demonstrate the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the research. F i r s t , I develop the problem statement which includes a b r i e f look at the r o l e of adu l t education i n r u r a l development and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the a l l e v i a t i o n of poverty, and a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of some challenges s p e c i f i c to planners of nonformal adult education programs i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l development. A l s o i n c l u d e d i n the problem statement i s a d e s c r i p t i o n of the NGO se c t o r i n Canada and a d i s c u s s i o n of some of the pressures f a c i n g planners working i n an NGO s e t t i n g . C o n s i d e r a t i o n of the problem statement leads d i r e c t l y to the p r e s e n t a t i o n of the research purpose and s i g n i f i c a n c e . Then, the the research questions and t h e i r e v o l u t i o n are discussed. F i n a l l y , I end the chapter w i t h a s e c t i o n on the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the d i s s e r t a t i o n . 4 The Problem Statement The research problem that t h i s study was designed to address i s t w o-fold. F i r s t , the p e r s i s t a n c e of poverty gives r i s e to a r e a l world concern f o r improving the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l development e f f o r t s . "Despite three decades of a i d , c o n d i t i o n s i n many c o u n t r i e s , e s p e c i a l l y the poorest, have worsened. ... The r e a l i t y of today's development c l i m a t e f o r c e s NGOs to pay more a t t e n t i o n to the impact of t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s " (Brodhead & Herbert-Copley, 1988, p.146). To address the l i n k between the a l l e v i a t i o n of poverty, adult education, and a grass-roots approach, t h i s study focuses on planning w i t h i n an o r g a n i z a t i o n that o f f e r s adult education programs overseas, s p e c i f i c a l l y an NGO. An understanding of the dynamics of plan n i n g i n such an NGO w i l l help i n a r t i c u l a t i n g more e f f e c t i v e approaches to planning p r a c t i c e i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l development. The second aspect of the research problem i s the need f o r a more complete set of a n a l y t i c a l t o o l s that captures the co m p l e x i t i e s of the planning process and sheds l i g h t on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the planning context and the planning process. This part of the research problem i s f u r t h e r developed i n Chapter Two through a review of the l i t e r a t u r e on a d u l t education program planning, and community and r e g i o n a l planning. A d u l t E d u c a t i o n and the A l l e v i a t i o n of Poverty Much a t t e n t i o n has been p a i d i n the l i t e r a t u r e to the r o l e of a d u l t education i n the a l l e v i a t i o n of poverty (Coles, 1969; 5 F r e i r e , 1970; Simkins, 1977; De Vries, 1978; Muntemba, 1982; Duke, 1983; Bordia, 1984; Kassam, 1986; P a r a j u l i , 1986; Alexander, 1987; Blunt, 1988; Ewert, 1989; Bhola, 1989; McGiveny & Murray, 1991; and Cassara, 1995). S p e c i f i c a l l y , e f f o r t s have been made to determine whether there i s a causal r e l a t i o n s h i p between adult education and the reduction of poverty. The following quote by Duke (1983) describes these e f f o r t s and the findings: The studies so far f a i l to PROVE that adult education reduces poverty.... There i s , however, compelling cumulative evidence of the importance of adult education to the process of reducing poverty and removing i t s causes... .Adult education i s a necessary but not a s u f f i c i e n t condition for the reduction of the poverty of groups, communities and classes: i t i s frequently a c r u c i a l element i n such development work, whether national or l o c a l i n scale, (p.77) Thus, i t appears that adult education plays a key role i n int e r n a t i o n a l development, though i t has been emphasized that, i n practice, adult education i s not an independent "prime mover" (Duke, 1983; Alexander, 1987). Instead, i t i s dependent upon a c l u s t e r of other forces (such as p o l i t i c a l , economic, socio-c u l t u r a l , and technological) for i t s success i n reducing poverty. P a r t i c u l a r emphasis i n the promotion of adult education as a strategy for a l l e v i a t i n g poverty has been given to nonformal 4 adult education. Much of the attention and accolades given to 4 The term "nonformal" refers to organized and systematic educational a c t i v i t i e s that are ca r r i e d on outside of the formal system of schools, colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s . In contrast with formal educational offerings, nonformal programs tend to be part-time, inherently f l e x i b l e , of short duration, and oriented toward p r a c t i c a l knowledge and s k i l l s (Coombs, 1985). 6 nonformal a d u l t e d u c a t i o n can be t r a c e d back to Coombs (1968, 1985) who not o n l y " l e g i t i m i z e d " the concept w i t h h i s taxonomy of e d u c a t i o n (Ewert, 1989), but a l s o endowed i t w i t h p r a c t i c a l and e f f e c t i v e q u a l i t i e s . A c c o r d i n g to Coombs, nonformal edu c a t i o n had the g r e a t e s t p o t e n t i a l f o r c o n t r i b u t i n g q u i c k l y and s u b s t a n t i a l l y to i n d i v i d u a l and n a t i o n a l development.... I t was seen as a more e f f i c i e n t a l t e r n a t i v e t o formal s c h o o l i n g where e d u c a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s were scarce, and as a means of p r o v i d i n g low c o s t e d u c a t i o n and s k i l l s t r a i n i n g t o the r u r a l poor. Nonformal edu c a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s were wi d e l y adopted i n f o u r areas of development a c t i v i t y : p u b l i c h e a l t h , a g r i c u l t u r a l e xtension, l i v e l i h o o d s k i l l s t r a i n i n g and l i t e r a c y . (Blunt, 1988, pp.40-41) With a l l of the f a i t h and resources put i n t o nonformal e d u c a t i o n as a s t r a t e g y f o r development, there i s s t i l l a need to understand how a d u l t e d u c a t i o n p o l i c y and p l a n s t r a n s l a t e i n t o a c t u a l programs. Commenting on t h i s gap between i n t e n t i o n and implementation, Ewert (1989) w r i t e s : Although the world i s f u l l of white papers, p o l i c y statements, and f i v e - y e a r plans, many are not t r a n s l a t e d i n t o meaningful p r a c t i c e . The r h e t o r i c of agencies on the needs of the poorest of the poor i s not matched by the d i r e c t i o n of t h e i r r e s o u r c e s , (p.95) P l a n n i n g Challenges i n I n t e r n a t i o n a l Development Planners of nonformal a d u l t e d u c a t i o n programs w i t h i n the i n t e r n a t i o n a l development arena are f a c e d w i t h s e v e r a l s i g n i f i c a n t c h a l l e n g e s . One of these i s a r e s u l t of n e g a t i v e p e r c e p t i o n s of nonformal education by l o c a l communities. "Many communities p e r c e i v e nonformal education as an i n f e r i o r s u b s t i t u t e f o r the formal system and the d e v o l u t i o n of a u t h o r i t y 7 to ensure the responsiveness of programs to l o c a l needs has often been withheld" (Blunt, 1988, p.43). Another challenge i s due to the p o l i t i c a l nature of development a c t i v i t i e s . Fagerlind and Saha (1989) emphasize that "the p o l i t i c a l context has become a l l embracing, as a l l educational and development plans are inherently p o l i t i c a l , and a l l participants, whether academics, planners, p o l i t i c i a n s or recipient c i t i z e n s , are caught up i n the p o l i t i c a l process whether they l i k e i t or not" (p.vi). Bordia (1984) underscores the importance of p o l i t i c a l commitment i n the f i e l d of international development as i t i s "indispensable for the organization of adult education programmes because i t determines whether programmes would be organized at a l l , since requirements of p r i o r i t i e s , resources and linkages are a l l p o l i t i c a l issues. P o l i t i c a l commitment also determines the nature of programmes" (p.23). Consequently, i t i s often necessary to lobby governments and use pressure groups to influence p o l i t i c a l w i l l (Duke, 1983). An additional d i f f i c u l t y associated with adult education program planning i n international development i s the close l i n k between the design and evaluation of an i n d i v i d u a l program and the development ideology favoured by the sponsoring organization and the host country. Program planners are affected, and even constrained, by the dominant modes of development (Alexander, 1987). An analysis of the various theories of development i s outside the scope of t h i s inquiry. However, a b r i e f description of the dominant themes and experiences related to r u r a l 8 development can serve as an i n d i c a t i o n of the wide range of approaches. According to Berstecher (1985), there " i s no commonly accepted view of what c o n s t i t u t e s r u r a l development, nor how i t i s best promoted" (p.23). However, i t i s p o s s i b l e to d i v i d e r u r a l development approaches i n t o four c a t e g o r i e s : 1. p r o d u c t i o n - o r i e n t e d approach ( d e l i v e r y of input packages and extension s e r v i c e s r e l a t e d to a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i o n ) ; 2. project-based r u r a l development (format and o b j e c t i v e s vary depending on the implementing and sponsoring agencies); 3. long-term r u r a l transformation ( r u r a l development as the centrepiece of n a t i o n a l development, not j u s t as a s e c t o r a l i s s u e ) ; 4. a l l e v i a t i o n of poverty approach (meeting b a s i c needs of the r u r a l p o p u l a t i o n through s k i l l s t r a i n i n g and income generating schemes). The a l l e v i a t i o n of poverty approach i s compatible w i t h the "grass r o o t s " t r a d i t i o n s of NGOs. While NGOs are i n f l u e n c e d t o some extent by d i f f e r i n g strands i n development theory, they have mainly "pursued an approach rooted i n t h e i r own e t h i c a l and p h i l a n t h r o p i c t r a d i t i o n s and conditioned by t h e i r p o s i t i o n as o u t s i d e r s - b i t p l a y e r s i n terms of resources and power. They adopted from the beginning a r e s o l u t e l y 'grass-roots' approach... because of p r a c t i c a l l i m i t a t i o n s imposed by small budgets and s t a f f , and u n c e r t a i n funding" (Brodhead & Herbert-Copley, 1988, pp.6-7). P l a n n i n g i n Non-Governmental O r g a n i z a t i o n s I n t e r n a t i o n a l development p r o j e c t s are executed i n d i v i d u a l l y by, or through some combination of, the f o l l o w i n g 9 types of organizations: governmental agencies (e.g., Canadian International Development Agency), m u l t i l a t e r a l agencies (e.g., The World Bank), consulting firms, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). This research focuses on NGOs, which t y p i c a l l y are voluntary 5, non-profit agencies engaged i n three broad categories of international development work: 1) development education, 2) public p o l i c y advocacy, and 3) overseas programs and projects. Overseas a c t i v i t i e s include r e l i e f and emergency assistance, placement of personnel, c h i l d and family sponsorship as well as s p e c i f i c projects designed to reduce poverty and promote long-term development. According to Bordia (1984), NGOs "are eminently suited for taking up an adult education programme because of t h e i r usual c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : high q u a l i t y of voluntary workers, p o s s i b i l i t i e s of organizing f l e x i b l e programmes, contact with the l o c a l community, and t r a d i t i o n of innovation i n t h e i r work" (p.26). The NGO sector i n Canada has grown i n both size and scope of a c t i v i t i e s over the past 25 years. The more than 200 NGOs currently operating employ approximately 2,500 f u l l - t i m e s t a f f based i n Canada, and about 50 0 more paid s t a f f working overseas (Murphy, 1991). If professional-technical (pro-tech) volunteers 5 NGOs are considered to be voluntary agencies from a l e g a l perspective because Boards of Directors receive no remuneration and private donations are voluntary contributions. The popular conception that voluntary agencies are run by volunteers i s also often true of NGOs: much of NGO work i s subsidized by i n d i v i d u a l s who donate t h e i r time, materials or other resources. B a s i c a l l y , NGOs are voluntary agencies i n the sense that people come together by choice to s t r i v e toward a common cause or overarching goal. 10 and short-term placements are included, the t o t a l number of Canadians i n v o l v e d w i t h NGOs on a f u l l - t i m e s a l a r y or v o c a t i o n a l b a s i s comes to about 12,000. In a d d i t i o n , there are approximately 40,000 Canadians working d i r e c t l y w i t h the NGOs as vo l u n t e e r s ( t h i s number does not include the general p u b l i c donors or members of s p e c i f i c o r g a n i z a t i o n s such as the YM/YWCA) (Murphy, 1991). There i s tremendous v a r i a t i o n i n the s i z e of Canadian NGOs: from those w i t h t i n y budgets w i t h no access to Canadian I n t e r n a t i o n a l Development Agency (CIDA) funding and no f u l l - t i m e s t a f f to those w i t h budgets of over $25 m i l l i o n annually. Approximately 73 percent of the NGOs i n Canada are s e c u l a r . The remaining 27 percent of NGOs are r e l i g i o u s , w i t h 13 percent of these being non-denominational and j u s t over 14 percent being denominational groups (Brodhead & Herbert-Copley, 1988) . W i t h i n the group of r e l i g i o u s l y - o r i e n t e d NGOs, there are some that emphasize personal s a l v a t i o n and evangelism as t h e i r primary aim. Consequently, development i s viewed as a means, not an end i n i t s e l f . For other r e l i g i o u s NGOs, evangelism i s seen as a secondary goal of the more important work of development. Although Canadian NGOs vary g r e a t l y i n terms of s i z e , o r i g i n , purpose and approach, "there remains an e s s e n t i a l s e l f -d e f i n i n g core to which a l l development NGOs a s p i r e : a l t r u i s t i c i n mot i v a t i o n , independent i n s t a t u s , p a r t i c i p a t o r y i n s t r u c t u r e and methodology, r e s p e c t f u l of the r i g h t s and d i g n i t y of i n d i v i d u a l s and c o l l e c t i v e s , and capable of m o b i l i z i n g resources e f f e c t i v e l y " 11 (Brodhead & Herbert-Copley, 1988, p.8). 6 These p r i n c i p l e s -which are a l s o r e l e v a n t to vo l u n t a r y a c t i o n i n general -h i g h l i g h t the commonalities across NGOs i n Canada. They are a l s o u s e f u l i n that they help to uncover some of the c o n t r a d i c t i o n s and dilemmas c o n f r o n t i n g planners working i n an NGO context. These f i v e tenets - autonomy, a l t r u s i m , p a r t i c i p a t i o n , cooperation, and e f f i c i e n c y are discussed i n gre a t e r d e t a i l below. Autonomy Clues to the paradox und e r l y i n g the p r i n c i p l e of autonomy l i e w i t h i n the term 'non-governmental o r g a n i z a t i o n ' i t s e l f . Regardless of the awkward nature of t h i s term, i t has remained the most e x t e n s i v e l y recognized l a b e l f o r v o l u n t a r y agencies a c t i v e i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l development. What does the term a c t u a l l y mean? Murphy (1991) provides the f o l l o w i n g i n s i g h t s : I t i s i r o n i c , but r e v e a l i n g , that 'non-governmental o r g a n i z a t i o n ' does not t e l l us what an NGO is., but ra t h e r what i t i s not: i t i s not a government o r g a n i z a t i o n . . . . I t i s normally used only to r e f e r to agencies a c t i v e i n i n t e r n a t i o n a l development, peace, human r i g h t s , environment, and development education. Why would t h i s denotation be required? Perhaps because the NGOs support or implement programs f o r which governments are normally thought to be r e s p o n s i b l e ; and they o f t e n do these things i n co-operation w i t h governments, r e l y i n g to a larg e degree on government 6 The f i v e p r i n c i p l e s are based on m a t e r i a l gathered i n an i n t e n s i v e two-year study of Canadian NGOs sponsored by the North-South I n s t i t u t e . Questionnaires were mailed to 220 NGOs across Canada; 129 o r g a n i z a t i o n s responded. "The quest i o n n a i r e responses h i g h l i g h t e d a s e r i e s of statements, or ' a r t i c l e s of f a i t h ' , w i dely used by NGOs to describe t h e i r work" (Brodhead & Herbert-Copley, 1988, p.29). 12 funds. Therein l i e s much of the significance, and the contradictions of NGOs. (p.163) Canadian NGOs receive funding from two sources: private donations and government grants. The government grants are part of the o f f i c i a l development assistance (ODA) budget and are channelled through matching grant programs and b i l a t e r a l contracts of CIDA and to a lesser extent, p r o v i n c i a l governments. In 1990-91, NGOs operating i n Canada received just under $200 m i l l i o n i n ODA funds (CIDA, Annual Report 1990-91 ,'• p. S30) . Government funding reached a peak i n 1992-93 with a t o t a l of $310 m i l l i o n from various branches at CIDA allocated to Canadian NGOs (CCIC Pol i c y Team, 1995a, p.13). I r o n i c a l l y , the single biggest influence on the non-governmental scene i n Canada has been the federal government; an influence applied through the o f f e r i n g of government funding conditional upon adherence to government p o l i c i e s and procedures. 7 One consequence of the large amount of government funding provided for NGOs has been increased i n t e r a c t i o n and a merging of the discourses of government and NGOs. "As the gap narrows i t has become d i f f i c u l t to determine from the pronouncments of Canadian voluntary agencies how 'different' they now view themselves to be from government. At times they argue that increased government support i s j u s t i f i e d p r e c i s e l y because they are doing what government cannot do, or ought not do; at other times they argue equally f o r c e f u l l y that they deserve more support because they 7 Tax r e l i e f , which i s provided to donors of registered c h a r i t i e s , i s another form of government support to NGOs. 13 represent a more cost-e f f e c t i v e way for government aid to achieve i t objectives" (Brodhead & Herbert-Copley, 1988, p.47). The paradox of NGO autonomy i n the face of government support becomes clear. NGO dependence on government funds can be e s p e c i a l l y r i s k y ; not only because NGOs can become vulnerable to cutbacks or wide swings i n CIDA policy, but also because NGO programming can end up as a r e f l e c t i o n of funding agency p r i o r i t i e s instead of program pa r t i c i p a n t s ' needs. "Many NGOs, both i n the South and North, have allowed the a v a i l a b i l i t y of funding, rather than need, to dictate programming decisions" (CCIC Policy Team, 1995a, p.9) . An additional implication of lack of autonomy among NGOs i s a reduced a b i l i t y to be e f f e c t i v e i n advocacy and p o l i c y debates, which i s e s s e n t i a l l y a departure from the o r i g i n a l mandate of NGOs. Murphy (1991) explains t h i s dynamic: P o l i t i c a l action i n the voluntary sector has become v i r t u a l l y r e s t r i c t e d to lobbying government for funds, for p o l i t i c a l legitimacy, and for f i s c a l p o l i c i e s and p r i o r i t i e s that promote the organizations and programs of s p e c i f i c sectors. This has meant that for reasons of i n s t i t u t i o n a l maintenance and security (and not i n c i d e n t a l l y the security of paid workers), organizations and even movements have developed pragmatic partnerships with government as an extension of government programs and p r i o r i t i e s within s p e c i f i c communities, rather than operating as an authentic nexus of community-based s o c i a l action, (p.167) To understand NGO behaviour, i t i s necessary to also comprehend how NGOs rel a t e to government, s p e c i f i c a l l y to CIDA. 14 A l t r u i s m A l t r u i s m i s another p r i n c i p l e - l i k e autonomy - that sets NGOs apart from government. Most NGOs "come i n t o being from a sense of compassion or i n j u s t i c e , a burning v i s i o n of a wrong to be r i g h t e d , or a new perception of the world to be expressed and acted upon. Their goals, u n l i k e those of government or business, are a l t r u i s t i c : they seek to b e n e f i t others r a t h e r than themselves" (Brodhead & Herbert-Copley, 1988, p.31). However, the goal of a l t r u i s m - l i k e that of autonomy - can a l s o l e a d to confusion and c o n t r a d i c t i o n s . F i r s t , NGO workers vary i n t h e i r b e l i e f s about the r o l e of NGOs i n development, how to "benefit others," and even what the concept of "development" i t s e l f means. A l t r u i s t i c motives l i k e compassion are d i f f i c u l t to define and to o p e r a t i o n a l i z e . Furthermore, generous motives do not n e c e s s a r i l y l e a d to appropriate a c t i o n s . Viewing a l t r u i s m as an end i n i t s e l f can a f f e c t perceptions of a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . As explained above, NGOs rec e i v e funds from two sources: general p u b l i c donations and government grants. Because there are m u l t i p l e NGOs competing f o r c h a r i t y d o l l a r s and because the amount r a i s e d from the general p u b l i c sets a c e i l i n g on the amount of funds a v a i l a b l e through the matching grant programs of government, NGOs are i n e v i t a b l y preoccupied w i t h f u n d r a i s i n g , issues of image and c r e d i b i l i t y , and meeting donor expectations (Murphy, 1991). Consequently, most NGOs would i n s i s t that they are p r i m a r i l y accountable to t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l donors from the general p u b l i c who c o n t r i b u t e funds 15 and support t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n . However, i t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r i n d i v i d u a l donors to ex e r c i s e t h e i r c o l l e c t i v e s t r e n g t h i n order to hold NGOs accountable (CCIC P o l i c y Team, 1995b). NGOs would a l s o recognize t h e i r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y to government, and to t h e i r own Boards of D i r e c t o r s , f o r the funds they r e c e i v e and how they are used. F i n a l l y , there i s another l e v e l of a c c o u n t a b i l i t y to those that they "seek to b e n e f i t . " "NGOs face an anomaly i n responding t o needs defined by one group, b e n e f i c i a r i e s or NGO planners/implementors, while h o l d i n g themselves r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r success or f a i l u r e to an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t group, namely t h e i r donors or the government" (Brodhead & Herbert-Copley, 1988, p.44) . Planning w i t h i n an NGO context i n e v i t a b l y i n v o l v e s d e a l i n g w i t h nebulous concepts surrounding the goal of a l t r u i s t i c a c t i o n s , and a d i v e r s i t y of i n t e r e s t s . To understand NGO behaviour, i t i s necessary to a l s o comprehend how NGOs r e l a t e to the groups that help to a r t i c u l a t e the a l t r u i s t i c v i s i o n (e.g., the Boards of D i r e c t o r s ) and to those groups that help to i n s p i r e and implement the v i s i o n (e.g., to b e n e f i c i a r y populations and overseas partner o r g a n i z a t i o n s ) . Cooperation The tenet of cooperation r e f e r s to the d i s t i n c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s NGOs have wi t h b e n e f i c i a r y populations and w i t h overseas p a r t n e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s . For example, "NGOs speak of t h e i r 'grass-roots' s t y l e , of a ' p a r t i c i p a t o r y ' approach to 16 development, of development 'from the bottom up', of ' f o s t e r i n g l o c a l c a p a c i t i e s f o r s e l f - r e l i a n c e ' , or of 'empowering' communities and ' f a c i l i t a t i n g ' development. The common thread running through a l l these s e l f - d e s c r i p t i o n s i s a respect f o r the people w i t h whom they work" (Brodhead & Herbert-Copley, 1988, p.119) . R e l a t i o n s h i p s between Northern and Southern NGOs8 are i d e a l l y based on a c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of p a r t n e r s h i p i n v o l v i n g dialogue among equals, whereby Southern NGOs would i d e n t i f y and implement the p r o j e c t s funded by the Northern NGOs. However, the unequal d i s t r i b u t i o n of power due to the flow of funding from the North to South means that t h i s p a r t n e r s h i p i s more complicated, and at times, more r h e t o r i c a l than r e a l . Decisions regarding which p r o j e c t s are to be funded are made mainly by donor NGOs. "Only a few agencies have brought overseas r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s onto t h e i r boards, and fewer s t i l l onto t h e i r p r o j e c t s e l e c t i o n committees. For most agencies the a u t h o r i t y to approve p r o j e c t s , to spend money, r e s t s i n Canadian hands" (Brodhead & Herbert-Copley, 1988, p.134). Furthermore, because of l i m i t e d f i e l d c a p a c i t y and cost c o n s t r a i n t s , Northern NGOs o f t e n view Southern NGOs only as a channel f o r d i s b u r s i n g funds. The only exchange of experience or inf o r m a t i o n occurs through the packaging of p e r i o d i c progress rep o r t s and short-term, face-to-face contact on monitoring v i s i t s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p i s based mostly on f i n a n c i a l 8 The terms "Southern" and "overseas" are used interchangeably i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . 17 t i e s . Southern NGOs "continue to have a legitimate preoccuptation with securing resources without compromising t h e i r autonomy as development actors" (CCIC Policy Team, 1995a, p.8). Further complicating the tenet of cooperation i s the assumption that b e n e f i c i a r i e s should also be involved i n i d e n t i f y i n g needs, and i n designing and evaluating projects. However, t h i s goal of cooperation and beneficiary collaboration i n planning i s often d i f f i c u l t to operationalize. "While b e n e f i c i a r i e s are often 'consulted' during needs i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and design, and 'surveyed' i n evaluation and monitoring, t h e i r degree of active p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n such processes i s often s l i g h t " (Brodhead & Herbert-Copley, 1988, p.123). Murphy (1991) emphasizes the importance of understanding the nature of the relationships with overseas partner organizations: "Canadian NGOs see and understand the s i t u a t i o n of communities and countries through the eyes and experience of those with whom they work....The relationships nurture quite d i f f e r e n t views of r e a l i t y , views of the needs of the people, and perceptions about the role of an international NGO" (p.185). To understand NGO behaviour, i t i s necessary to also comprehend how NGOs relate to overseas partner organizations and to the beneficiary populations. P a r t i c i p a t i o n The tenet of p a r t i c i p a t i o n refers to the goal of providing channels for Canadians to pa r t i c i p a t e i n international 18 development. This can be accomplished through volun t e e r work e i t h e r l o c a l l y or overseas. P a r t i c i p a t i o n can a l s o occur through increased awareness as a r e s u l t of development education a c t i v i t i e s . " I t i s i r o n i c that while NGOs are more convinced than ever of the need to i n v o l v e b e n e f i c i a r i e s i n the planning and implementation of overseas p r o j e c t s , many have become l e s s open to i n v o l v i n g Canadians i n t h e i r own work" (Brodhead & Herbert-Copley, 1988, p.77). Because of the need f o r an NGO to s u s t a i n donor support, volunteers are of t e n given l e s s a t t e n t i o n than donors. Furthermore, development education programs are o f t e n seen as another avenue f o r f u n d r a i s i n g . Assuming that development education i n v o l v e s the e x e r c i s e of c r i t i c a l judgement, the emotional and s i m p l i s t i c appeals o f t e n used i n f u n d r a i s i n g could make the combining of development education and f u n d r a i s i n g agendas problematic. Furthermore, many development education workers have not had long-term, f i r s t - h a n d experience i n the T h i r d World, and thus are not able to incl u d e a complex a n a l y s i s of people's s t r u g g l e s and communities' changing needs i n t h e i r p r e s e n t a t i o n of development i s s u e s . Drabek (1987) sums up t h i s fundamental c o n t r a d i c t i o n of NGO development education: "how to r e c o n c i l e the need f o r short-term f u n d r a i s i n g w i t h the need to create a long-term educated constituency f o r development a s s i s t a n c e ? " ( p . x i i ) . To understand NGO behaviour, i t i s a l s o necessary to comprehend how NGOs r e l a t e to general p u b l i c donors, v o l u n t e e r s , and p a r t i c i p a n t s i n development education programs. 19 E f f i c i e n c y The tenet of e f f i c i e n c y refers to the goal of mobilizing and using f i n a n c i a l as well as other resources i n a co s t - e f f e c t i v e way. NGOs have generally operated with low salary scales, minimal administrative costs, and small-scale programs enabling them to "go further with a d o l l a r " than government or the private sector (Kerstiens, 1982, p.62). However, e f f i c i e n c y i s more than cutting costs and keeping overhead low. Brodhead and Herbert-Copley (1988) suggest four other indicators of NGO e f f i c i e n c y : "the a b i l i t y of NGOs to mobilize non-governmental resources; the s u s t a i n a b i l i t y of NGO a c t i v i t i e s over time; the degree of r e p l i c a t i o n of innovative NGO programs; and the extent of cooperation among NGOs" (p.99). Related to the tenet of e f f i c i e n c y i s an NGO's a b i l i t y to motivate s t a f f (given the lower salary scales) and to learn from t h e i r own organizational history. Drabek (1987) points out that "there i s a recognized need among NGOs for greater preservation and accumulation of knowledge and for the creation of t h e i r own i n s t i t u t i o n a l memories" (pp.xi). To understand NGO behaviour, i t i s also necessary to comprehend how the s t a f f within the NGOs view t h e i r work and how i n s t i t u t i o n a l memories are created and sustained. The scene i s now set. We can begin our story aware of the challenges facing the people involved i n planning i n an NGO. They have organizational interests to protect, personal values to promote, c o n f l i c t i n g demands to reconcile, and an i d e a l i s t i c goal 20 of remaining responsive to the needs of the people p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e i r programs. Research Purpose and S i g n i f i c a n c e The problem statement drew attention to the complex nature of NGO work and to the need to understand more about how planning occurs within an NGO context. "Canadian NGOs, l i k e t h e i r counterparts elsewhere, are increasingly faced with the r e a l i z a t i o n that development i s becoming more and more complex -both i n terms of the problems addressed, and the strategies needed to deal with them" (Herbert-Copley, 1987, p.26). Furthermore, the relationship between the planning process and the planning context seems not to have been f u l l y explored i n the l i t e r a t u r e on adult education program planning. The purpose of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s to answer the main th e o r e t i c a l question raised by the problem statement: How do NGOs plan so as to maintain themselves and be e f f e c t i v e given the pressures on them? Case study - s p e c i f i c a l l y ethnography - was chosen as the method to address the problem statement. The purpose of the case study i s to focus on the complexities of everyday planning practice through an interpretation of the organizational culture of the NGO. By including an analysis of how planners make sense of what they do, t h i s research contributes to the development of program planning theory that i s grounded i n the experience of planners. In addition to providing new ways to think about the mechanisms and contexts of planning behaviours, t h i s research also serves to illuminate some broader 21 issues surrounding autonomy, altruism, cooperation, p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and e f f i c i e n c y facing planners i n an NGO setting. Increased understanding of the planning process within s p e c i f i c settings can lead to improved effectiveness i n planning p r a c t i c e . The following quote by Verhagen (1987) points to the anticipated p r a c t i c a l relevance of research on planning i n a non-governmental organization: If we want to make our assistance more e f f e c t i v e i n strengthening the economy of the poor, we should s t a r t where some of the roots of the problem l i e : that i s within our own organizations and within our own minds where we tend to cherish ideas and assumptions which may provide legitimacy to our work, help secure the survival of our own organizations, but prohibit a consistent approach to s e l f -help promotion among the r u r a l poor. (p.13). This research transcends conventional d i s c i p l i n a r y boundaries. It w i l l i n t e r e s t scholars of program planning i n adult education as well as those studying negotiation theory and organizational decision-making. It i s also relevant to nonprofit management and to voluntary agencies i n general. Research Questions This research was o r i g i n a l l y designed to address four main questions. These questions were f i r s t stated i n my research proposal and guided entry into t h i s study. However, as the ethnographic fieldwork and analysis progressed, I discovered that the four o r i g i n a l questions did not f u l l y capture what I ended up learning i n t h i s study. Instead, I r e a l i z e d that a new main question needed to be a r t i c u l a t e d . This section f i r s t presents the o r i g i n a l four research questions and then explains how these 2 2 questions evolved into a new f i f t h question as my understanding of the complexities of planning within Global Faith deepened. The o r i g i n a l four research questions are l i s t e d below. The f i r s t three questions progress through a funnel pattern -from a broad investigation of the organizational context to a characterization of the planning process within that context and then to a more focused study of individual planners' perspectives. The f i n a l question l i n k s the other questions together through an analysis of how the organizational context, the process and outcome of planning, and planners' perspectives are a l l related. 1. What are the e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the NGO as a context f o r p l a n n i n g nonformal a d u l t education programs? 1.1 What are the relevant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the NGO? (e.g., o r i g i n , purpose, approach, administrative structure, leadership style, resources, and programs) 1.2 What i s the eff e c t of the NGO's relationship with funding bodies on the organizational context? (e.g., issues of accountability and autonomy) 2. What i s the nature of the p l a n n i n g process f o r nonformal a d u l t e d u c a t i o n programs o f f e r e d by the NGO? 2.1 What i s the general pattern or sequence of planning decisions and a c t i v i t i e s ? 2.2 What i s the nature of interactions among the people involved i n planning? 3. How do the people i n v o l v e d i n p l a n n i n g make sense of t h e i r p r a c t i c e ? 3.1 How do the people involved i n planning view t h e i r organization's role i n international development? 23 3.2 What are the i n t e n t i o n s with r e s p e c t to planning? 3.3 How do the people i n v o l v e d i n p l a n n i n g i n t e r p r e t the proc e s s of p l a n n i n g w i t h i n the NGO? 3.4 What are the s t r a t e g i e s or t a c t i c s f o r p l a n n i n g w i t h i n the NGO? 3.5 How do the people i n v o l v e d i n p l a n n i n g d e s c r i b e and e x p l a i n program outcomes? 4. What i s the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the NGO o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context, the process of p l a n n i n g , p l a n n e r s ' p e r s p e c t i v e s and the shape of nonformal a d u l t e d u c a t i o n programs o f f e r e d ? While the f i r s t three q u e s t i o n s were u s e f u l i n the e a r l y days of the ethnographic f i e l d w o r k t o help me or g a n i z e data c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s around the c a t e g o r i e s of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context, the process of plannin g , and plan n e r s ' p e r s p e c t i v e s , I soon d i s c o v e r e d that these c a t e g o r i e s were p r o b l e m a t i c i n themselves. For example, wi t h r e s p e c t to the f i r s t q u e s t i o n I was not sure what t o i n c l u d e i n the n o t i o n of context: Was context something t h a t was "out there " - a constant f o r c e seen i n the same way by a l l the members of G l o b a l F a i t h - t h a t I c o u l d o b j e c t i v e l y p o r t r a y ? Or was the context something t h a t was s u b j e c t i v e l y i n t e r p r e t e d and c o n t i n u a l l y enacted? I de c i d e d t h a t a more u s e f u l way to view o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context i n t h i s study was as " c u l t u r e " - "both product and process, the shaper of human i n t e r a c t i o n and the outcome of i t , c o n t i n u a l l y c r e a t e d and r e c r e a t e d by people's ongoing i n t e r a c t i o n s " ( J e l i n e k , S m i r c i c h , & H i r s c h , 1983, p.331). The n o t i o n of program p l a n n i n g i n the second r e s e a r c h 24 question a l s o became unclear. At the outset of the study, I intended to only focus on the d e c i s i o n s and a c t i v i t i e s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to designing s p e c i f i c nonformal adult education programs that were components of Global F a i t h ' s overseas p r o j e c t s . However, t h i s approach proved to be f r u i t l e s s f o r two reasons. F i r s t , the d e t a i l e d planning of the content, d e l i v e r y methods, and t a r g e t group f o r s p e c i f i c adult education programs i n Global F a i t h ' s overseas p r o j e c t s was c a r r i e d out overseas - beyond my view. Global F a i t h s t a f f posted i n the Asian and A f r i c a n Regional O f f i c e s worked through the design of s p e c i f i c programs i n con j u n c t i o n w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from l o c a l partner o r g a n i z a t i o n s . The s t a f f i n the Global F a i t h Head O f f i c e were re s p o n s i b l e f o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s and a c t i v i t i e s that had an e f f e c t on which overseas p r o j e c t s were o f f e r e d and whether some p r o j e c t s were even o f f e r e d at a l l . Second, from my pe r s p e c t i v e i n the Head O f f i c e , i t was a l s o very d i f f i c u l t to i s o l a t e the planning of i n d i v i d u a l nonformal adult education programs from the broader work of a r t i c u l a t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l goals, m o b i l i z i n g government resources, r a i s i n g money from the general p u b l i c , maintaining r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h overseas pa r t n e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and motivat i n g s t a f f . A l l of these a c t i v i t i e s were c a r r i e d out i n order to ensure the s u r v i v a l of Global F a i t h and the continued o f f e r i n g of overseas p r o j e c t s . Taken together as the guidance of futu r e a c t i o n , these o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s and d e c i s i o n s could a l l be c a l l e d planning: that i s , planning i n order t o provide adult education programs but not the plann i n g of 25 the adult education programs themselves. In addition to expanding my range of interest beyond educational program planning to include a broader notion of planning, I also came to see the process of planning i n a new l i g h t . Guided by the work of Cervero and Wilson (1994, 1996), I viewed planning at Global F a i t h as a process that involves negotiation. F i n a l l y , the t h i r d research question based on analyzing planners' perspectives also became troublesome: Should I look for areas of agreement and steer away from inconsistencies and c o n f l i c t ? Or, should I acknowledge c o n f l i c t but avoid areas of confusion or multiple interpretations? By adopting Martin's (1992) multi-perspective framework for analyzing cultures, I did not have to choose whether to focus only on consensus or on c o n f l i c t or on ambiguity. I could include a l l the aspects of Global F a i t h culture as I perceived them and as the people of Global Faith perceived them. Taking into consideration the changes i n my approach discussed above, a revised research question that better captures what I ended up investigating i n t h i s study i s : 5. How does p l a n n i n g as n e g o t i a t i o n occur w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e of an NGO? Further discussion of the rationale for expanding the research questions i s continued i n the review of the l i t e r a t u r e and i n the presentation of the conceptual framework i n Chapter Two. 26 O r g a n i z a t i o n of the D i s s e r t a t i o n In Chapter One, I discussed the problem statement from the point of view of the challenges facing planners of non-formal adult education programs i n international development and the l i n k between adult education and the a l l e v i a t i o n of poverty. I also gave a b r i e f introduction to the Canadian NGO community and considered some of the tensions inherent i n NGOs' espoused goals of autonomy, altruism, cooperation, p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and e f f i c i e n c y . Then, I presented the research purpose, si g n i f i c a n c e , and the research questions. In Chapter Two, I develop the problem statement through a review of the l i t e r a t u r e on adult education program planning and community and regional planning. I compare various d e f i n i t i o n s and treatments of the process of planning and investigate the rel a t i o n s h i p between the process and the context of planning i n order to determine what s t i l l needs to be explored. Next, I outline a set of assumptions and develop the conceptual framework that I use to talk about planning as the negotiation of meaning. Martin's (1992) matrix framework for understanding the organizational context as multiple cultures i s also presented. In Chapter Three, I describe the methodology used i n t h i s study. F i r s t , I explain how an ethnographic approach i s suited to the research questions. Then, I discuss the subjective nature of ethnographic research and look for areas where my s u b j e c t i v i t y has been engaged. The p i l o t study, selection of the research s i t e , the process of negotiating access, the nature of my roles 27 during the research, and the data c o l l e c t i o n and analysis procedures are a l l described. I end Chapter Three with a consideration of how t h i s study addresses the c r i t e r i a for trustworthiness i n ethnographic research. In Chapters Four, Five, and Six, I present the ethnographic findings organized according to a journey taken through Global Faith from the outside public s h e l l i n toward the private inner sanctum. The structure of these three chapters p a r a l l e l s the changes i n my own understanding of the dynamics of planning and i n my perspectives of the c u l t u r a l contexts of Global Faith. In Chapter Seven, I draw on the data presented i n the three previous chapters to assemble a puzzle of Global Faith cultures using completed matrices from Martin's (1992) framework. I look at the cultures of Global Faith through three d i f f e r e n t lenses: 1) the integration perspective focusing on consistency, c l a r i t y and organization-wide consensus; 2) the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n perspective high l i g h t i n g inconsistency, contradictions, and c o n f l i c t ; and 3) the fragmentation perspective revealing confusion, ambiguity and paradox. I then present and analyze f i v e planning episodes i l l u s t r a t i n g the negotiation of meaning at Global Faith. In Chapter Eight, I summarize the study and consider the contributions to knowledge, implications, and l i m i t a t i o n s of the research. In closing, I o f f e r suggestions for future research and end with some concluding remarks dealing with the importance of learning. 28 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK In d e f i n i n g program-planning p r a c t i c e as a s o c i a l a c t i v i t y i n which people negotiate personal and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l interests,....we wish to lo c a t e t h e i r a c t i o n s as planners i n a s o c i a l world that both s t r u c t u r e s t h e i r a c t i o n and i s the means by which meaning i s given to t h e i r a c t i o n s . The c e n t r a l form of a c t i o n i n t h i s s o c i a l a c t i v i t y of planning, then, i s to negotiate. (Cervero & Wilson, 1994, p.156) Cul t u r e p e r s i s t s and i s changed or maintained by v i r t u e of i t s c o n t i n u a l ( r e ) c r e a t i o n through i n t e r a c t i o n s of o r g a n i z a t i o n members, t h e i r shared i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , and the s i g n i f i c a t i o n s they a t t a c h to what occurs. C u l t u r e i s i n t e r s u b j e c t i v e and simultaneously cause and e f f e c t . . . . a guide f o r s u b j e c t i v e meaning. ( J e l i n e k , S m i r c i c h & H i r s c h , 1983, p.336) In t h i s chapter, I develop the problem statement f u r t h e r through a review of the l i t e r a t u r e . F i r s t , I examine the l i t e r a t u r e on program planning i n adult education i n order to determine how the various models represent p r a c t i c e and def i n e planning. Then, I t u r n to the l i t e r a t u r e on planning i n another domain - community and r e g i o n a l planning - and di s c u s s three main approaches to planning i n t h i s f i e l d . F i n a l l y , I r e t u r n to the l i t e r a t u r e on program planning i n adult education to determine how the planning context i s described and why the context i s considered important. The l i t e r a t u r e review leads to an expanded statement of the research problem and a summary of what s t i l l remains to be understood. The l i t e r a t u r e review a l s o provides the ba s i s f o r a set of assumptions about what already i s understood concerning the planning process and the planning context. The remainder of the chapter i s then devoted to an e x p l i c a t i o n of the conceptual framework used to analyze the 29 r e l a t i o n s h i p between the process and context of planning at Global Faith. The conceptual framework i s based on two main perspectives: 1) planning involves the negotiation of meaning and 2) the planning context can be analyzed as multiple cultures. Applied together, these two approaches provide a novel way of looking at the relationship between the planning process and context. L i t e r a t u r e Review: Planning, Context, and Consequence My intention i n t h i s section i s two-fold: 1) to open up the concept of planning - by both widening and unpacking the concept - i n order to determine what i s understood and what remains to be understood about planning processes and .2) to consider the consequence of the planning context. By "consequence" I mean the ef f e c t and the significance of context. How does the context influence the process of planning? Why i s the context considered important? Program P l a n n i n g i n A d u l t Education The process of program planning has been addressed i n the adult education l i t e r a t u r e i n two ways: (1) through normative models which are based on the author's i d e a l i z e d notions of how program planning should occur (e.g., Boone, 1985; Boyle, 1981); (2) and through descriptive models which are based on case studies and related research into how program planning does occur i n p a r t i c u l a r contexts (e.g., Pennington & Green, 1976; Burnham, 1984; Dominick, 1990; Sandmann, 1993). While normative models have helped raise important issues 30 (e.g, What should the r o l e of the program planner be?) and have upheld c e r t a i n " p r i n c i p l e s " of adult education (e.g., programs should be based on c l i e n t needs), they have been c r i t i c i z e d f o r t h e i r l a c k of a p p l i c a b i l i t y to p r a c t i c e s e t t i n g s . According to B r o o k f i e l d (1986), the planning g u i d e l i n e s put f o r t h by the normative models are t y p i c a l l y based on an assumption that planning can take place i n an i d e a l i z e d world f r e e from p e r s o n a l i t y c o n f l i c t s , resource c o n s t r a i n t s or p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n c e s . This assumption has exacerbated the d i s j u n c t u r e between theory and p r a c t i c e and has decreased the u t i l i t y of normative models. As Kowalski (1988) p o i n t s out, p r a c t i t i o n e r s have "become dismayed w i t h textbook approaches which simply f a i l to produce e f f e c t i v e r e s u l t s i n the r e a l world" (p.46). The d i v e r s i t y of s e t t i n g s o f f e r i n g adult education programs makes c o n s i s t e n t a p p l i c a t i o n of one model e s p e c i a l l y d i f f i c u l t (Boone, 1985). Even w i t h i n s e t t i n g s , the uniqueness of a given s i t u a t i o n means that the a p p l i c a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r model w i l l not always be the same or the best choice. Boyle (1981) emphasizes that the process of planning i s "dynamic and c o n s t a n t l y being adapted to the a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n " (p.51). Normative models t y p i c a l l y represent planning as a s e r i e s of steps or phases to be followed s e q u e n t i a l l y . This makes the un d e r l y i n g l o g i c of planning e x p l i c i t , s i m p l i f i e s the plan n i n g ta s k s , and provides systematic guidance and a sense of s e c u r i t y to planners (Kowalski, 1988; Sork & C a f f a r e l l a , 1989). However, many of the authors of normative models a l s o recognize that the 31 l i n e a r steps may a c t u a l l y be simultaneous, r e c u r r i n g , or out of sequence when a p p l i e d to p r a c t i c e s i t u a t i o n s (Houle, 1972; Boyle, 1981; Sork & C a f f a r e l l a , 1989). Sork and Buskey (1986) c a r r i e d out an extensive review of the program planning l i t e r a t u r e and synthesized the steps mentioned i n var i o u s normative models i n t o one "generic p l a n n i n g model" as f o l l o w s : A n a l y s i s of the planning context and c l i e n t system(s) to be served. Assessment of c l i e n t system needs. Development of o b j e c t i v e s . S e l e c t i o n and ord e r i n g of content. S e l e c t i o n , design, and ordering of i n s t r u c t i o n a l processes. S e l e c t i o n of i n s t r u c t i o n a l resources. Formulation of budget and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p l a n . Design of a plan f o r as s u r i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Design of a p l a n f o r e v a l u a t i n g the program, (p.89) Recent research has begun to address the c o n t e x t u a l i t y of p r a c t i c e by i n v e s t i g a t i n g how p r a c t i t i o n e r s describe and e x p l a i n t h e i r experiences planning programs i n a h e a l t h promotion s e t t i n g (Lewis, 1996) and how personal and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s a f f e c t the purposes, format and content of educational programs ( M i l l s , Cervero, Langone & Wilson, 1995; Cervero & Wilson, 1994, 1996). These s t u d i e s focus on p r a c t i t i o n e r p e r s p e c t i v e s and on the a c t u a l s t r a t e g i e s they use i n designing, c o n s t r u c t i n g or promoting educational programs. What we know about planning i s a consequence of how the concept of planning has been defined - both i n the normative models and i n the case study research. Table 2.1 contains a sampling of d e f i n i t i o n s of planning (also c a l l e d design, programming, and program development) taken from ad u l t education 32 T a b l e 2.1; D e f i n i n g P l a n n i n g i n A d u l t E d u c a t i o n 1. A n y d e s i g n o f e d u c a t i o n c a n b e s t be u n d e r s t o o d a s a c o m p l e x o f i n t e r a c t i n g e l e m e n t s , n o t a s a s e q u e n c e o f e v e n t s . I n t h e o r y , t h e p r o c e s s o f e d u c a t i o n u s u a l l y g o e s t h r o u g h t h e s t a g e s o f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d r e f i n e m e n t o f o b j e c t i v e s , s e l e c t i o n o f means o f a c c o m p l i s h i n g them, c o n d u c t o f t h e p l a n n e d a c t i v i t y , a n d r e t r o s p e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n o f i t (Houle, 1972, p . 3 9 ) . 2 . I t s t r u c k t h e r e s e a r c h e r s t h a t p r o g r a m d e v e l o p m e n t was a f o r m o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n m a k i n g (Pennington & Green, 1976, p p . 2 0 ) . 3 . The p l a n n i n g a c t i v i t y b e g i n s w i t h c e r t a i n v a l u e a s s u m p t i o n s a n d p r o c e e d s t h r o u g h a n a l y z i n g t h e s y s t e m , s e t t i n g g o a l s , a n d s e l e c t i n g means t o a c h i e v e t h o s e g o a l s . The a c t i v i t y e n t a i l s c e r t a i n c o n s e q u e n c e s . T h e s e may be p l a n n e d c o n s e q u e n c e s t h a t f o l l o w a c o n s c i o u s a n d r a t i o n a l c o u r s e o f a c t i o n e v e n t h o u g h t h e y may h a v e b e e n m o d i f i e d t h r o u g h o u t t h e p r o c e s s ; o r t h e y may be u n p l a n n e d c o n s e q u e n c e s i n t h a t t h e r e i s l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n two o r more s e q u e n c e s , a l a c k o f r e c i p r o c i t y b e t w e e n one e l e m e n t a n d a n o t h e r t h a t r e s u l t s i n i n c o n s i s t e n t o r e v e n i n c o m p a t i b l e p a t t e r n s o f c h a n g e (Boyle, 1981, p . 1 7 0 ) . 4 . P r o g r a m m i n g , a s d e f i n e d h e r e , i n c l u d e s t h e i n d i v i d u a l a n d c o l l a b o r a t i v e e f f o r t s o f t h e a d u l t e d u c a t i o n o r g a n i z a t i o n , t h e a d u l t e d u c a t o r s , a n d t h e l e a r n e r s i n p l a n n i n g , d e s i g n i n g , i m p l e m e n t i n g , e v a l u a t i n g , a n d a c c o u n t i n g f o r e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s .... p r o g r a m m i n g i s a d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s . . . . p r o g r a m m i n g i s a j u d g m e n t a l p r o c e s s , b a s e d on v a l u e s h e l d w o r t h w h i l e b y b o t h p r o g r a m m e r s a n d u s e r s (Boone, 1985, p p . 2 , 4, 47) . 5 . P r o g r a m p l a n n i n g i s e s s e n t i a l l y a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . I t e n t a i l s a s p e c t s o f l e a d e r s h i p ( k n o w i n g what s h o u l d be done) a n d management ( k n o w i n g how t o do i t ) (Kowalski, 1988, p . 5 ) . 6. . . . p l a n n i n g p r o g r a m s i s a s o c i a l a c t i v i t y i n w h i c h p e o p l e n e g o t i a t e p e r s o n a l a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t s . . . . p l a n n i n g i s a l w a y s c o n d u c t e d w i t h i n a c o m p l e x s e t o f p e r s o n a l , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l , a n d s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f po w e r among p e o p l e who may h a v e s i m i l a r , d i f f e r e n t , o r c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o g r a m . The p l a n n e r s ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , a n d t h e c e n t r a l p r o b l e m o f t h e i r p r a c t i c e , c e n t e r o n how t o n e g o t i a t e t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e s e p e o p l e t o c o n s t r u c t a p r o g r a m (Cervero & Wilson, 1994, p. 4) . 33 l i t e r a t u r e . An examination of these d e f i n i t i o n s helps to highlight areas of s i m i l a r i t y and divergence and also provides a s t a r t i n g point for discussion of broader issues related to the planning process - such as the nature of the planner's role and the basis for decision-making i n planning. This discussion w i l l also trace the evolution of some basic assumptions about planning i n adult education and w i l l show that some "new" metaphors for planning have roots i n the past. Houle's d e f i n i t i o n (#1) draws attention to the "complex of in t e r a c t i n g elements" involved i n planning as opposed to a clea r sequence of separate events. According to Houle (1972), practice generally does not follow the l o g i c a l pattern of a temporal ordering of steps. Instead, "from beginning to end, the design of an educational a c t i v i t y i s usually i n a constant state of reformulation....All the component parts of the design mesh together at every point at which i t i s considered. Only when they are separated for formal analysis do they appear to be l o g i c a l and l i n e a r " (pp.39-40). Houle proposes his model of planning i n a s p i r i t of "pragmatic u t i l i t a r i a n i s m " (p.56) and encourages p r a c t i t i o n e r s to use i t only i f " i t works e f f e c t i v e l y and economically i n either explaining or improving educational pra c t i c e " (p.56). Otherwise, another model should be selected and followed. Pennington and Green (1976) interviewed continuing professional education planners from f i v e u n i v e r s i t i e s to determine how they describe t h e i r planning strategies. They 34 grouped the interview responses into s i x clusters of program development a c t i v i t i e s : o r i g i n a t i n g the idea, developing the idea, making a commitment, developing the programs, teaching the course, and evaluating the impact. Pennington and Green (1976) stress, as does Houle, the in t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s and overlaps among the clus t e r s and the fact that "every planner attended to each c l u s t e r i n some way, although not always i n a l i n e a r fashion" (p.20). Pennington's and Green's d e f i n i t i o n (#2) compares program development to "a form of administrative decision making" (p.20). Planners are seen as assessing the strength of various requests for continuing education programs, gathering resources, and carrying out "a number of c r i t i c a l decisions and a consideration of al t e r n a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s which would lead to the execution of those decisions that i n the end shaped the educational a c t i v i t y " (p.20) . Boyle's d e f i n i t i o n (#3) of planning includes "value assumptions" as a basis for decision-making and the s e l e c t i o n of both goals and means. Goal setting implies a r e l a t i v e l y clear view of the future. However, Boyle also recognizes the p o s s i b i l i t y of "unplanned consequences" of the planning a c t i v i t y that may r e s u l t i n "inconsistent or even incompatible patterns of change" (p.170). Boyle (1981) emphasizes, i n a s i m i l a r vein as Houle (1972), "that a completely r a t i o n a l model i s rarely, i f ever, achieved i n the p r a c t i c a l world of planning with people" (Boyle, 1981, p.42). "Planning with people" becomes e s p e c i a l l y important as Boyle i n s i s t s that "the potential program c l i e n t e l e 35 must be involved i n i d e n t i f y i n g the c r i t e r i a to be used i n making p r i o r i t y decisions" (p.47). Boyle j u s t i f i e s involvement of the learner as a way to avoid "a f u t i l e exercise of control." Involving the learner i n choosing and designing learning experiences i s important i f such experiences are to be of any consequence. One's needs and thoughts are the focus of growth, and unless these needs are met, education becomes a f u t i l e exercise of control. The learner must therefore be involved i n decisions concerning the content and structure of learning experiences, (p.25) Boyle (1981) cautions that involvement of the learner i s "not an absolute value that must be maintained at a l l times, but as a process that must be adapted to ever-changing sit u a t i o n s . The l i m i t s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n are determined by conditions p r e v a i l i n g i n the s i t u a t i o n at any given time" (p.94). Boyle does not elaborate on how s p e c i f i c l i m i t s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n are related to s p e c i f i c conditions, implying that the planner's own working philosophy should be the guide. Boyle (1981) also draws attention to the fact that learner needs, educator needs, i n s t i t u t i o n a l needs, and s o c i e t a l needs may be i n c o n f l i c t with one another and that the planner i s faced with an important question: "In b r i e f , which set of needs should be given the greatest weight? What c r i t e r i a should be devised to f a c i l i t a t e a sound decision?" (p.30). According to Boyle (1981), the "interplay of a l l the values" w i l l influence the shape of the program offered: ...certain values thought to be desirable by one group or another are brought to the fore. In terms of planning, the patterns of change that w i l l emerge represent the int e r p l a y of a l l the values as they influence and balance each other (p.170)....Priorities are what i s important or valuable at the present time. Programming situations often have a number 36 of p r i o r i t i e s at any given time, so i t i s necessary to decide which p r i o r i t i e s are most important. Although s c i e n t i f i c facts can help us decide on p r i o r i t i e s , the personal values of the programmer and others involved i n programming determine t h e i r r e l a t i v e importance (p.178). Boyle's emphasis on c o n f l i c t i n g needs and p r i o r i t i e s and the interp l a y of values foreshadows Cervero's and Wilson's (1994, 1996) approach to planning as the negotiation of i n t e r e s t s . Boone's d e f i n i t i o n (#4) includes the concept of collaboration (learner involvement) and emphasizes "values held worthwhile by both programmers and users" (p.47) as the basis for decision-making. Democracy i n planning - refered to as the "collaborative and e g a l i t a r i a n involvement of educators, leaders, and learners" (Boone, 1985, p.122) - i s considered to be "essential to good planning" (p.81). Boone does not explain the process or the mechanisms whereby "conscious choices and decisions are made co l l a b o r a t i v e l y by representatives of a l l systems involved i n the programming process" (p.5) and he also does not address the p o s s i b i l i t y of c o n f l i c t i n such a process. Boone (1985) simply states that the collaborative process of planning i s "accomplished i n a systematic,, decision-making, and value mode" (p.5) and that "the adult educator must have knowledge and understanding of the processes and strategies for in t e r f a c i n g with the i d e n t i f i e d leaders of the target publics" (p.110). Boone (1985) does not provide a description of such "strategies" but he shows an awareness of the necessity for strat e g i c action i n planning which also foreshadows Cervero's and Wilson's (1994, 1996) view of planning as the s o c i a l a c t i v i t y of 37 negotiating. Kowalski's d e f i n i t i o n (#5) i s si m i l a r to Pennington's and Green's (#2) i n t h e i r common view of planning as an administrative r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Kowalski (1988) further distinguishes between the normative aspect - "knowing what should be done" (p.5) - and the instrumental aspect of planning -"knowing how to do i t " (p.5). This i s accomplished by a systems approach to planning which involves "simultaneously considering i n d i v i d u a l needs and values, environmental needs and values, and organizational needs and of doing so within the confines f i r s t of the environment, secondly of the organization, and f i n a l l y of the planning process" (p.36). This balancing act of planning " i s viewed as a s i t u a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y - one l a r g e l y dependent upon circumstances surrounding the p r a c t i t i o n e r " (p.6). It i s these "circumstances surrounding the p r a c t i t i o n e r " that concern Cervero and Wilson (1994, 1996). In t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n (#6), they highlight the s o c i a l nature of the planning process and the importance of understanding and managing "the complex set of personal, organizational, and s o c i a l relationships of power" (p.4). While other models and approaches to planning have also mentioned the importance of relationships and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of power (e.g., Boone, 1985), they do so only i n passing. Cervero and Wilson (1994, 1996), on the other hand, place "power and int e r e s t s of planning actors i n the foreground" (Sork, 1996, p.82) i n order to draw attention to the fact that planning practice requires more than technical s k i l l or knowledge of 38 t r a d i t i o n a l planning p r i n c i p l e s . Cervero's and Wilson's (1994) case study research d i r e c t l y relates people's interests to the purposes, content and format of educational programs. Drawing on Morgan's (1986) d e f i n i t i o n of in t e r e s t s , Cervero and Wilson describe interests as a "complex set of dispositions, goals, values, desires, and expectations that lead people to act i n certain ways and to p o s i t i o n themselves i n a p a r t i c u l a r manner when confronted with si t u a t i o n s i n which they must act" (pp.122-123). Interests matter because they lead to the construction of certain educational programs and not others. Power matters because i t determines whose inte r e s t s are represented. Cervero and Wilson (1996) describe the interplay between inte r e s t s and power as follows: Programs do not emerge, then, from the technical application of planning p r i n c i p l e s but rather from the i n t e r s e c t i o n of planners' and others' interests. In sum, power relationships structure the t e r r a i n on which people must act, and t h e i r i n t e r e s t s provide t h e i r motivation for acting on that t e r r a i n (p.10). The "intersection" of interests i s enacted through a process of negotiation across two dimensions: planners negotiate between inter e s t s (their own and other actors') and they also negotiate about the interests and the power relationships that structure them.9 Wilson and Cervero (1996b) provide the following prescriptions for planning practice which they describe as "a way 9 As Sork (1996) pointed out, these two dimensions of negotiation correspond to Elgstrom and R i i s ' s (1992) d i s t i n c t i o n between substantive and meta negotiations. 39 of seeing what r e a l l y matters i n planning educational programs for adults" (p.98): Planners must learn to negotiate power and interests responsibly, because t h e i r actions (that i s , t h e i r planning tasks) validate whose interests matter. Because power and interests matter, planners must learn how to anticipate sources of support and potential obstacles to plan responsibly. In order to anticipate, planners must determine the power relationships by f i g u r i n g out who counts and who should count. Planners must know who they are responsible to (that i s , whose interests matter, both p o l i t i c a l l y and e t h i c a l l y ) . As can be seen from the discussion of various d e f i n i t i o n s of planning above, Cervero and Wilson (1994, 1996) are not the f i r s t to c a l l for an approach to planning that incorporates the importance of s o c i a l interactions and the negotiation of interests (for example, Boyle (1981) refers to the "interplay of values" and Boone (1985) emphasizes the importance of mastering "strategies for i n t e r f a c i n g " ) . However, Cervero and Wilson (1994, 1996) are the f i r s t to p u l l the s o c i a l and the p o l i t i c a l aspects of planning into focus. It i s a matter of r e l a t i v e emphasis. 1 0 It i s for t h i s reason that Sork (1996) describes t h e i r approach as "a new set of optics for viewing the complexities of program planning" (p.81) and an overdue application of the s o c i a l 1 0 Indeed, Cervero and Wilson (1996) recognize "...a growing research t r a d i t i o n i n adult and continuing education that addresses the need for an understanding of program planning beyond the stepwise models presented i n the past" (p.7). They re f e r to Brookfield, 1986; Casey, 1989; M i l l s , Cervero, Langone, and Wilson, 1995; Pennington & Green, 1976; and Wissemann, 1991. 40 dynamics perspective to program planning. P l a n n i n g a c r o s s Domains Although the focus of t h i s research i s program planning i n adult education, the domain of community and regional planning i s also relevant. While each i s a substantive area of planning and, as such, draws on d i f f e r e n t s p e c i f i c theories to inform practice, the concept of planning transcends d i s c i p l i n a r y boundaries. At a broad l e v e l of abstraction, planning can be considered as the "guidance of future action" (Forester, 1989, p.3), which points to the foundation of hope, or the absence of determinism, underlying a l l planning e f f o r t s . This section looks at planning from three d i f f e r e n t perspectives i n community and regional planning. Freidmann (1973) advocates a "transactive" style of planning based on dialogue. Boothroyd (1986) discusses developmental planning and compares i t to other types of planning. Forester (1989) interprets planning as a process involving communicative action. Each of these approaches i s presented i n turn. Freidmann (1973) distinguishes between forms of planning and styles of planning. He discusses two main forms of planning: a l l o c a t i v e planning (the a l l o c a t i o n of scarce resources among competing users conducted within an equilibrium framework) and innovative planning (geared toward i n s t i t u t i o n a l change within a s o c i e t a l guidance system). Styles of planning, on the other hand, re f e r to the "ways i n which planning i s influenced by the 41 instruments and methods of control available to planners as well as by the s o c i a l and i n s t i t u t i o n a l environment to which i t must adapt i t s e l f to be e f f e c t i v e " (Friedmann, 1973, p.50). Transactive planning i s a style of planning that can be applied to either the a l l o c a t i v e or innovative forms. According to Friedmann (1973), "the transactive style i s es s e n t i a l to the ultimate success of planning" (p.190). The underlying assumption of the transactive s t y l e i s that planners and c l i e n t s are i n relationships of mutual dependence constrained by d i f f e r e n t vocabularies, methods of knowing, and role p r e s c r i p t i o n s . Freidmann (1973) explains: I n s t i t u t i o n s do not relate to each other as wholes, but through a complex series of exchanges among in d i v i d u a l s . Although these individuals behave primarily according to t h e i r formal role prescriptions, each role masks a singular personality.... The planner steeped i n the practice of the transactive style w i l l t r y to reach out> to the person who stands behind the formal role. (pp.171-172) Transactive planning i s geared toward closing the communication gap between planner and c l i e n t and i s accomplished through dialogue. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c features of dialogue according to Friedmann (1973) are as follows: 1. Dialogue presumes a relationship that i s grounded i n the authenticity of the person and accepts his 'otherness' as a basis for meaningful communication (p.178). 2. Dialogue presumes a r e l a t i o n i n which thinking, moral judgement, feeling, and empathy are fused i n authentic acts of being (pp.178-179) . 3. Dialogue presumes a r e l a t i o n i n which c o n f l i c t i s accepted (p.179). 4. Dialogue presumes a relationship of t o t a l communication i n which gestures and other modes of expression are as v i t a l to meaning as the substance of what i s being said (p.18 0). 5. Dialogue presumes a r e l a t i o n of shared interests and commitments (p.180). 6. Dialogue presumes a relationship of r e c i p r o c i t y and mutual 42 o b l i g a t i o n (p.180). 7. Dialogue presumes a relationship that unfolds i n r e a l time (p.181). These requirements of dialogue can be applied to any r e l a t i o n s h i p . Friedmann's description of a rel a t i o n s h i p based on dialogue i s indeed appealing: We can be open and a l e r t to the other, whoever he [sic] may be. We can accept him [sic] as a person d i f f e r e n t from ourselves without being threatening or f e e l i n g threatened i n turn. We can t r y to hold our i n t e l l e c t u a l , moral, a f f e c t i v e , and empathetic states of being i n mutual tension. We can accept c o n f l i c t as an inevitable part of dialogue and not i t s termination. We can look for the patterns of shared i n t e r e s t s . And we can concentrate the l i f e of dialogue on the here and now. (Friedmann, 1973, p.182) The r e s u l t of a transactive style of planning i s mutual learning for both parties and a fresh appreciation of the p o s s i b i l i t i e s for change. Boothroyd's (1986) discussion of how education i n systematic planning can contribute to Native s e l f - r e l i a n c e introduces some useful planning terms and vocabulary. F i r s t , Boothroyd describes the problem-solving approach of systematic planning as follows: . . . i t includes an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of what one wants to achieve, an analysis of the forces which are acting to help or hinder t h i s achievement, an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of al t e r n a t i v e solutions, an assessment of the l i k e l y effectiveness of each al t e r n a t i v e i n meeting a l l goals, and continuous evaluation of the selected alternative upon implementation, (p.16) Then, Boothroyd considers four types of planning distinguished by either a d i r e c t i o n a l or peripheral p o s i t i o n i n community decision-making and by either a centralized or p a r t i c i p a t o r y approach. These four types of planning are summarized below. R i t u a l i s t i c planning: i s peripheral to decisions and actions i n the community and involves a centralized process. "The plan may look good but the content i s useless, or at least 43 not used. It i s irrelevant to community action and decision-making" (p.19) . Placatory and w i s h - l i s t planning: i s peripheral to decisions and actions i n the community and i s p a r t i c i p a t o r y . "The planning process becomes an end i n i t s own right - perhaps useful as a s o c i a l a c t i v i t y i n the short term, but bound to generate cynicism and 'apathy' i n the long term....The process may be sincerely motivated but because i t i s not seen to change anything, such planning i s dismissed as a useless exercise" (1986, p.19). Autocratic planning: i s d i r e c t i o n a l of decision-making and action and involves a centralized process. "The planning i s e f f e c t i v e l y linked to action and decision making but i t i s centred i n one person or group whose values, perceptions, and often interest, become paramount" (1986, p.19). Developmental planning: i s d i r e c t i o n a l of decision-making and i s p a r t i c i p a t o r y . "Because t h i s form i s t r u l y community based ( i . e . , i t i s participatory) and i s e f f e c t i v e l y linked to decisions and actions, i t promotes i n i t s outcomes and processes the development of the whole community" (1986, p.20) . Boothroyd (1986) emphasizes that "planning processes are complex; they involve delicate timings, both creative and a n a l y t i c a l postures, c o n f l i c t i n g interests, and l i m i t e d knowledge about the future" (p.40). Because of t h i s complexity and inherent uncertainty, i t i s important to engage i n process planning ( i . e . , planning the planning process i t s e l f ) before undertaking substantive planning ( i . e . , goal setting and consideration of alt e r n a t i v e means and an evaluation system). The work of Forester (1983, 1989, 1993) has served as a source of i n s p i r a t i o n to Cervero and Wilson's (1994, 1996) approach to planning as the negotiation of i n t e r e s t s . Forester (1989) uses the lens of c r i t i c a l theory to view planning practice as a form of communicative action which i s the "selective, 44 communicative organizing or disorganizing of attention" (p.11). Forester's (1989) account of planning practice i s based on three assumptions: F i r s t , such an account must do j u s t i c e to the r e a l , messy-settings i n which planning takes place. Second, i t must embrace the everyday experiences of planners and make sense of t h e i r perceptions of the complexities, uncertainties, and ambiguities of d a i l y practice. Third, i t must e x p l i c i t l y address normative questions of information d i s t o r t i o n , manipulated p a r t i c i p a t i o n , legitimation, and i d e o l o g i c a l versus legitimate exercises of power, (pp.10-11) According to Forester (1989), planning i s neither just the technical application of a problem-solving approach nor just a matter of surviving p o l i t i c a l maneovering. "These images of planning have aspects of truth to them - there are often both technical and p o l i t i c a l dimensions to planners' work - but such stereotypes poorly capture the r e a l i t i e s of planning practice. That practice i s both far more complex and far more fascinating than these images suggest" (Forester, 1989, p.4) . The complex and fascinating aspects of planning practice are revealed through Forester's view of planning as attention shaping. Planning actions are not only instrumental ( i . e . , a means to an end), but they are also a type of promise giving r i s e to c e r t a i n expectations. "Even the most instrumental, apparently neutral, means/ends-oriented action i s p o l i t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , as attention i s shaped to necessity and p o s s i b i l i t y , and hence to hope, cynicism, pa s s i v i t y , and commitment" (Forester, 1983, p.242) . 45 P l a n n i n g i n Context This section turns once again to the l i t e r a t u r e on program planning i n adult education and poses two questions: 1) What i s included i n the notion of context? and 2) How does the context a f f e c t the process of planning? In 1976, Pennington and Green pointed out that p r a c t i t i o n e r s r e a l i z e that "personal values, environmental constraints, available resource alternatives, and other factors impinge on the program development process" (p.22) and yet these factors are not given much attention i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Twenty years l a t e r , a review of the l i t e r a t u r e on program planning i n adult education suggests that the context of planning has s t i l l not been given adequate attention. Most authors provide l i s t s of the d i f f e r e n t aspects of context that are considered to be important with respect to the planning process, but they do not explore the underlying mechanisms of how the context influences the planning process or how the context i t s e l f may be enacted through the process of planning. The context i s usually described as an exogenous, constraining "variable" or "factor" as opposed to a recursive view where context i s considered as both precondition and product. 1 1 Boyle (1981) focuses on program type as the main factor determining the process and outcome of planning. He distinguishes among three types of programs: developmental (individual, group, 1 1 Cervero and Wilson (1994, 1996) are among the few that do allow for a recursive relationship between context and the planning process. 46 or community problem-solving), i n s t i t u t i o n a l (focused on improving i n d i v i d u a l learners' knowledge, s k i l l s and basic a b i l i t i e s ) , and informational (exchange of information). "Understanding the d i f f e r e n t types of programs i s s i g n i f i c a n t because the type of program and i t s goals have implications for the nature and design of the learning opportunities to be provided, the resources necessary to achieve the goals, and the role of the programmer i n the programming process" (Boyle, 1981, p.6). The three types of programs vary i n t h e i r l e v e l s of f l e x i b i l i t y and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y and i n t h i s way can a f f e c t the planner's r o l e . "For example, a developmental program...is generally a changing, f l e x i b l e s i t u a t i o n as compared with more i n s t i t u t i o n a l , predictable programs" (Boyle, 1981, p.70). According to Boyle (1981), the role of the programmer i s also affected by community factors, personal attributes of the programmer, and organizational factors. Boyle gives an example of structure as an organizational factor that can influence the planning process by l i m i t i n g the planner's r o l e . The organization for which the programmer works obviously has an e f f e c t on the role(s) she or he performs. The structure of the organization may l i m i t the use of c e r t a i n r o l e . A person working i n a given organization may not be able to u t i l i z e c o n f l i c t strategies or roles that coerce opposing community groups. Rather, they w i l l need to use roles and strategies that neutralize the opposition and maintain community s t a b i l i t y . (Boyle, 1981, p. 71) Boyle (1981) also mentions two other organizational factors influencing the role of the planner: the r e l a t i v e power and resources of the planner's organization. The prestige and leverage associated with the organization w i l l a f f e c t what the 47 planner can accomplish. In addition to af f e c t i n g the role of the planner, the context, i n the form of " i n s t i t u t i o n a l and in d i v i d u a l constraints" (Boyle, 1981, p.46) can also d i r e c t l y i n h i b i t planning. These constraints, which are not always obvious to the planner, can include: the organizational stance on planning, f i n a n c i a l l i m i t a t i o n s , the interests and p r i o r i t i e s of administration, external funders, and planners themselves. "In many cases, these constraints can be avoided through e f f e c t i v e program development procedures. However, i n other situations, the constraints must be recognized and accepted as a part of the program development framework" (Boyle, 1981, p.46). These constraints are viewed as given - to be "avoided" or "accepted," but not altered. One way that Boyle suggests for avoiding the related constraints of f i n a n c i a l l i m i t a t i o n s and external funders' p r i o r i t i e s i s through involvement of stakeholders i n planning: The program development process must provide for the legitimation and other supportive actions that w i l l f a c i l i t a t e the organization's e f f o r t s to obtain continuity and adequate f i n a n c i a l resources. Involvement of i n f l u e n t i a l decision makers at opportune times i n the programming process w i l l provide for greater understanding and acceptance. (Boyle, 1981, p.50) Involvement of stakeholders often takes place i n a group decision-making format. Advisory committees and Boards of Directors are examples of groups that come together to make decisions regarding p r i o r i t y programs or to leg i t i m i z e the decisions already made by the planner. In either case, the 48 interactions and relationships among the group members w i l l have an e f f e c t on the planning process. According to Boyle (1981), factors a f f e c t i n g interaction among members of decision-making groups include the following: - presence of self-oriented goals (p.129) - heterogeneity of the group (p.13 0) - leadership style (p.130) - formal structure of the group (p.13 0) - pattern of communication among group members (p.130) - amount of and d i s t r i b u t i o n of power i n the group (p.131) - cohesiveness of the group (p.131) - adherence to group norms (p.131) - emotional and cognitive c o n f l i c t (p.132) - group size (p.132). Boone (1985) l i s t s three main categories of features of the context that a f f e c t planning: "the mission and philosophy of the adult education organization, the so c i o c u l t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of learner groups or systems and t h e i r environment, and the unique personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and s t y l e of the adult educator" (p.3). Boone (1985) focuses on the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the planner as a major influence on the planning process. "These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s include personal values and goals, mastery of c e r t a i n concepts and p r i n c i p l e s of programming, and s k i l l i n programming decisions.... The soundness of decisions taken w i l l strongly influence the qu a l i t y of the planned program and i t s outcomes" (pp.6-7). Boone (1985) emphasizes that planners need to understand the so c i o c u l t u r a l context of the planning and implementation of programs and "...to be f a m i l i a r with the linkages i n the s o c i a l structure and with the reference groups or leaders that are important to the publics they seek to serve" (Boone, 1985, p.44). Planners may not have control over many 49 events i n the so c i o c u l t u r a l context, but they should be able to take them into account, or even anticipate them, i n planning. According to Boone (1985), planners should also be sen s i t i v e to and i n agreement with the mission and philosophy of t h e i r own organization. They should also be f a m i l i a r with management processes. This understanding and commitment i s a prerequisite for planning. Conceptually, the mission, philosophy, functions, structure, and processes of the organization should be the f i r s t consideration i n delineating planning as a major subprocess of the conceptual programming model. (Boone, 1985, p. 66) Brookfield (1986) i d e n t i f i e s three main groups of contextual constraints facing p r a c t i t i o n e r s : "personality c o n f l i c t s , p o l i t i c a l factors, and budgetary constraints" (p.202). The unique configuration of per s o n a l i t i e s involved i n every planning s i t u a t i o n gets played out through a type of "psychosocial drama" (p.227). P o l i t i c a l factors are present i n decisions to cut back funding or terminate programs. Budgetary constraints or changes i n resource a l l o c a t i o n decisions are often imposed from above. Brookfield (1986) also points to potential c o n f l i c t between personal goals and organizational goals as an important contextual factor that has not been adequately addressed i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Many times the educator's sense of values w i l l coincide neatly with the p r i o r i t i e s of the i n s t i t u t i o n . . . . But at other times t h i s f i t between individual and i n s t i t u t i o n w i l l not be so easy to arrange. Individual programmers w i l l often f i n d themselves wanting to devote energy and resources to programs not deemed es p e c i a l l y important i n i n s t i t u t i o n a l terms. Here, a c o n f l i c t between the p r a c t i t i o n e r ' s own value system and the i n s t i t u t i o n a l ethos and mission i s almost i n e v i t a b l e . Few writers on program development i n adult 50 education address t h i s point of c o n f l i c t , (p.231) Kowalski (1988) groups the context for planning and implementation into four interacting clusters of factors: "the general environment i n which the organization exists, the parent organization, the adult education program, and the learners" (p.9). The environment includes external elements such as the community, pressure groups, other i n s t i t u t i o n s , demand for services, and s o c i e t a l needs and laws. Organizational factors that a f f e c t the planning process include role expectations, resources, organizational goals, p o l i c i e s , and regulations. The program factors are learner needs, the physical environment, in s t r u c t i o n , learner motivation, learner access, and the curriculum. F i n a l l y , Kowalski (1988) places the learners i n the center of a l l these nested clu s t e r s . Because there are so many contextual factors and they a l l interact, Kowalski emphasizes that each planning s i t u a t i o n w i l l be unique and that planning "as a c r i t i c a l aspect of administration, i s a process which does not lend i t s e l f to single solutions. Rather, each program presents the p r a c t i t i o n e r with a novel challenge which necessitates an understanding of the adult as a learner, the environment as a r e s t r i c t i n g variable, and the parent organization as a c o n t r o l l i n g variable" (pp.10-11). Kowalski (1988) stresses that an e f f e c t i v e program planner requires more than just knowledge related to adults as learners; i t i s also necessary to have an understanding of the relationship between the sponsoring agency and the program, and an a b i l i t y to predict the poten t i a l e f f e c t s 51 of the broader i n s t i t u t i o n a l context on the planning process. Sork and C a f f a r e l l a (1989) refer to the context of planning as a "milieu" that can "substantially influence" the planning process (p.235). The constraints imposed by the organizational context that can affe c t how planning proceeds include " h i s t o r i e s , t r a d i t i o n s , philosophical orientations, p o l i c i e s , and operating procedures" (p.235). Characteristics of the c l i e n t system include "age, educational attainment, c u l t u r a l background, f a c i l i t y with written language, economic status, history of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n education, geographic d i s t r i b u t i o n , and s o c i a l a f f i l i a t i o n s " (p.236). Most models of planning incorporate the analysis of the planning context and the c l i e n t system as a f i r s t step so that these factors can be considered i n subsequent planning decisions. An example of how they could be taken into account would be i f the discovery of f i n a n c i a l barriers to p a r t i c i p a t i o n for many pot e n t i a l c l i e n t s led to changes i n the p r i c i n g and promotion of a program. Dominick (1990) conducted a multi-case study focusing on how decisions are made i n planning and how the setting a f f e c t s the planning process. Contextual constraints on decision-making were grouped into three categories: l o g i s t i c a l , a f f i l i a t i v e , and egocentric. L o g i s t i c a l constraints include time l i m i t i a t i o n s , resources, and the physical setting. A f f i l i a t i v e constraints are considered to be "acculturation of the pr a c t i t i o n e r , the v i s i b i l i t y of adult education i n the mission of the organization, and the need for s o c i a l acceptance i n the organization which was 52 usually done through collaboration and delegation" (p.74). F i n a l l y , the egocentric constraints mentioned by Dominick (1990) are the " l e v e l of expertise i n both adult education and the organization which then impinged on p o l i t i c a l savvy i n the decision-making, gender expectation of the decision-maker and the i n d i v i d u a l ' s desire for decisional recognition" (pp.74-75). These three types of constraints affected the p r a c t i t i o n e r ' s choice of a "decisional repertoire" to be either an optimizing strategy or a s a t i s f i c i n g strategy. Cervero and Wilson (1996) l i s t "resource competition and l i m i t a t i o n s , s h i f t i n g a l l i a n c e s and demands, i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o l i c i e s , and power re l a t i o n s " (p.7) as the main factors that shape planners' actions. They also acknowledge that the r a t i o n a l i t y of planning agents i s l i m i t e d or bounded by other factors. The notion of bounded r a t i o n a l i t y was f i r s t developed by Simon (1955) and more recently by March (1978) and i s based on the assumption that r a t i o n a l i t y i s i n e v i t a b l y constrained by the informational and computational l i m i t s of human beings. Cervero and Wilson (1994) base t h e i r approach on Forester (1989) who has taken the concept of bounded r a t i o n a l i t y a step further. In addition to cognitive l i m i t s , r a t i o n a l i t y i s also bounded by p o l i t i c a l , s t r u c t u r a l or systematic constraints (e.g., i n e q u a l i t i e s a r i s i n g from d i v i s i o n of labor) and by s o c i a l l y unnecessary constraints (e.g., deception). Taken a l l together, these bounds on a planner's r a t i o n a l i t y are described as communicative d i s t o r t i o n s . Cervero and Wilson (1994) emphasize 53 that i f planners can learn to read situations i n terms of the communicative d i s t o r t i o n s and then learn to anticipate the p o l i t i c a l bounds on planning, they w i l l be better able to select the most appropriate strategy "for nurturing a substantively democratic planning process" (p.13 0). If relations among legitimate interests are consensual, then the most appropriate strategies are s a t i s f i c i n g and networking. If re l a t i o n s are c o n f l i c t u a l , then the planner should choose a bargaining or counteracting strategy. Cervero and Wilson (1996) point to a rec i p r o c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between the process of planning as negotiation and the context: People's interests and power relationships are not s t a t i c but are continually being acted upon by the negotiation process itself....We argue that power relationships and interests always both structure planners' actions (negotiation) and are reconstructed by them. In other words, planners act both within and upon t h e i r context, (p.10) M i l l s , Cervero, Langone, and Wilson (1995) conducted a case study within the Cooperative Extension System (CES) using interviews and document analysis to determine how personal and organizational interests are related to the educational programs that get planned. Their study shows how interests are expressed through the context and how the context then influences which programs get constructed. Three contextual factors are i d e n t i f i e d : 1) organizational structure and culture, 2) available resources for extension programs, and 3) power relationships within the CES. Each of these contextual categories was further broken down into s p e c i f i c properties. The categories and t h e i r sub-groups are summarized below: 54 1. o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e (administrative hierarchy) and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e (values and beliefs) recruitment and selection practices t r a i n i n g and s o c i a l i z a t i o n 2• a v a i l a b l e resources - extension s t a f f support - external support 3. power r e l a t i o n s h i p s - p o l i t i c s of funding and support - community dynamics Their study shows how each of these factors affected the programs constructed by d i r e c t l y influencing the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of needs and the choice of who to involve i n the process of planning. The authors contend that: . . . i n l i n k i n g contextual factors with planners' practices, we are better able to understand the mechanisms through which interests a f f e c t the educational programs constructed i n any adult education organization. This suggests that program planning theories must attend to these mechanisms i n order to have any chance to account for what r e a l l y matters i n adult educators' planning practices, and correspondingly, why c e r t a i n programs are brought into existence and others are not. (Mills, Cervero, Langone, & Wilson, 1995, p. 29) This section of the l i t e r a t u r e review has looked at the consequence of the planning context according to various authors i n the f i e l d of adult education. Although context i s described i n many ways, a l l would agree that the e f f e c t of the context on planning i s something that should be taken into account, both i n the planning process i t s e l f (as a f i r s t step) and i n any attempt to theorize about program planning. Understanding the re l a t i o n s h i p between the context and the planning process i s important because "the organizational environment of planning w i l l s u b s t a n t i a l l y influence the reception, appreciation, and effectiveness of planner's work" (Forester, 1989, p.67). It i s 55 also important from the point of view of theory building. Because planning i s a complex s i t u a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y , planning theory has to address the "contextual circumstances confronted by p r a c t i t i o n e r s " (Sork & C a f f a r e l l a , 1989, p.238) i n order to be useful and applicable. F u r t h e r Development of the Problem Statement The review of l i t e r a t u r e on program planning i n adult education revealed a var i e t y of approaches to planning and helped to "open up" the concept. There i s a great deal of overlap i n how planning i s defined i n adult education, but there i s no single d e f i n i t i o n that contains a l l the aspects of planning mentioned and that captures the complexities of the process i n a clear and elegant manner. Planning i s conceptualized i n the following ways: as a complex of interacting elements (Houle, 1972); as administration (Pennington & Green, 1976; Kowalski, 1989); as the interplay of values (Boyle, 1981); as strategic i n t e r f a c i n g (Boone, 1985); as the negotiation of interests (Cervero & Wilson, 1994, 1996; M i l l s , Cervero, Langone, & Wilson, 1995); as dialogue (Freidmann, 1973); as problem-solving (Boothroyd, 1986); and f i n a l l y , as attention shaping (Forester, 1989). These metaphors for planning are not necessarily mutually exclusive; they provide us with complementary and often overlapping ways of looking at the process of planning. The l i t e r a t u r e review also investigated the rel a t i o n s h i p between the planning process and the context. A cumulative l i s t 56 of a l l the aspects of context mentioned i n the adult education l i t e r a t u r e review as having an effect on the planning process i s as follows: i n d i v i d u a l factors (planner's role, personal att r i b u t e s , values, decision-making s k i l l s , awareness of the context, and bounded r a t i o n a l i t y ) ; program factors (program type, goals, and l o g i s t i c s ) ; organizational factors (mission, history, p h i l o s p h i c a l orientations, p r i o r i t i e s , ethos, structure, resources, administration, p o l i c i e s , recruitment practices, s t a f f t r a i n i n g , budgets, interactions among members, personality c o n f l i c t s , and power r e l a t i o n s ) ; and, environmental factors (relationships with external funders, community dynamics, socio-c u l t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of learners, pressure groups, and s o c i e t a l needs and laws). This unwieldy l i s t reveals the wide va r i e t y of interpretations of "context" within the adult education program planning l i t e r a t u r e . While i t i s generally agreed that context affects planning, the mechanism for t h i s influence i s not yet f u l l y understood. Cervero and Wilson (1994, 1996) and M i l l s , Cervero, Langone, and Wilson (1995) propose the negotiation of personal and organizational interests as the vehicle. While t h i s approach offers immense poten t i a l for developing a better understanding of the dynamics of planning, "much work remains to be done to extend t h e i r analysis and to understand i t s implications for program planning" (Sork, 1996, p.89). Cervero and Wilson (1994) themselves recognize that further research needs to be c a r r i e d out which would "treat systematically the intrapersonal or interpersonal dynamics that 57 often a f f e c t planning practices.... [and] examine i n the depth necessary the external relationships that planners form with other agencies i n developing programs" (Cervero & Wilson, 1994, p.12). Sork (1996) also points to the need to supplement t h e i r work with a "more complete set of a n a l y t i c a l tools...that capture the complexities of negotiations" (p.84). Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework developed here builds on the negotiation approach to planning. The framework provides a set of related perspectives that serves as an orienting strategy for the analysis of the ethnographic findings presented i n Chapters Four - Seven. The f i r s t part of the conceptual framework l i n k s two strands of research: leadership theory and the s o c i a l contextualist perspective i n negotiation theory. Through t h i s juxtaposition, I am able to examine the process of planning i n a new l i g h t - as the negotiation of meaning. The second part of the framework shows how a deeper understanding of the context of planning i s accomplished by conceptualizing context as culture and by applying a s u b j e c t i v i s t , multi-perspective approach to analyzing cultures i n organizations. B a s i c Assumptions The basic assumptions that support t h i s framework are divided into two groups: assumptions about planning and assumptions about the context. They are drawn from a v a r i e t y of 58 sources i n the f i e l d s of educational planning, adult education program planning, and organizational behavior. These assumptions are statements that I accepted as true p r i o r to beginning the ethnography at Global Faith and continue to accept. Assumptions about Planning 1. Planning is a mode of social interaction (Freidmann, 1973; Boyle, 1981; Brookfield, 1986; Adams, 1988; Forester, 1989). This implies that actors involved i n planning "...take each other into account, that one actor t r i e s to di r e c t the other, and that they are operating i n a common sit u a t i o n " (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980, p.17). Adams (1988) explains the consequences of viewing planning as an inte r a c t i v e s o c i a l practice: As viewed from within interactive models, planners are deeply enmeshed i n practice and may be viewed as negotiators, consensus builders, human rel a t i o n s s p e c i a l i s t s , gentle arbiters or, because of p o l i t i c a l and power concerns, 'jungle fighters'....The metaphor that comes to mind when considering these models i s a human drama replete with symbols, rules, special language, and per s o n a l i t i e s , i n which the actors or players struggle to f i n d and communicate meaning, to seek f u l f i l l m e n t , or to cope with alienation, (p.406) This i n t e r a c t i o n i s t perspective puts the focus on the people involved i n planning and i s concerned with int e r p r e t a t i o n of shared meanings and structures of relevance. 2. Planners are involved in relationships of interdependence (Boyle, 1981; Kowlaski, 1988; Forester, 1989). Planners do not work i n a state of s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t i s o l a t i o n . They are dependent on others (and are depended upon by others) 59 for information, for resources, for legitimacy, for support, and even for s u r v i v a l of the organization. This interdependence can be r e l a t e d to outcomes or behaviour and can be c l a s s i f i e d as e i t h e r competitive or symbiotic. The dimensions of dependence are important because they help to "...determine whether part i e s stay i n a given relationship, attempt to change i t by t a c t i c a l action, increase the amount of distance i n the relationship, or simply abandon i t " (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980, p.23). The dependence view of relationships points to the importance of understanding the d i s t r i b u t i o n of power i n the planning context. Power i s an i n t r i n s i c aspect of s o c i a l relationships, even though i t need not always be s a l i e n t or perceived as such by the actors.... Dependence i s based on (1) the a v a i l a b i l i t y of a l t e r n a t i v e outcome sources (outcome a l t e r n a t i v e s ) , and (2) the degree of value attributed to the outcome at stake (outcome value). Outcome alternatives r e f e r to the probablity that an actor can obtain better outcomes from other relationships.... The implication of the outcome alternatives dimension i s that power must be examined not simply i n terms of a p a r t i c u l a r relationship i n i s o l a t i o n but i n terms of the network of relationships that encompasses the p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p . . . . The greater the value attached to the outcomes in the relationship, the greater the power of the other; by the same token, the more value the other attaches to the outcomes, the greater the actor's own power i n the relationship. (Bacharach & Lawler, 1980, pp.20-21) 3. Planning is intendedly rational (Pfeffer, 1982; Bratman, 1987). Planning actions are f o r e s i g h t f u l and are chosen to serve a purpose. Planning i s goal-directed and r e f l e c t s intentions. Intentions play a key role i n Bratman's (1987) philosophical analysis of planning. Intentions are "conduct-controlling pro-60 attitudes" (p.16), and as such, are the "building blocks of plans" (p.8). Planning i s affected by intentions because we frequently reason and plan from more general to more s p e c i f i c intentions and from an intended end to intended means. Intentions can vary through time and across d i f f e r e n t actors. While planning i s based on intentions, because of an uncertain future and incomplete understandings of the present, planning i s also considered to be boundedly r a t i o n a l . This combination of intentional actions and bounded r a t i o n a l i t y i s described by Pfe f f e r (1982) as "intendedly r a t i o n a l . " Viewing planning as "intendedly r a t i o n a l " helps to explain why plans are t y p i c a l l y p a r t i a l and h i e r a r c h i c a l . According to Bratman (1987) : The strategy of s e t t l i n g i n advance on such p a r t i a l , h i e r a r c h i c a l l y structured plans, leaving more s p e c i f i c decisions t i l l l a t e r , has a deep pragmatic rationale. On the one hand, we need to coordinate our a c t i v i t i e s both within our own l i v e s and s o c i a l l y , between l i v e s . And we need to do t h i s i n ways compatible with our li m i t e d capacities to deliberate and process information. Further, given these same l i m i t a t i o n s , we need a way to allow p r i o r deliberation to shape l a t e r conduct. This argues for being planning creatures. On the other hand, the world changes i n ways we are not i n a p o s i t i o n to anticipate; so highly detailed plans about the far future w i l l often be of l i t t l e use and not worth the bother. P a r t i a l , h i e r a r c h i c a l l y structured plans for the future provide our compromise solution, (p.30) The h i e r a r c h i c a l structure of plans makes i t possible to deliberate about cert a i n components of a plan, while holding other parts constant. For example, a planner may "hold fi x e d c e r t a i n intended ends, while deliberating about means or preliminary steps" (Bratman, 1987, p.29). 61 4. Most decisions in organizations affect, or are affected by, planning (Boone, 1985). Planning i s a form of decision-making and i s related to many-decisions within organizations. "The decision making perspective assumes that people t r y to achieve preferred outcomes, objectives, or goals, even though they may be unsure, i n error, or unable to express t h e i r concepts of value" (Carroll & Johnson, 1990, p.21). Boone (1985) compares the pervasive aspect of planning i n organizations to the manufacturing process i n an i n d u s t r i a l complex which "embodies a l l the functions, tasks, and events that contribute to producing, processing, and marketing a product" (p.41). Planning also provides a "road map for a ra t i o n a l response to uncertainty and change" (p.80), coordinated control of operations, and a f u t u r i s t i c leadership stance (Boone, 1985). While a program planner may not have d i r e c t control over many of the decisions within organizations, i t i s s t i l l possible to reconcile them with planning by giving the program planner c r e d i t f or taking these decisions into account. It i s not a question of being responsible for a l l organizational decisions, but rather being sensitive to them i n recognizing both what i s desirable and what i s possible. 5. Not all planning decisions involve negotiation (Sork, 1996). In i t s simplest form, negotiation i s a response to c o n f l i c t . C o n f l i c t comes from a perceived incompatibility of inte r e s t s within a relat i o n s h i p of mutual dependence where the achievement 62 of one's own interest can be affected by the other party (Greenhalgh & Chapman, 1995; Elgstrom & R i i s , 1992). It i s important to emphasize, however, that negotiation i s not the only response to c o n f l i c t ; use of power and c o n f l i c t management are other a l t e r n a t i v e s for achieving interests. Greenhalgh and Chapman (1995) point out that "negotiation d i f f e r s from the use of power i n that negotiating parties v o l u n t a r i l y commit themselves to the course of action they agree upon, whereas power users overcome resistance i n a way that results i n compliance rather than commitment" (p.167). Sork (1996) cautions against categorizing planning as only negotiation. . . . i t i s indeed useful to regard planning as negotiation, but we need to understand the dangers of only seeing 'negotiations' when we look at planning practice. While focusing our gaze on negotiations among the actors, we may miss events and decisions that are not s t r i c t l y t i e d to negotiations but that may have an important impact on the program.... Responsible planning, then, i s much more than negotiating; i t also involves applying knowledge and s k i l l s that have only an i n d i r e c t or marginal r e l a t i o n s h i p to the power and interests of the actors, (p.83) Assumptions about Context 6. Organizations are inherently mixed-motive in nature (Kochan & Verma, 1983). The mixed-motive nature of organizations implies that the parties share a range of common interests as well as c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s . This range of overlapping and divergent interests provides the motivation for engaging i n negotiation (as opposed to terminating the relationship) and allows for the p o s s i b i l i t y of integrative bargaining and a problem-solving approach. 63 7. The interests that separate parties within organizations can vary considerably (Kochan & Verma, 1983). "Most mixed-motive processes involve both objective and subjective differences i n goals and perceptions....[we] need to consider both the re a l and enduring and the perceived or constructed differences i n interests or goals" (Kochan & Verma, 1983, p.19). This corresponds to Cervero's and Wilson's (1994, 1996) d i s t i n c t i o n between rea l interests and expressed i n t e r e s t s . Bacharach and Lawler (1981) also emphasize that v a r i a t i o n across int e r e s t s can be related to d i f f e r e n t economic circumstances or s t r u c t u r a l roles or to subjective, interpersonal, or socially-constructed perceptions of differences. 8. Organizations must transact with other elements in their environment to acquire necessary resources (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978/1990; Kowalski, 1988). According to the resource dependence perspective, organizations are not i n t e r n a l l y s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t or self-contained. They require resources from the environment. As a res u l t of interdependencies, "most organizations are confronted with numerous demands from a va r i e t y of s o c i a l actors, and many of these demands are incompatible" (Pfeffer, 1982, p.195). In addition to the option of complying with environmental demands, a v a r i e t y of strategies may be implemented to make compliance less necessary. For example, the organization can either e s t a b l i s h a negotiated environment to ensure the continuation of 64 needed resources or a l t e r the pattern of interdependence facing the organization (Pfeffer, 1982). P l a n n i n g as the N e g o t i a t i o n of Meaning Central to the conceptual framework i s the perspective that planning i s a process that includes the negotiation of meaning. It i s important to emphasize that t h i s view of planning was not an assumption that I started with and then took with me to the f i e l d . I developed t h i s perspective a f t e r completing the fieldwork while I was immersed i n analysis and writing the early drafts of the d i s s e r t a t i o n (in p a r t i c u l a r , Chapter Seven). I did take an awareness of Cervero and Wilson's (1994, 1996) notion of planning as the negotiation of power and interests with me to the f i e l d . 1 2 While I saw the potential of t h e i r view for h i g h l i g h t i n g the interactive nature of planning, I was not convinced that the emphasis on interests and power relationships i n t h e i r approach would be the most illuminating when applied to the ethnography of planning at Global Faith. After the ethnographic fieldwork was completed, I came across an a r t i c l e discussing leadership as the management of meaning (Smircich & Morgan, 1982) . Linking the idea that meaning i n organized settings can be "created, sustained, and changed" (p.261) together with the analytic tools provided by negotiation theory, I was able to see planning i n a new l i g h t - as a process 1 2 In 1992, I read a pre-publication draft of the f i r s t three chapters of the Cervero and Wilson's 1994 book. 65 involving the negotiation of meaning. This new concept helped me to make sense of planning as I saw i t occuring at Global Faith. The purpose of t h i s section i s to discuss what the term "negotiation of meaning" refers to when I use i t i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n . Both aspects - "negotiation" and "meaning" - need ex p l i c a t i o n . F i r s t I consider the meanings of "meaning" ( i . e . , meta-meanings). Then, I discuss "negotiation" and show how t h i s concept can be linked to the metaphor of leadership as the management of meaning. The f i n a l part of t h i s section draws on negotiation theory i n order to draw attention to the role of planners as s o c i a l decision makers and to highlight the impact of relationships and information processing on planning (Kramer & Messick, 1995) . Using analytic tools provided by negotiation theory, I o f f e r an organizing frame - which i s new to the f i e l d of adult education program planning - for understanding planning a c t i v i t i e s as negotiation episodes. The Multiple Meanings of Meaning What do I mean by "meaning?" The Oxford English Dictionary (1989) d e f i n i t i o n of "meaning" includes: "intention, purpose; that which i s intended to be or actually i s expressed or indicated; the s i g n i f i c a t i o n , sense, import, interpretation; of a symbol, sign or token that; of an action, a state of things; s i g n i f i c a n c e " (p.522). Usage of the term "meaning" i n a conceptualization of planning thus captures the in t e n t i o n a l , expressive, interpretive, symbolic, and s i g n i f i c a n t aspects of 66 the process of planning. When combined with the process of negotiation, there are two dimensions along which "meaning" can vary. 1 3 The "meaning" of an a c t i v i t y , state, or object can be the focus or the subject matter of the discussions taking place between negotiating p a r t i e s . Together, the negotiating parties are working through what something "means" (i . e . , what i s intended, expressed, interpreted, symbolized, and signified) i n order to come to an arrangement or agreement. This i s what I am c a l l i n g the "meaning as text" dimension. The second dimension refers to the underlying meanings that negotiating parties may recognize, ignore, avoid, or deal with throughout negotiations. This i s what I am c a l l i n g the "meaning as sub-text" dimension. To summarize, planners both negotiate meaning and they deal with meaning i n negotiations. Leadership and the Management of Meaning The perspective that planning includes the negotiation of meaning i s related to a s i m i l a r metaphor i n the f i e l d of 1 3 "Text" and "sub-text" as meaning dimensions were suggested by Peter Boothroyd i n personal communication. Usage of these two dimensions i s similar, though not i d e n t i c a l , to Cervero and Wilson's (1994) idea that "negotiation always involves two separate actions that occur simultaneously.... not only do planners negotiate with and between interests, they also negotiate about the interests and power relationships that structure t h e i r planning practice" (pp.29-30). However, there i s an important difference i n emphasis. I am saying: not only do planners negotiate about various meanings as they engage i n t h e i r planning a c t i v i t i e s ( i . e . , meaning as the subject matter or text), but they also negotiate with and between consistent, c o n f l i c t i n g , and confusing meanings (i . e . , meaning as the underlying set of interpretations or sub-text). 67 leadership research: that leading includes the management of meaning. Smircich and Morgan (1982) explain that the "management of meaning" metaphor can be helpful i n understanding both the practice of leadership and the phenomenon of organized a c t i v i t y : A focus on the way meaning i n organized settings i s created, sustained, and changed provides a powerful means of understanding the fundamental nature of leadership as a s o c i a l process. In understanding the way leadership actions attempt to shape and interpret situations to guide organizational members into a common inter p r e t a t i o n of r e a l i t y , we are able to understand how leadership works to create an important foundation for organized a c t i v i t y . . . . Leadership as a phenomenon i s i d e n t i f i a b l e within i t s wider context as a form of action that seeks to shape i t s context, (p.261) The management of meaning e n t a i l s the framing of experience " i n a way that provides a viable basis for action, e.g., by mobilizing meaning, a r t i c u l a t i n g and defining what has previously remained i m p l i c i t or unsaid, by inventing images and meanings that provide a focus for new attention, and by consolidating, confronting, or changing p r e v a i l i n g wisdom" (Smircich & Morgan, 1982, p.258). According to Smircich and Morgan (1982), leadership involves a process whereby the power to define r e a l i t y or shape meaning i s either i m p l i c i t l y or e x p l i c i t l y surrendered by the led to the leader. "The actions and utterances of leaders guide the attention of those involved i n a s i t u a t i o n i n ways that are consciously designed to shape the meaning of the s i t u a t i o n . The actions and utterances draw attention to p a r t i c u l a r aspects of the o v e r a l l flow of experience, transforming what may be complex and ambiguous into something more discrete and vested with a 68 s p e c i f i c pattern of meaning" (p.261). The main challenge facing a leader i s the same as the key-challenge facing a negotiator: "to manage meaning i n such a way that i n d i v i d u a l s orient themselves to the achievement of desirable ends" (Smircich & Morgan, 1982, p.262). Thus, the concept of the management of meaning i s relevant to both negotiation and leadership. There i s an important d i s t i n c t i o n to be made, however, between the negotiation of meaning and the management of meaning: i n t h i s dissertation, the l a t t e r i s considered to be a strategy used to e f f e c t i v e l y carry out the former. Characterizing Interactions as Negotiations I am assuming that planning i s a mode of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n and that planners are involved i n relationships of interdependence i n order to get t h e i r planning work done (assumptions #1, #2). While I agree that "negotiating i s a pervasive a c t i v i t y that i s central to organizational l i f e " (Bazerman & Lewicki, 1983, p.7), I am also assuming that not a l l planning decisions i n e v i t a b l y involve negotiation (assumption #5). What needs c l a r i f i c a t i o n , then, i s how to characterize interactions as negotiations. Kochan and Verma (1983) provide the following set of necessary c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : Negotiations represent a special form of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n or decision making that (1) involves more than one party, (2) who hold some p o t e n t i a l l y c o n f l i c t i n g i nterests as well as s u f f i c i e n t common interests or interdependence to motivate each to remain within the relationship or complete the exchange, and (3) involves r e c i p r o c i t y , (p.14) 69 These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of negotiation interactions - multiple pa r t i e s bound together through mixed motives and r e c i p r o c i t y -underly the importance of shared power across the negotiating p a r t i e s . Without mutual interdependence or shared power - even i f i t i s an unequal d i s t r i b u t i o n of power - the one party holding a l l the power "can u n i l a t e r a l l y decide the outcome without negotiating with the others" (Kochan & Verma, 1983, p.24). Relationships i n Negotiations Greenhalgh and Chapman (1995) provide a conceptual d e f i n i t i o n for a relationship "as the meaning assigned by two or more indivi d u a l s to t h e i r connectedness or coexistence" (p.179). Within the context of negotiation theory, the set of cognitions generated by a relationship help determine a negotiator's posture toward the other party. The other party may be an i n d i v i d u a l negotiator (dyad configuration), or two or more individuals acting as one party (team configuration), or may include groups of three or more individuals each representing t h e i r own in t e r e s t s (multiparty configuration), or may consist of indiv i d u a l s representing d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l groups negotiating with members of other.groups (intergroup configuration), or may involve an a l l i a n c e among a subset of members within a larger group ( c o a l i t i o n configuration) (Thompson, Peterson, & Kray, 1995; Polzer, Mannix, & Neale, 1995). In addition to party configuration, relationships can also be characterized by degree of f a m i l i a r i t y (friend, colleague, 70 stranger) and by expectations of future i n t e r a c t i o n . Greenhalgh and Chapman (1995) emphasize that "the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p that has formed i s l i k e l y to be the strongest predictor of how the negotiation ensues" (p.178). They explain how a r e l a t i o n s h i p can a f f e c t the negotiation process: "People are l i k e l y to seek out i n t e r a c t i o n d i f f e r e n t i a l l y with those with whom they f e e l a p o s i t i v e bond. This leads to r e p e t i t i v e interactions and the deepening of r e l a t i o n s h i p t i e s " (p.178). Repetitive interactions, i n turn, can lead to a sense of trust based on the a b i l i t y to predict and understand the other party's actions (Polzer, Mannix, & Neale, 1995) . Expectations of future i n t e r a c t i o n can give r i s e to a greater f e e l i n g of "involvement" which can be defined as "the extent to which a negotiator cares about a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n " (Thompson, Peterson, & Kray, 1995, p.15). On the other hand, expectations of future interaction with the other party may also cause negotiating individuals to be less anxious about achieving t h e i r interests during the present negotiation. The "shadow of the future" allows for r e c i p r o c i t y and can give negotiating parties the p o s s i b i l i t y of "trading off support over time" (Polzer, Mannix, & Neale, 1995, p.129). Information Processing i n Negotiations The l i k e l i h o o d of a r r i v i n g at a mutually s a t i s f y i n g agreement during a negotiation i s related to the goals of the parties involved and also to t h e i r willingness to share information about t h e i r own preferences and p r i o r i t i e s (Thompson, 71 Peterson, & Kray, 1995). An i n h i b i t i n g factor to divulging information about one's own goals or aspirations i s the fear of appearing sel f - s e r v i n g , impolite, or uncharitable. Thompson, Peterson, and Kray (1995) explain that "such self-presentational concerns may be heightened when negotiations involve parties who are friends or who are i n other long-term re l a t i o n s h i p s . . . . In other words, trust between parties may increase information provision, but self-presentation concerns may decrease i t " (p.13). In addition to dire c t disclosure, information about the other party i n a negotiation may come from previous experience, knowledge of t h e i r reputation, or i m p l i c i t l y from stereotypes and assumptions about roles. Furthermore, through a process c a l l e d "encoding," negotiators w i l l interpret and make judgements about information based on t h e i r i n i t i a l expectations. Information that i s incongruous with expectations may be ignored or even rejected (Thompson, Peterson, & Kray, 1995). Char a c t e r i s t i c s of the Negotiation Process The nature of the relationship between negotiating parties, and t h e i r attitude or posture toward one another, help determine whether they w i l l have a competitive or cooperative orie n t a t i o n to the negotiation process. A cooperative orientation a r i s i n g from a p o s i t i v e relationship w i l l lead to a wider set of options and a greater number of potential moves (Polzer, Mannix, & Neale, 1995). This makes an integrative bargaining s i t u a t i o n more 7 2 l i k e l y . Elgstrom and R i i s (1995) define integrative bargaining as "search processes involving creative problem-solving. The search i s f or new options with the hope of mutual gain. Such behaviour i s often linked to posi t i v e , problem-solving attitudes, stressing j o i n t gains, common interests and non-confrontational techniques" (p.102). In contrast, d i s t r i b u t i v e bargaining i s associated with a competitive orientation among the negotiating parties where the negotiating process "contains elements such as high i n i t i a l demands, threats, manipulation and a win-lose approach" (Elgstrom & R i i s , 1992, pp.102-103). A cooperative or competitive orientation i s also related to the reward structure of the negotiation s i t u a t i o n . If the reward structure i s such that both parties may win (i . e . , positive-sum as opposed to constant-sum when the interests are s t r i c t l y at odds), then the negotiating process w i l l be more cooperative and less competitive (Elgstrom & R i i s , 1992). The negotiation process can also be characterized by the goals of the negotiating partie s . Elgstrom and R i i s (1992) provide three categories for the nature of the goals guiding actors during a negotiation: Some actors are t a r g e t - o r i e n t e d . They d i s l i k e the status quo, and know what they are looking for. They s t r i v e to at t a i n c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c goals which are very clear to them.... Other actors are d e p a r t u r e - o r i e n t e d . They want to get away from the present situation, but do not know t h e i r target, t h e i r desired objectives. In a negotiation where some actors are target-oriented and others are departure-oriented, the former stand i n an advantageous p o s i t i o n . . . . There are also s t a t u s q uo-oriented actors, who do not want to move from the ex i s t i n g s i t u a t i o n . They do not want to negotiate, but may sometimes be forced to do so by orders 73 from higher l e v e l s . In that case, t h e i r goal i s to r e t a i n as much as possible of the o r i g i n a l status, (p.103) Applying the Negotiation of Meaning Perspective In i t s broadest sense, planning i s the guidance of future action. The perspective developed here i s that planning includes the negotiation of meaning. Due to the s o c i a l l y i n t e r a c t i v e nature of planning a c t i v i t i e s and the relationships of interdependence that planners p a r t i c i p a t e in, "decision-needing issues" often lead to voluntary and non-prescribed negotiations within organizations (Ebert & Wall, 1983). The negotiation of meaning happens along two dimensions: as the focus of the negotiation discussions (meaning as text) and as the set of interpretations and assumptions underlying the negotiations themselves (meaning as sub-text). Therefore, a plan - which i s the product or outcome of planning - comes both from working through what something means and from working with the meanings that make sense of what should be done to reach a negotiated agreement. People involved i n planning negotiate meaning and they deal with meaning i n the course of negotiating. In order to provide an organizing frame to take to the data presented i n subsequent chapters of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n , t h i s section draws together the various elements i n the negotiation of meaning perspective on planning developed above. The organizing frame, together with i t s categories and sets of related questions, i s presented below i n Figure 2.1. 74 FIGURE 2.1: FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING NEGOTIATION OF MEANING EPISODES PLANNING ACTIVITY What planning a c t i v i t y included the negotiation episode? DECISION-NEEDING ISSUE What i s the s p e c i f i c decision-needing issue that w i l l be addressed as a result of the negotiation process? CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CULTURAL CONTEXT What are the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the c u l t u r a l context? Consensus, consistency, and c l a r i t y ? C o n f l i c t and inconsistency? Ambiguity, confusion, and paradox? NEGOTIATING PARTIES Who are the negotiating parties? CHARACTERISTICS OF THE RELATIONSHIP What are the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the relationship between the negotiating parties? Degree of trust? Frequency of interaction? D i s t r i b u t i o n of power? Shared interests? Divergent interests? NEGOTIATION OF MEANING EPISODE (THE STORY) What i s the series of connected events and interactions related to the negotiation? MEANING AS TEXT What meaning of what i s being discussed? What i s the subject matter of the negotiation? MEANING AS SUB-TEXT What are the underlying questions concerning d i f f e r e n t meanings surrounding the negotiation that are being considered? CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS What stance i s being taken by each of the negotiating parties? What are the negotiating parties' goals? What strategies are used throughout the negotiation? NEGOTIATION OUTCOME What was the outcome of the negotiation episode? What plan has been produced? 75 Context as C u l t u r e The l i t e r a t u r e review revealed a wide range of features of the context that are considered to be somehow relevant to the planning process within the f i e l d of adult education. These include: physical and s o c i a l aspects (e.g., o f f i c e layout and p e r s o n a l i t i e s ) ; formal and informal practices (e.g., organizational structure and networks); constraining and enabling forces (e.g., resource l i m i t a t i o n s and s k i l l mastery); and external and inter n a l aspects (e.g., o f f i c i a l p o l i c y and underlying assumptions). Some of the authors (Cervero & Wilson, 1994, 1996 for example) also stress the importance of seeing context as the outcome of planning, not just as the shaper of planning. I am using the root metaphor of "culture" to interpret "context" i n t h i s study (Jelinek, Smircich, & Hirsch, 1983). This allows me to view organizational l i f e " i n expressive, ideational, and symbolic - as well as material and economic terms" (Martin, 1992, p.41). This also implies a generalist approach which includes "study of a l l kinds of c u l t u r a l manifestations, including formal and informal practices.... f a c i l i t a t i n g exploration of linkages with other domains of organization theory" (Martin, 1992, p.42) By viewing the planning context as culture, I am also able to allow for a reciprocal relationship between the planning process and the context. The context i s "both actual and symbolic; i t i s a matrix for action and a textual medium that 76 gives meaning" (Seddon, 1995, p.395; i t a l i c s i n the o r i g i n a l ) . I am using Morgan's (1989) d e f i n i t i o n of culture "as an enacted or s o c i a l l y constructed domain that i s as much the consequence of the language, ideas, and concepts through which people attempt to make sense of the wider world as i t i s of the ' r e a l i t y ' to which these s o c i a l constructions rela t e " (p.91). This incorporates the idea that planners act both within t h e i r context and upon t h e i r context (Cervero & Wilson, 1994, 1996). This "processual view of culture as the continuous recreation of shared meanings.... legitimates attention to the subjective, i n t e r p r e t i v e aspects of organizational l i f e " (Jelinek, Smircich, & Hirsch, 1983, pp.335-336) . M a r t i n ' s Three P e r s p e c t i v e s Framework What i s an organizational culture? Is i t a source of harmony? Is i t an arena for c o n f l i c t ? Is i t a confusing paradox? Or, i s i t a l l three? Martin's (1992) framework for analyzing cultures i n organizations provides a "way out of the conceptual chaos caused by c o n f l i c t s among these perspectives....[and] also brings an integrative, i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y perspective to the study of cultures i n organizations" (p.vi). Martin asserts that i t i s possible to view a single organization from three perspectives: integration, d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , and fragmentation. The advantage of adopting t h i s multi-perspective approach to analyzing culture i s based on the fact that "the blindspots and d i s t o r t i o n s associated with each of the three perspectives are complementary. Often one 7 7 perspective's blindspot i s another's focus, so that one's 'strength' i s another's 'weakness'....When any single organization i s viewed from a l l three perpsectives, a greater understanding emerges than i f i t were viewed from any single perspective" (Martin, 1992, p.4). Martin's framework i s summarized and presented below. 1. C u l t u r a l manifestations Three kinds of c u l t u r a l manifestations are frequently studied i n the analysis of cultures: forms, practices, and content themes. Martin's (1992) d e f i n i t i o n s for these manifestations are given below. 1.1 Cultural Forms Cultural forms can supply important clues as to what people i n organizations are "...thinking, believing, and doing. The most commonly studied c u l t u r a l forms include: r i t u a l s , s t o r i e s , jargon, humour, and physical arrangements (i . e . , architecture, i n t e r i o r design, and dress codes)" (Martin, 1992, p.37). 1.2 Practices Practices can be formal or informal. Formal practices include: "organizational structure, task and job descriptions, technology, rules and procedures, and f i n a n c i a l controls" (Martin, 1992, p.37). Informal practices include "unwritten norms, communication patterns, and standard operating procedures" (p.37). 78 1.3 Content themes Content themes are "common threads of concern that are seen as manifest i n a subset of forms and practices" (Martin, 1992, p.37). Content themes can be external, which means they are "deli b e r a t e l y espoused to an external audience" (p.37) Or, they can also be i n t e r n a l , emerging "as t a c i t , deeply held assumptions" (p.37). 2. A Cultural Puzzle Combining content themes with forms and practices r e s u l t s i n a type of c u l t u r a l puzzle. "The next step i s to put them together. The manifestations of a given culture can be arranged i n the form of a matrix" (Martin, 1992, p.37). Martin's matrix framework i s presented below i n Figure 2.2. This blank matrix shows what i t i s and i s also available for readers to use or copy i n order to make t h e i r own notes as they read through the data chapters (Chapters Four - Six). The matrix i s presented again i n Chapter Seven -t h i s time f i l l e d i n with data from t h i s study. The c e l l entries correspond to s p e c i f i c practices or forms that are relevant to ce r t a i n content themes at Global Faith. I use Martin's matrix framework as a type of c u l t u r a l map laying out the manifestations of cultures at Global Faith. I then use the map to search for patterns of interpretation according to each perspective. 79 FIGURE 2.2: MARTIN'S MATRIX FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERSTANDING CULTURES CONTENT THEMES External/Internal PRACTICES Formal/Informal FORMS Stories/Ritual/Jargon/Physical Arrangements Integration Perspective: consensus, consistency, and c l a r i t y D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n Perspective: c o n f l i c t and inconsistency Fragmentation Perspective: ambiguity, confusion, and paradox (adpated from Martin, 1992) 80 3. The Three Perspectives C e l l entries are made according to the guidance provided by each perspective: integration, d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , and fragmentation. One matrix can be f i l l e d out incorporating a l l three perspectives or d i f f e r e n t matrices can be prepared for each content theme or for each perspective. In t h i s study, I chose to organize the matrix entries around content themes corresponding to the f i v e tenets of NGO behaviour discussed i n Chapter One and gathered from the findings presented i n Chapters Four, Five, and Six. The completed matrices are presented i n Chapter Seven accompanied by a discussion of the c u l t u r a l contexts at Global Faith from within each of the three perspectives. These three perspectives for studying organizational cultures - integration, d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , and fragmentation - are summarized below. 3.1 Integration Perspective According to t h i s perspective, " a l l c u l t u r a l manifestations mentioned are interpreted as consistently r e i n f o r c i n g the same themes, a l l members of the organization are said to share i n an organization-wide consensus, and the culture i s described as a realm where a l l i s clear. Ambiguity i s excluded" (Martin, 1992, p.12). Consistency, consensus, and c l a r i t y are the defining features of organizational cultures within the integration perpsective. There are three types of consistency: action, symbolic, and content. Action consistency i s between themes and practices. Symbolic consistency i s between themes and forms. 81 Content consistency i s across the various themes. According to the integration perspective, "a leader i s the source of a c u l t u r a l v i s i o n that generates an organization-wide consensus, enabling the firm to maintain i t s e l f successfully, survive d i f f i c u l t c r i s e s , and reorient i t s e l f to changed environmental circumstances" (Martin, 1992, p.63). An example of the integration perspective view of culture i s provided by Schein (1992) : Culture somehow implies that r i t u a l s , climate, values, and behaviors bind together into a coherent whole. This patterning or integration i s the essence of what we mean by 'culture.' (p.10) 3.2 D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n Perspective The d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n perspective "describes c u l t u r a l manifestations as sometimes inconsistent (for example, when managers say one thing and do another). Consensus occurs only within the boundaries of subcultures, which often c o n f l i c t with each other. Ambiguity i s channeled, so that i t does not intrude on the c l a r i t y which exists within these subcultural boundaries" (Martin, 1992, p.12). Harmony and homogeneity are replaced by a concern with c o n f l i c t and difference. This perspective allows for the existence of a "series of overlapping, nested organizational subcultures. These subcultures co-exist, sometimes i n harmony, sometimes i n c o n f l i c t , and sometimes i n indifference to each other. The d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n perspective unveils the workings of power i n organizations, acknowledges c o n f l i c t s of interest between groups, and attends to differences of opinion" (Martin, 1992, p.83). Three kinds of inconsistency are apparent from t h i s 82 perspective: action, symbolic, and i d e o l o g i c a l . Action inconsistency i s between themes and practices. Symbolic inconsistency refers to an inconsistency between espoused content themes and c u l t u r a l forms (for example, juxtaposing e g a l i t a r i a n r h e t o r i c against p r i v i l e g e d seating arrangements). "Symbolic inconsistencies can also point to deviations from o f f i c i a l organizational p o l i c y " (Martin, 1992, p.87). Ideological inconsistencies occur when content themes c o n f l i c t with each other. An example of the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n perspective view of culture i s provided by Young (1991): ...organizational culture emerges as sets of meanings constructed and imputed to organizational events by various groups and interests i n pursuit of t h e i r aims.... meanings are constructed and imposed i n order to mobilize interest group support, (p.91) 3.3 Fragmentation Perspective The fragmentation perspective focuses on ambiguity as subjectively perceived, as inescapable, and as the essence of organizational culture. Consensus and c o n f l i c t form around s p e c i f i c issues and are constantly changing. Stable organization-wide consensus - or even subcultural consensus - i s absent and c l a r i t y i s rare. Within the fragmentation perspective, content themes are viewed as "sources of confusion, a v a r i e t y of interpretations of any c u l t u r a l manifestation seems plausible, and uncertainty i s pervasive" (Martin, 1992, p.118). Ambiguity relates to perceived lack of c l a r i t y , complexity, or a paradox. An example of the fragmentation view of culture i s provided by Meyerson (1991): 83 ...cultures can embody ambiguities. Members may s t i l l share an overarching orientation and purpose, they may face s i m i l a r problems and experiences, but how they interpret and enact these may vary so r a d i c a l l y as to make what i s shared seem vacuously abstract, (p.132) Applying Martin's Framework This study uses Martin's framework i n two ways. At the beginning of Chapter Seven, I present completed versions of Martin's matrix f i l l e d out with examples, quotes and excerpts from the findings surrounding the f i v e " a r t i c l e s of f a i t h " for NGOs f i r s t discussed i n Chapter One. These matrices then serve as a basis for understanding the c u l t u r a l contexts within Global Faith. I look for consistency and inconsistency, consensus and c o n f l i c t , and c l a r i t y and ambiguity. The d i f f e r e n t interpretations of Global Faith c u l t u r a l contexts are then o v e r l a i d with s p e c i f i c episodes i l l u s t r a t i n g planning as the negotiation of meaning. 84 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY Qualitative inquiry finds i t s ultimate strength i n the vast opportunity that the holism of being there makes possible ....researchers tend to look again and again, and they look, moreover, i n the varying moods and times of both researcher and researched. It thereby gives credence to the contextual nature within which both researchers and t h e i r research phenomena abide.... In these facts are i t s e f f i c a c y for capturing the surprise, disorder, and contradictions of a phenomenon. (Peshkin, 1988b, p.418) An Ethnographic Approach Due to the emphasis on the s i t u a t i o n a l and i n t e r a c t i v e aspects of planning i n the conceptual framework, t h i s research i s based on the q u a l i t a t i v e style of inquiry. In order to shed l i g h t on the rel a t i o n s h i p between the process of planning and the c u l t u r a l context, i t i s necessary to understand the s o c i a l meanings that guide the behaviour of planners (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983); an understanding that i s achieved through c u l t u r a l interpretation. I am adopting Geertz' (1973) approach 1 4 to c u l t u r a l interpretation, the point of which i s "to aid us i n gaining access to the conceptual world i n which our subjects l i v e so that we can, i n some extended sense of the term, converse with them" (p.24). Or, as Geertz (1975) has also said, "the t r i c k i s to figure out what the d e v i l they think they are up to" (p.48). S p e c i f i c a l l y , I chose to use ethnography as the methodology for t h i s research. 1 4 Geertz (1973) refers to culture as "interworked systems of construable signs" (p.14) which helps to illuminate the semiotic aspect of his approach and his orientation toward symbolic anthropology. 85 What i s ethnography? Unfortunately, "there i s not a single d e f i n i t i o n of ethnographic research that i s wholly i l l u m i n a t i n g or f u l l y satisfactory....There i s , however, an ethnographic s e n s i b i l i t y , a body of work, and a respectable t r a d i t i o n upon which to draw and with which to interact" (Ayers, 1989, p.11). "Ethnographic s e n s i b i l i t y " i s r e f l e c t e d i n the intent of the research and can help di s t i n g u i s h i t from other methodologies (e.g., case study research) 1 5. I am assuming, as does Wolcott (1985), that the "purpose of ethnographic research i s to describe and interpret c u l t u r a l behaviour" (p.190). The process of ethnographic research (which includes the data c o l l e c t i o n methods of p a r t i c i p a n t observation, indepth interviewing, and document analysis) and the product of ethnographic research (the written account) are both c a l l e d ethnography. However, as Wolcott (1990) states, "the research process deserves the label ethnography only when the intended product i s ethnography" (p.47). Hence, culture 1 5 A l l ethnographies are case studies but not a l l case studies are necessarily ethnographies. Common assumptions underlying case studies and ethnographic rsearch include the following: "human behavior i s i n t e g r a l l y related to the context i n which i t occurs, and that t h i s behavior cannot be understood without knowing i t s meaning for the participants. Such assumptions determine the ways i n which data are c o l l e c t e d and analyzed. To begin with, the primary instrument for data c o l l e c t i o n and analysis i s the researcher.... each usually involves f i e l d work" (Merriam, Beder, & Ewert, 1983, p.261). Yin (1989) defines a case study as "an empirical inquiry that: investigates a contemporary phenomenon within i t s r e a l - l i f e context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not c l e a r l y evident; and i n which multiple sources of evidence are used" (p.23). The distinguishing feature of ethnographies i s the underlying rationale of cultural interpretation which means a commitment to "looking at, and attempting to make sense of, human s o c i a l behavior i n terms of c u l t u r a l patterning" (Wolcott, 1990, p.48) . 86 i s the ori e n t i n g concept both for "doing ethnography" and for "writing ethnography." Given the c u l t u r a l orientation of the conceptual framework, ethnography makes sense as the methodology for t h i s research. An ethnographic approach can incorporate Martin's (1992) multi-perspective view of cultures i n organizations presented i n Chapter Two. Ethnography " i s replete with - and does not shrink from - ambiguity" (Peshkin, 1988b, p.418) and as such, ethnographic research can be conducted from the fragmentation perspective. Ethnography can also be considered as "a description of the multiple and nested contexts of meaning which a group of indivi d u a l s creates for i t s e l f " (Schwartzman, 1983, p.186) which i s compatible with the differentiation perspective's concern with subcultures. F i n a l l y , ethnography i s also well-suited to the integration perspective through receptiveness to how an entire pattern of thinking and acting f i t s together within an organization. The ethnography presented i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n draws on a l l three perspectives and focuses on each i n turn i n the discussion analyzing d i f f e r e n t manifestations of Global Faith cultures presented i n Chapter Seven. The view of planning as the negotiation of meaning presented i n t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s located within a frame of shared experience. I spent seventeen months as a frequent pa r t i c i p a n t in , and observer of, d a i l y work l i f e at Global Faith. I conducted 25 formally scheduled interviews and, on many other occasions, I asked questions, listened, and exchanged ideas with the people of 87 Global Faith. Therefore, t h i s ethnography i s a product of the "strange interplay" between my own consciousness as a part i c i p a n t observer and the consciousness of the people of Global Faith (Northey & Tepperman, 1986, p.58). This means that another researcher studying the same group of people and the same events "with equal care, s k i l l , and honesty may evaluate, r e c a l l , and interpret what happens d i f f e r e n t l y " (Martin, 1992, p.13). The process of conducting t h i s ethnography was based on two sets of judgments: those made by the people of Global Faith about t h e i r world, t h e i r convictions, and t h e i r actions and those judgments I made as a researcher about what to attend to, what to leave out, and what to make of i t a l l (Schwartzman, 1983). The product of the ethnography - t h i s written account -takes into consideration yet another set of judgments: those of the readers. Peshkin (1986) recognizes that readers' judgments should be based on an awareness of the researcher's judgments: "as I increasingly come under conviction... about the rel a t i o n s h i p between who I am, what I see, and what I conclude about what I see, I f e e l increasingly i n c l i n e d to reveal enough about myself so that readers can make their.own judgments about what I saw, what I missed, and what I misconstrued" (p.15). The next section of t h i s chapter involves such a "revealing." It i s an exploration of the issues raised by the subjective nature of the research process: how my attention and interpretations were influenced mainly by my r e l i g i o u s orientation and experience i n the f i e l d of international development. The following sections of t h i s chapter 88 then describe the d e t a i l s of the research methodology 1 5 by providing answers to these questions: - How did I select the research site? - How did I negotiate access? - What roles did I occupy during the fieldwork? - How were the data co l l e c t e d and analyzed? - How are the c r i t e r i a for judging an ethnography addressed? Where S e l f and Subject J o i n In ethnography, the researcher i s the research instrument. Data are c o l l e c t e d through the methods of everyday inquiry: looking, l i s t e n i n g , asking, joining i n and hanging back, and developing ideas and testing them out. These "methods of mundane p r a c t i c a l understanding" - made self-conscious - become the methods of research i n an ethnography (Atkinson, 1992, p.3). An implication of the researcher as research instrument i s that the personal equation becomes c r u c i a l and, as such, must be made e x p l i c i t (Fine, 1993). This can be achieved through a process of " d i s c i p l i n e d honesty" which involves " i d e n t i f y i n g the sources of bias and s u b j e c t i v i t y i n the researcher's own makeup" and which i s " c r i t i c a l to the qu a l i t y of the work done" (LeCompte, 1987, p.43). Peshkin (1986) also c a l l s for a self-conscious auditing of the researcher's own s u b j e c t i v i t y . He describes t h i s s u b j e c t i v i t y 1 5 The term "research methodology" i s used here to r e f e r to the research design. The term "research methods" refers to data c o l l e c t i o n and analysis tools. This i s consistent with the d i s t i n c t i o n between methodology and methods made by Borg and G a l l (1989) . 89 as "an amalgam of the persuasions that stem from the circumstances of one's class, statuses, and values i n t e r a c t i n g with the p a r t i c u l a r s of one's object of investigation" (Peshkin, 1986, p.17). This in t e r a c t i o n between s e l f and subject and the importance of a candid disclosure for the readers' benefit are explained elsewhere by Peshkin (1988a) as follows: When researchers observe themselves i n the focused way that I propose, they learn about the p a r t i c u l a r subset of personal q u a l i t i e s that contact with t h e i r research phenomenon has released. These q u a l i t i e s have the capacity to f i l t e r , skew, shape, block, transform, construe, and misconstrue what transpires from the outset of a research project to i t s culmination i n a written statement. If researchers are informed about the q u a l i t i e s that have emerged during t h e i r research, they can at least disclose to t h e i r readers where s e l f and subject became joined, (p.17) In my case, the subset of personal q u a l i t i e s that emerged during the research came from three main sources: my socio-economic and physical attributes (class, race, age, and gender), professional in t e r e s t s , and religous b e l i e f s . I w i l l discuss each of these i n turn. I am a white, university-educated woman i n my early t h i r t i e s 1 7 . The sample of people that I interacted the most with at Global F a i t h 1 8 was predominantly male, educated at Bible 1 7 This age corresponds to the time of my fieldwork at Global Faith. 1 8 I am including the people that I observed and interviewed (as opposed to the people that I only observed) i n t h i s sample. Please see Figure 3.1: Global Faith Organizational Chart for the positions corresponding to the people i n t h i s sample. Nine of the people i n t h i s group are men, three are women. The Executive Director also has a Master's degree from a well-known North American university. Two people i n the group are Af r i c a n and one i s Chinese. 90 College or an i n s t i t u t i o n with a r e l i g i o u s orientation, older than me, and also white. How did these aspects of my i d e n t i t y shape my interactions with the people of Global Faith? One way to approach t h i s question i s with another question: i f I could have magically transformed these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n order to increase rapport and reduce discomfort on both sides, what would they be? I would have wished to be male, middle-aged, and well-versed i n the Bible because then I would have been "the rule" as opposed to the "exception." Also, I would have wished to be from a country i n the "Third World" - preferably a country where Global F a i t h has t h e i r projects - so that I could have contributed my f i r s t -hand knowledge of d a i l y l i f e there to the discussions taking place here about program p r i o r i t i e s . On the other hand, being who I am also had i t s own advantages. As Punch (1986) points out, "personality, appearance, and luck may a l l play a role i n e x p l o i t i n g unexpected avenues or overcoming unanticipated obstacles i n the f i e l d " (p.24). In my case, the fact that I happen to be the " s p i t t i n g image" of the Executive Director's s i s t e r s when they were younger was apparently instrumental i n his decision to give me permission to do my research at Global Faith. Even though I was a stranger - to him, I was a f a m i l i a r face. My professional interests provided another realm where s e l f and subject became joined during the research. I have spent many years studying and l i v i n g among other cultures and I have worked 91 i n the f i e l d of international development. 1 9 My work experience has included a po s i t i o n with a l o c a l consulting company coordinating CIDA Industrial Cooperation programs i n China and working on a research project i n Nepal funded by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC). While I did not have any previous experience working d i r e c t l y for an NGO, my time overseas and past involvement i n international development e f f o r t s helped me to imagine the challenges facing Global Faith's regional s t a f f overseas. I could also relate to the d i f f i c u l t i e s experienced by s t a f f i n Global Faith's Head Off i c e dealing with funding organizations, proposals, deadlines, and report writing. In t h i s realm of professional interests, we shared a common language but our work-a-day p a r t i c u l a r s were d i f f e r e n t ; the ins i d e r world of NGOs was new to me. Fieldnotes written up af t e r my f i r s t v i s i t to Global Faith mention my excitment at the prospect of understanding more about how NGOs function because "my own career might lead me down a simi l a r path one day. I was hoping I would f i n d people that I could respect and look up to and learn from." As i t turned out, I did learn from many of the people of Global Faith. Kleinman and Copp (1993) describe t h i s student-teacher dynamic i n fieldwork research as follows: For our purposes, participants are the teachers and we are th e i r students. Sometimes we exaggerate the student role to ensure that they continue to teach us. But many of us f e e l l i k e beginners and wonder i f the people we study think we are slow learners. In addition, we usually f e e l so gra t e f u l 1 9 I have a Bachelor's degree i n East Asian Studies and a Master's degree i n A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics. I speak Mandarin Chinese and I have l i v e d and worked i n Taiwan, China, and Nepal. to p a r t i c i p a n t s for l e t t i n g us hang around that we f e e l and act humble rather than superior, (p.29) I did f e e l g r a t e f u l to them for t h e i r patience i n responding to my questions and for l e t t i n g me "hang around." I also f e l t humble. As I had hoped at the beginning of the fieldwork, I also eventually found people that I "could respect and look up to" at Global Faith. My feelings of admiration were e s p e c i a l l y strong during the time of the Somalia famine i n the summer of 1992 (after about s i x months of fieldwork). Global Faith launched an emergency fundraising campaign and put together shipments to Somalia of medical supplies and skim milk powder. In my fieldnotes, I wrote about the increased a c t i v i t y around the o f f i c e and the surety of t h e i r response to the c r i s i s i n Somalia: I was surprised that i t was a l l mobilized so quickly. I was impressed by the resonance between t h e i r caring and t h e i r actions. They weren't hollow actions and they weren't "ungestured feelings." There was follow-through. There was a c r i s i s and they were serious and they were making decisions and they were helping people. I was also impressed by the apparent willingness of some of the st a f f to continually remind themselves of the "plight of the poorest of the poor" and to include t h e i r work, t h e i r r e l i g i o n , and t h e i r l i f e a l l i n the same embrace. Their c i r c l e of concern seemed to me to be large - larger than my own - and to be based on a fusion of work, b e l i e f s , and one's personal l i f e that I could not accomplish. The following excerpt from my fieldnotes about one senior s t a f f member shows that while I respected the in t e n s i t y of his commitment, I also f e l t that I was d i f f e r e n t from him i n t h i s regard: 93 [Richard] s t r i k e s me as a re a l thinker. His work i s his l i f e . His l i f e i s his work. He doesn't leave i t a l l i n the o f f i c e - i t i s car r i e d over to church and praying and a l l his private musings. I couldn't be l i k e that. I would have to turn i t off sometimes. I couldn't continually drive the thoughts of other people's misery home to my head and heart over and over the way that he seems to.... Peshkin (1988a) suggests looking for "the warm and the cool spots, the emergence of p o s i t i v e and negative feelings, the experiences I wanted more of or wanted to avoid" (p.18) i n order to catch a glimpse of s u b j e c t i v i t y i n action. While the realm of professional interests was mainly a "warm spot" during my fieldwork at Global Faith, the arena of r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s was mostly a "cool spot." Global Faith i s a Chr i s t i a n organization, u n a f f l i a t e d with any s p e c i f i c denomination yet made up almost ex c l u s i v e l y of evangelical Chr i s t i a n s 2 0 . I am also a Christian; which i s to say that my parents and grandparents were Christian, and I was baptized as a c h i l d , married i n a C h r i s t i a n church and arranged to have my own children baptized. But I am not an evangelical C h r i s t i a n - I belong to the United Church. Also, I am not a regular church-goer - I attend church on Christmas, Easter, 2 0 The denominations represented at Global Faith include: Baptist, Mennonite, Brethren and Pentecostal. Most of the people of Global Fai t h would describe t h e i r denominational a f f i l i a t i o n s as Evangelical but not as Fundamentalist. What i s the difference? Both come from the r e v i v a l i s t t r a d i t i o n i n conservative Protestantism and as such, both accept a "theology that affims the d i v i n i t y of Jesus, the r e a l i t y of his resurrection and miracles, and the sure destiny of human beings i n either heaven or h e l l . . . . Fundamentalists are considerably more sure that every word of scripture (often as found i n the King James Version) i s to be taken at face value. Evangelicals are more comfortable with the ambiguities of t r a n s l a t i o n and interpretation that ar i s e when the scripture i s subjected to c r i t i c a l analysis" (Ammerman, 1987, pp.4-5). 94 and only sporadically throughout the rest of the year. I am not comfortable with, nor well-versed in, the "vocabulary of b e l i e f " (Peshkin, 1986). U n t i l my fieldwork at Global Faith, I had never been c a l l e d upon to pray p u b l i c l y , out loud, i n turn, i n front of a group. I have never been to Bible College nor to a Bible Camp i n the summer. Even though I c a l l myself a Christian, I am aware that I am not a C h r i s t i a n the way the people of Global F a i t h consider themselves to be Christian. For example, I am not comfortable with the t o t a l and exclusive acceptance of a monolithic doctrine. Rose (1988) describes t h i s contrast i n world views as follows: The c o n f l i c t for some of us may l i e i n our commitment to d i v e r s i t y and pluralism and i n our contrary desire to c u r t a i l any ideology that proclaims that there i s 'One and Only One Truth.' The c o n f l i c t arises between those who see the world i n absolutist terms and those who see i t i n r e l a t i v i s t terms, (p.xxii) While I do not wish to " c u r t a i l " the strong evangelical C h r i s t i a n ideology of Global Faith, I am not able to embrace i t as my own. I accept and respect t h e i r l e v e l of commitment, but I do not f e e l moved to follow t h e i r example. Were the people of Global Faith aware of my views and the differences between us? The fact that I am not an evangelical C h r i s t i a n was not a hidden secret. Yet, i t was not a frequent or casaul topic of discussion either. My r e l i g i o u s background drew attention mainly with respect to the process of negotiating 95 access through a type of "progressive i n i t i a t i o n . " 2 1 Progressive i n i t i a t i o n i s described by Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) as follows: "The fieldworker may f i n d him- or herself being 'tested' and pushed towards disclosure, p a r t i c u l a r l y when the group or culture i n question i s founded upon b e l i e f s and commitments (such as r e l i g i o u s convictions, p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n s , and the l i k e ) " (p.84). I experienced t h i s as the people of Global Fai t h endeavoured to f i n d out a l i t t l e more about my r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s each time I v i s i t e d the s i t e . By the second v i s i t , they learned that I was "Christian." By the fourth v i s i t , I had to make i t cle a r to the Executive Director that I was not an evangelical C h r i s t i a n the way they were. The following excerpt from my fieldnotes recounts how I presented myself at the end of the f i r s t interview with Gerald, the Executive Director: I was worried about how he was interpreting my being "Christian." I wanted him to know my s i t u a t i o n so there would be no doubt about misrepresentation or bad feelings down the road. I t o l d him that I was baptised and married i n a church and that I had gone to Sunday school as a very young c h i l d but I didn't remember anything and I wasn't f a m i l i a r with the Bible though we were thinking of maybe having our baby baptised and I enjoyed the few times that I 2 1 Gerald commented on t h i s section of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n during the process of respondent v a l i d a t i o n . According to Gerald, there was not as much concern at Global Faith as I suggest here about whether I was an Evangelical Ch r i s t i a n or not. Gerald said that he thought my C h r i s t i a n i t y "was not an issue" for the people of Global Fai t h and i t was not a factor i n t h e i r decision to grant me access. Gerald explained that although the Evangelical lab e l aptly c l a s s i f i e s the denominations represented within Global Faith, the people of Global Faith themselves are "not comfortable with that label and are not happy with being c a l l e d Evangelical Christians." According to Gerald, because of t h e i r own common desire to somewhat distance themselves from the Evangelical church community, the people of Global Fai t h would not choose to distance someone else who was not also Evangelical. 96 went to church with my mother-in-law and I l i k e d the l i b e r a l views of the United Church where we had gone together. When I t o l d him, i t a l l came out i n one big run-on sentence just l i k e t h i s . I was worried about offending him and l o s i n g access to Global Faith and yet I wanted to be honest and to have everything out i n the open. I asked him i f he f e l t o.k. with a l l that and i f he would be comfortable having me around Global Faith. He said "no problem" and didn't show much of a reaction either way. A f t e r several more months, I r e a l i z e d that my r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s were s t i l l a source of c u r i o s i t y for some of the s t a f f . The story below - taken from my fieldnotes - shows how one s t a f f member pushed me towards disclosure. At the time, I was worried that any difference i n our b e l i e f systems would be interpreted as c r i t i c i s m or a type of r e j e c t i o n and that they might decide to close t h e i r doors to me and put an end to the research. But the re s u l t of my disclosure was just the opposite; i t created closeness rather than distance (Kleinman & Copp, 1993). The scene i s the annual Global Faith Retreat, i n the evening, just a f t e r the guest speaker fi n i s h e d his lecture on " s p i r i t u a l health." A f t e r the t a l k was finished, I was confronted by one of the s t a f f . "How much of what [the guest speaker] talked about did you understand? I mean i t a l l makes sense to us and I was just wondering..." I answered: "Well, I go to church pretty often so I understand the general concepts, but I am not so good with the s p e c i f i c s . I can't quote the Bible..." He asked which church. I t o l d him and he said that he had been wondering about my r e l i g i o u s background. I t o l d him about my intermittent involvement with the United Church and the recent christening of our baby and subsequent increase i n attendance. "I have been going pretty r e g u l a r l y the l a s t while but I'm a r e l a t i v e newcomer and I s t i l l don't know very much." What a hard thing to be under someone else's scrutiny l i k e that. I guess he was worried that I was s c r u t i n i z i n g them and wanted to know where I stood. I t r i e d to be honest and yet unoffensive - a very thin l i n e . He then said: "Being a newcomer may be to your advantage. 97 You don't have any baggage. You can be more open." I asked him what he meant by "baggage." He t o l d me about his fundamentalist parents who saw things " i n black and white" and forced him "to toe the l i n e . " I asked him what parts of [the guest speaker's] t a l k he thought I wouldn't have understood. He said: "Well, his world view i s based on the Bible...I was asking more for my own reassurance. I thought i f you were not a Christian, you would have thought 'what a crazy bunch of people!' or you might have been uncomfortable. I have spent a l o t of time wondering how the world sees Christians." I t o l d him any discomfort I had was mainly due to my role as a researcher among them - not having a s p e c i f i c job or function - and also being worried about being asked to pray out loud. I confessed that public speaking made me nervous. He said: "For someone who has come through university, you sure came out sweetly... most people at a unive r s i t y are on a rampage. There i s a l o t of anger. They're not sweet l i k e you. You're d i f f e r e n t . You're a learner just l i k e me." While the people of Global Faith seemed to accept me as a "learner," the basic differences i n our world views meant that I would always be an outsider i n t h e i r midst, no matter how warm t h e i r welcome.22 In one sense, my outsider status as a non-evangelical C h r i s t i a n may have helped i n the process of gaining entry to Global Faith because of t h e i r "need to have a person on the outside legitimate them as ordinary people (rather than as r e l i g i o u s f a n a t i c s ) " (Kleinman & Copp, 1993, p.46). In another sense, f e e l i n g l i k e an outsider but being included on the inside created a kind of useful anxiety. The following excerpt from my 2 2 During the process of respondent v a l i d a t i o n , Gerald commented on t h i s section of the d i s s e r t a t i o n draft. According to Gerald, at the time of the f i e l d research, the people of Global Faith d i d not think of me as an "outsider i n t h e i r midst." Gerald said: "You saw yourself as an outsider, but we saw you as part of us. The fact that you are not an Evangelical C h r i s t i a n was not an issue and was not discussed. Our only concern was whether you were f e e l i n g comfortable [e.g., during the prayer sessions]. There was no one there that didn't l i k e you. There was no one who didn't l i k e you there [i.e. , doing research at Global F a i t h ] . " 98 fieldnotes describes the tension of p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a morning prayer meeting at Global Faith and the r e s u l t i n g increase i n "ethnographic awareness:" I wished I wasn't i n the c i r c l e but outside of i t instead -not only so I could observe and record what was happening i n greater d e t a i l but also so I wouldn't have to say anything when my "turn" came up....I didn't want them to think of me as very d i f f e r e n t from them or as un-Christian. I suppose that i s from an innate desire to f i t i n and not offend and also because I wanted to be able to come back....My antennae were working overtime try i n g to f i n d categories for these people. They didn't seem to be fundamentalists or fanatics and yet they weren't " t y p i c a l " people going about t h e i r d a i l y work either. The j o i n i n g of s e l f and subject during the research influenced the course of the analysis. My po s i t i o n on the periphery helped me to r e a l i z e that Global Faith i s an organization where the d i s t i n c t i o n between insiders and outsiders i s emphasized (Adler & Adler, 1987) and where the boundary i s a c t i v e l y managed and defended (Gilmore, 1982). My discomfort with an a b s o l u t i s t ideology meant that the r e l i g i o u s foundation of Global Faith stood out i n sharp r e l i e f - no matter what I was looking for, t h i s i s what I saw. This increased s e n s i t i v i t y ultimately helped me understand more about the importance of values and motivation - and t h e i r v a r i a t i o n across individuals -i n decision-making, which again pointed me i n the d i r e c t i o n of the negotiation of meaning. This section has shown how "a researcher's own background may a f f e c t that researcher's choice of what to attend to, what i s remembered, or what interpretations are seen as pla u s i b l e " (Martin, 1992, p.7). The next section describes how Global F a i t h 99 came to be the organization selected as the s i t e for the research. P i l o t Study and S e l e c t i o n of Research S i t e In the winter of 1992, an opportunity arose for conducting fieldwork at an organization as part of the requirements for a u n i v e r s i t y course i n ethnographic research. I decided to look for an organization involved i n international development as the s i t e for t h i s mini-ethnography 2 3 because of my longstanding i n t e r e s t and professional experience i n t h i s f i e l d . Also, I hoped that t h i s same organization would be a suitable s i t e for the longer-term research necessary for my d i s s e r t a t i o n . I started my search by looking through a published l i s t of organizations currently executing CIDA contracts. Global Faith was among those l i s t e d and seemed l i k e an a t t r a c t i v e candidate because t h e i r overseas projects included adult education and t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s (as opposed to just a focus on r e l i e f work) and because they were located within s t r i k i n g distance of my home. The mini-ethnography car r i e d out for the course a c t u a l l y became the p i l o t study for the d i s s e r t a t i o n ethnography. I was able to determine that Global Faith had the e s s e n t i a l q u a l i t i e s of an i d e a l s i t e as described by Marshall and Rossman (1989). They had already given me permission to do a long term study there so I knew entry was possible. There was a r i c h mix of 2 3 The p i l o t study fieldwork was ca r r i e d out between January and March of 1992 and included two observation sessions and two interviews. 100 planning cases and people involved i n planning 2 4. I was able to continue my presence there as a volunteer - taking minutes during committee meetings and helping i n the Overseas Programs Department - with minimal disturbance to the s t a f f . F i n a l l y , I was given permission to interview and observe s t a f f as well as to analyze organizational documents which would improve the q u a l i t y of the research through data-source and technique t r i a n g u l a t i o n . The p i l o t study was also valuable because t h i s early fieldwork helped to uncover some useful questions that provided focus for l a t e r data c o l l e c t i o n . Examples of these questions include: Where i s the l i n e drawn between "good works" and "God's work" i n a r e l i g i o u s l y oriented NGO? How are program r e a l i t i e s translated into reporting requirements for funding agencies? Do CIDA requirements help shape the actual implementation of the programs or do they just influence how the reports are written? An additional benefit of the p i l o t study was beginning the lengthy process of negotiating access on a po s i t i v e footing. N e g o t i a t i n g Access The process of negotiating access to Global Faith was only just begun during the p i l o t study. While I did receive permission to conduct long-term research at Global Faith during the p i l o t study, negotiating access extends far beyond the i n i t i a l opening of a door. As Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) emphasize, "the 2 4 Global Faith had 70 projects operating overseas and there were nineteen s t a f f members i n the Head Of f i c e . 10.1 problem of obtaining access.... p e r s i s t s , to one degree or another, throughout the data c o l l e c t i o n process" (p.54). In addition to receiving formal approval from gatekeepers at the s i t e , negotiating access also involved c l a r i f y i n g the purposes and procedures of the research - making sure that a l l those involved were informed of my presence and the nature of the research. As soon as formal permission was granted to conduct a long-term study at Global Faith, the Executive Director and I agreed that a memo should be sent to a l l the s t a f f and members of the Board explaining my presence, the goals of the research and my anticipated role while at Global Faith. Dan, the Director of Human Resource Development, drafted the memo based on information i n my resume and Gerald, the Executive Director, signed i t and had i t d i s t r i b u t e d to a l i s t of 38 people (Board members, s t a f f i n the Head Office, Provincial Directors, and s t a f f posted overseas). The memo read as follows: Cathie Dunlop w i l l be spending time at [Global Faith] over the next s i x to eight months.25 Cathie i s working on her d i s s e r t a t i o n research for a Ph.D. i n Adult Education at UBC. [...background information on previous education and work experience]. Cathie w i l l also a s s i s t [Global Faith] i n our Overseas Program Department, working with [Richard]. We welcome Cathie's presence and we look forward to her time with us beginning A p r i l 21, 1992. (dated A p r i l 7, 1992) This memo i s s i g n i f i c a n t not so much for what i t says but for what i t does not say. F i r s t , i t i s d i f f e r e n t from a memo that was di s t r i b u t e d not too long aft e r announcing the h i r i n g of a new secretary/receptionist at Global Faith. That memo included the 2 5 At the time, we thought the fieldwork would be fi n i s h e d by December 1992. Instead, i t continued u n t i l May 1993. 102 following statement: "We welcome (so and so) and pray God w i l l bless her as she carri e s out her r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s " and also mentioned that she i s a member of a Baptist church. Blessings and information on church a f f l i a t i o n were both missing i n the memo concerning my research - subtle signals to the readers of my permanent outsider status. 2 6 Second, the memo did not include a description of the goals or methods of the research. While I had explained my research intent at every opportunity to Gerald and Dan - i n conversations and i n written communication 2 7 - for whatever reason, t h i s information was not included i n the memo. As a res u l t , I had to explain the research through a "process of unfolding rather than a once-and-for-all declaration" (Spradley, 1979, p.36). Every time I sat down with someone for an interview, we talked about the research, t h e i r rights as partic i p a n t s i n the research process, and I gave them a copy of a consent form to sign e s t a b l i s h i n g and protecting those r i g h t s . Because I did not interview everyone that I observed, there were some s t a f f members that were s t i l l asking me to describe my research s i x months into the f i e l d work. F i n a l l y , at the annual three-day Retreat for a l l the s t a f f , Gerald surprised me by asking me to stand up and 2 6 During the process of respondent v a l i d a t i o n , Gerald commented on t h i s section of the d i s s e r t a t i o n draft. Gerald explained that the difference between the two memos i n terms of the blessings and information on church a f f l i a t i o n was due simply to the fact that they were written by di f f e r e n t people with d i f f e r e n t s t y l e s . Dan wrote the memo concerning my presence and Gerald wrote the memo concerning the new secretary/receptionist. 2 7 Copies of the protocol documents and consent forms are i n the Appendix. 103 explain, yet again, my presence and my purpose to the gathering (about 2 5 people). Gerald said: "Some people have been asking me why Cathie i s taking so many notes. Cathie would you take a minute or so and explain what you are doing here?" I took a deep breath and launched into a b r i e f description of my program at the un i v e r s i t y and the requirements for course work and o r i g i n a l research. I emphasized that I was not evaluating Global F a i t h -instead, I was using a "how" question and I was interested i n learning about the process of planning at Global Faith: how were the nonformal adult education programs that are part of overseas projects chosen and designed? How did the p a r t i c u l a r context of Global F a i t h influence the decision-making process? I also stressed that I was not looking for something that I did not already mention - I did not have any secret agendas. While my research agenda was i n no way secretive or underhanded, I s t i l l found i t d i f f i c u l t to communicate c l e a r l y what my findings were during the fieldwork. When asked on several occasions what the research had revealed to date, I t o l d them "I have learned so much but I s t i l l don't know anything." This reluctance to pin down a succinct statement of the findings before leaving the f i e l d was not an attempt to conceal what I already knew. Rather, i t was due to a desire to keep searching, to remain consciously naive and open to surprises. As Fine (19 93) emphasizes, "good ethnographers do not know what they are looking for u n t i l they have found it....Not only are we unsure of the eff e c t s of explaining our plans but often we do not know what we 104 want u n t i l well into the research project" (p.2 74). Another aspect of negotiating access involved the discovery of obstacles to data c o l l e c t i o n and deciding whether and how to manoeuvre around them. Types of obstacles that I encountered included those d e l i b e r a t e l y erected to protect "sacred" occasions and those that existed due to the structure of the organization. The protective b a r r i e r s surrounded sensitive settings with eit h e r a r e l i g i o u s focus or meetings concerning the finances of Global Faith. I was not interested i n actual numbers or d o l l a r amounts and therefore, I did not make a special e f f o r t to be included i n the f i n a n c i a l discussions. On the other hand, I was interested i n learning more about how the r e l i g i o u s motivation of the organization was actualized through the planning process, and so I did negotiate entry to the weekly s t a f f meetings, the annual retreat on s p i r i t u a l health, and the Directors' retreat on the v i s i o n of Global Faith. During the p i l o t study, a f t e r interviewing Richard, Director of the Overseas Programs Department, I asked him i f I could come back another day and observe some sort of regularly scheduled s t a f f meeting. Richard was hesitant to i n v i t e me to Monday morning weekly s t a f f meeting. He said: "Well, you know we have a prayer session as part of that meeting and i f you are not a Christian, that may be a problem..." When I t o l d him that I was indeed a Christian, he said I would be welcome to come to the staff/prayer meeting. Entry was possible once I had given the right "password" by saying that I was a 105 C h r i s t i a n . 2 8 In addition to the obstacles protecting sensitive situations, I also encountered d i f f i c u l t i e s during the early-months of fieldwork i n gaining access to informal or spontaneous meetings around the o f f i c e . While I was i n v i t e d to regul a r l y scheduled meetings (e.g., bi-weekly committee meetings) and special events (e.g., fundraising banquet), I often a r r i v e d at Global Faith for a day of fieldwork only to discover that several key people were already i n a meeting behind closed doors. I d i d not f e e l comfortable interrupting these meetings and yet I f e l t anxious that I was missing important planning interactions. I r e a l i z e d that i t can be t r i c k y observing i n an o f f i c e s e t t i n g and that i t was p a r t i c u l a r l y hard at Global Faith because of the o f f i c e layout (many private o f f i c e s and lack of shared spaces) and the structure (specialized jobs requiring coordination across departments) - hence, the many informal meetings i n private o f f i c e s . I used my knowledge of the structure to come up with a strategy for gaining access to these meetings. F i r s t , I went to Dan, the Director of Human Resources, for help and advice. I t o l d him that I was a l i t t l e worried about people not r e a l i z i n g what I was interested i n and not thinking that I might want to s i t i n on 2 8 Gerald commented on thi s section of the d i s s e r t a t i o n draft during the process of respondent v a l i d a t i o n . Gerald emphasized that saying that I was indeed a Chri s t i a n was not considered as a "password" by Richard allowing me entry to the prayer meeting. Gerald said that Richard's p o s i t i v e reaction to my saying that I was Chri s t i a n was only related to his concern that I might f e e l uncomfortable during the prayer session i f I was not a Chri s t i a n . 106 meetings that might be boring to them but that were fascin a t i n g to me. I asked Dan how should my being informed of meetings happen? Should I take an active stance and ask people to update me every week? Should I s i t back a b i t and l e t time pass u n t i l I f i t i n better and wait for people to naturally think of me and i n v i t e me to pa r t i c i p a t e as they f e e l comfortable doing so? Or, somewhere i n the middle of these two options? T e l l people what I am interested i n , remind them now and then and hope they w i l l remember me? Dan seemed to understand right away. He offered to tal k to "people" for me. I said that maybe i t w i l l just resolve i t s e l f - i t takes time for people to get used to having me around. He commented on the importance of building relationships and he said "You're part of [Global Faith] - t r y not to f e e l l i k e an outsider." I followed up on Dan's advice by tagging along more often on lunch outings to the coffee shop next door and by spending more time chatting with people about topics that did not rela t e d i r e c t l y to my research interests - for example, our families and our children. I t r i e d to do more of what Bernard (1994) c a l l s "hanging out" - a process that "builds trust and re s u l t s i n ordinary conversation and ordinary behavior i n your presesence. Once you know, from hanging out, exactly what you want to know more about, and once people trust you not to betray t h e i r confidence, y o u ' l l be surprised at the di r e c t questions you can ask" (p.152). Several days l a t e r , I asked Richard, Director of the Overseas Programs Department, i f he thought people were uncomfortable when I sat i n on meetings. Richard said: "No, 107 you're part of the woodwork now. That i s not a problem." We were slowly b u i l d i n g rapport and getting to know each other better. Their expressions of inclusion increased even more a f t e r I p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the three-day summer retreat with a l l the s t a f f . Even though the intent to include me i n informal meetings was eventually established, l o g i s t i c a l l y i t was s t i l l d i f f i c u l t to accomplish. I r e a l i z e d that most of the meetings taking place around Global Faith included Gerald, the Executive Director, and that t h i s could be another route for negotiating access. If I could spend an entire day at his side and observe a l l the meetings that he took part i n , then I would not have to wait for people to remember to i n v i t e me along. I spoke with Gerald about t h i s idea of "shadowing" him for a day. He seemed cooperative but we did not set a date. F i n a l l y , i n September, I started wondering i f the people of Global Faith sensed my l i n g e r i n g awkwardness with t h e i r r e l i g i o u s foundation because I had only been to one of the Monday morning staff/prayer meetings. It became cle a r to me that i n order to be considered one of the group, i t was important to demonstrate allegiance by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s meeting. I decided to change my regular schedule of v i s i t s to Global Fai t h (usually Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays) i n order to attend. The day that I went to the staff/prayer meeting, another layer preventing access seemed to f a l l away. Gerald was e s p e c i a l l y f r i e n d l y and open to my spending the rest of the day with him. On that f i r s t day of shadowing, I sat with Gerald as he conducted f i v e d i f f e r e n t meetings with s t a f f members - receiving updates 108 and providing guidance - and one meeting with representatives from a f i l m and music production company about the p o s s i b i l i t y of recording a "musimentery" to be played at Global Faith fundraising events. After that f i r s t day, I shadowed Gerald on three other occasions and was able to observe many more meetings and informal interactions (including a meeting with the Board of Directors and a v i s i t to the Doctor's o f f i c e with Gerald's mother) and to learn more about Gerald's central p o s i t i o n as a leader and a motivator. Shadowing the Executive Director proved to be a very useful strategy and revealed the l i n k between negotiating access and the researcher's role i n the f i e l d . As Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) emphasize, negotiating access "also refers to the much more wide-ranging and subtle process of manoeuvring oneself into a p o s i t i o n from which the necessary data can be collected" (p.76). My r o l e as Gerald's shadow affected who I interacted with and what data I had access to. The next section examines the various roles I had during the fieldwork, and the implications of the d i f f e r e n t roles for the nature of the data c o l l e c t e d and for f u l f i l l i n g the research exchange. A Fishbowl of Roles Heath (1993) uses the phrase "the fishbowl of multiple and c o n f l i c t i n g roles and values" (p.261) to re f e r to the s w i r l i n g mixture of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and allegiances contained i n the transparent and often precarious work of ethnographic research. 109 While I was doing the fieldwork at Global Faith, my fishbowl of roles included: academic researcher, p a r t i c i p a t i n g member and donor of Global Faith, and mother of a young c h i l d . Each of these roles suggests that "a p a r t i c u l a r I was present i n the c o l l e c t i o n and analysis of these data" (Peshkin, 1986, p.287). This section looks at each of these roles i n turn. Academic Researcher My role as a researcher at Global Faith was established i n the context of potential recruitment as a s t a f f member. During the p i l o t study, Richard, the Director of the Overseas Programs Department, mentioned that Global Faith was considering h i r i n g someone to a s s i s t with coordinating a CIDA funded program. Once Richard learned that I was Christian (he i n t i a l l y assumed that I was not), he excitedly "offered" me the job. 2 9 He mentioned l a t e r to Gerald that I was interested i n part-time work at Global Faith. In the meantime, I talked with my Research Committee and we agreed that there was potential for an i n t e r e s t i n g long-term study at Global Faith and that i t would not be advisable to work there and do research at the same time. When I returned to Global Faith to interview Gerald several weeks l a t e r , the topic of a job came up again. Gerald said he heard from Richard that I was interested i n working part-time at 2 9 Gerald commented on t h i s section of the d i s s e r t a t i o n draft during the process of respondent v a l i d a t i o n . Gerald said that Richard's informal job o f f e r was not based on my saying that I was C h r i s t i a n . Rather, Richard thought of me as a "nice person" with the appropriate experience and "personality" for the job. 110 Global Fa i t h and he thought they could use me to help out i n the Overseas Programs Department. I quickly t o l d him that I had wanted to tal k about the p o s s i b i l i t y of working there as well because the s i t u a t i o n had changed since I had a chance to t a l k with my Research Committee. I explained that my f i r s t p r i o r i t y was to my research and to f i n i s h i n g my degree. I then asked him i f i t would be possible to carry out a longer-term study at Global Faith. Gerald said he had no problem with that and suggested that I work for them while doing my fieldwork. I said that I would prefer to just be a researcher but that I would l i k e to help out with writing or edi t i n g i f they needed that. He said he understood that I would not want to have divided l o y a l t i e s by being both a s t a f f member and a researcher and they would l i k e i t i f I could help out. He then added: "We would make sure you were compensated f i n a n c i a l l y for your work, of course." I emphasized that I did not want to be paid by Global Faith while doing the research. We agreed that once the research was finished, we would tal k about the p o s s i b i l i t y of employment again. P a r t i c i p a t i n g Member Because my f i r s t p r i o r i t y was to my researcher role, I re s i s t e d recruitment as a complete member of Global Faith. Instead, I took a mostly peripheral membership role while conducting the fieldwork. Peripheral membership s t i l l implies an inside r ' s perspective through di r e c t , first-hand experience, but i t i s achieved and maintained through marginal p a r t i c i p a t i o n and 111 a c e r t a i n l e v e l of detachment (Adler & Adler, 1987). Some degree of detachment was inevitable i n my case because of the differences i n our world views and our expressions of C h r i s t i a n i t y . While I t r i e d to develop empathy with the people of Global Faith, I would never be able to f u l l y grasp emotionally the evangelical motivation and meaning behind t h e i r work. However, some detachment can be b e n e f i c i a l . As Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) have said, "there must always remain some part held back, some s o c i a l and i n t e l l e c t u a l 'distance.' For i t i s i n the 'space' created by the distance that the analytic work of the ethnographer gets done" (p.102). While I maintained a detached stance throughout the fieldwork, I was eventually drawn i n from the periphery to become more of an active member of Global Faith. Alder and Alder (1987) stress that "peripheral membership i s often a t r a n s i t i o n a l role, serving as a point of entry for people who w i l l ultimately move toward closer, more involved roles" (p.43). My i n i t i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as a member of Global Faith coincided with my main a c t i v i t i e s as a researcher: l i s t e n i n g , note-taking, and writing. I was the designated minute-taker for some formally scheduled external committee meetings that Global F a i t h members were involved i n . I also took the minutes for a regional meeting of an NGO consortium (a Global Faith member was chairing the meeting), and for the annual regional CIDA consultation with the l o c a l NGOs. These meetings a l l involved people from outside Global F a i t h and usually took place outside of normal o f f i c e 112 hours - i n the evenings or on a Saturday. I also took notes and wrote summaries within Global Faith, i n accordance with t h e i r requests (e.g., I wrote up the summary of a meeting between a senior CIDA o f f i c i a l and Global Faith's Executive Director and seven departmental d i r e c t o r s ) . My role as note-taker served a minor, yet useful, function; i f I had not been there and, i n some cases, w i l l i n g to come i n outside of o f f i c e hours, someone else from Global Faith would have been assigned to the job. I also helped with photocopying, buying refreshments, and s e t t i n g up a small reception for v i s i t i n g CIDA o f f i c i a l s and representatives from the l o c a l NGO community. As I took part i n more of the core a c t i v i t i e s of Global Fai t h (e.g., the weekly staff/prayer meeting), my role as a p a r t i c i p a t i n g member changed and I became more a c t i v e l y involved out of " s i t u a t i o n a l necessity" (Adler & Adler, 1987, p.53). Because of the sharp insider/outsider d i s t i n c t i o n that characterized the setting of Global Faith, my p o s i t i o n on the periphery was not sustainable. As Gerald was fond of reminding the s t a f f of Global Faith: "either you're i n or you're not." Once I had p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the annual three-day retreat i n July and returned more often to the weekly prayer/staff meeting, my status changed from a researcher allowed only l i m i t e d access to the inside to more of a trusted colleague engaged i n a j o i n t endeavor with the people of Global Faith (Alder & Alder, 1987). The nature of my r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s expanded i n two di r e c t i o n s : 1) helping with fundraising e f f o r t s and, 2) providing written input f o r a 113 proposal for CIDA funding. Each of these functions i s described below. My help with fundraising revolved around two of Global Faith's special yearly events - the f a l l Walkathon and the spring Banquet. While I was attending one of the weekly staff/prayer meeting i n mid-August, I discovered that I had been assigned to the "Public Relations Committee" for the Walkathon. This involved sorting through boxes f u l l of sweatshirts and t - s h i r t s with the Global F a i t h logo i n preparation for t h e i r sale at the Walkathon in October. I also helped with r e g i s t r a t i o n on the actual day of the walk. I greeted the walkers and took i n sponsor sheets and money and stamped people's maps. There were many people coming and going that I did not know that a l l seemed to know each other. A l l the s t a f f members from Global Faith were there, as well as t h e i r friends and relations and many former part i c i p a n t s i n Global Faith's summer youth programs. The annual spring fundraising Banquet i s another occasion where the partic i p a n t s a l l seemed to know each other or to have acquaintances i n common. Gerald expressed his expectation that I' would be able to r e c r u i t some of my friends to attend and that I would "host" several tables. He joked i n front of other s t a f f members that I would be hosting four tables at the Banquet. Much to my chagrin, they believed him and congratulated me on bringing i n so many pote n t i a l donors. 3 0 I had to assure them that i t was not true -3 0 Gerald commented on t h i s section of the d i s s e r t a t i o n draft during the process of respondent v a l i d a t i o n . Gerald said that the other s t a f f members would have known that he was joking 114 I would not be hosting any tables. I did, however, attend the banquet (bringing only my husband) two years i n a row. During our second Banquet, we were seated at a table that was to be hosted by Richard, the Director of the Overseas Programs Department. Richard was l a t e a r r i v i n g , so I was the only person there d i r e c t l y connected with Global Faith. I answered the other guests' questions and f i l l e d i n for Richard u n t i l he arrived. Richard t o l d me afterwards that he knew he could depend on me to represent Global Faith i n his absence. In both cases - the Walkathon and the Banquet - my role as a p a r t i c i p a t i n g member of Global F a i t h included inte r a c t i n g with outsiders. I was trusted to serve as a f a i t h f u l lieutenant and to act on behalf of Global Fai t h i n an appropriate manner (Adler & Adler, 1987) . The other area of expanded r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i n my more active role at Global Faith involved d r a f t i n g a section for a written proposal to CIDA. In late A p r i l 1993, I received a l a s t minute, urgent phone c a l l from Elizabeth, Director of International Relations at Global Faith, cancelling our second research interview which was scheduled to take place the next day. Elizabeth explained that she did not have time for the interview because she was working on a submission to CIDA. Elizabeth stressed how important t h i s proposal was to Global Fai t h and then asked me to help out by d r a f t i n g a section of the proposal dealing with i n s t i t u t i o n a l linkages. Elizabeth suggested about me hosting tables and t h e i r congratulations were part of a joking response. 115 that t h i s would be easy for me because of my u n i v e r s i t y perspective. My portion of the draft had to be ready by the next day. When I expressed surprise at the short notice and also dismay because my husband and I were planning to go out for our anniversary dinner that evening (when would I have time?), Elizabeth remained unimpressed. She said she was writing other parts of the proposal and that others were busy contributing additional sections. I was expected - l i k e the other s t a f f members - to contribute my part. I did do as Elizabeth asked and delivered the draft the next day. This experience helped to underscore the high l e v e l of interpersonal commitment and pressure applied to members of Global Faith. As Adler and Adler (1987) point out, "doing 'membership work' forces the researcher to take on the obligations and l i a b i l i t i e s of members. In repeatedly dealing with the p r a c t i c a l problems members face, researchers utlimately organize t h e i r behavior and form constructs about the setting's everyday r e a l i t y i n much the same way as members" (p.34). A few days l a t e r , Gerald, the Executive Director, thanked me for my help with the proposal and said to me: "you're very kind." Providing my services - even i n very small ways - d e f i n i t e l y enhanced my relationships with Global Faith s t a f f and increased my access to data i n a wider va r i e t y of settings. Gerald t o l d me: "you are nice and that i s why doors are opened to you." 3 1 3 1 During the process of respondent v a l i d a t i o n , Gerald commented on t h i s section of the d i s s e r t a t i o n draft. Gerald said that the people of Global Faith did not view my helping out as a 116 Helping out as a p a r t i c i p a t i n g member was also a way to reciprocate for the opportunity to do my research at Global Faith. As Wade (1984) emphasizes, "observers cannot expect to be only on the receiving end of the participant observer process" (p.213). I wanted to be able to o f f e r something back to the organization i n exchange for t h e i r patience with my questions and t h e i r tolerance of my presence. In addition to showing gratitude, acting as a p a r t i c i p a t i n g member of Global Faith also served as a basis for understanding what i t i s ac t u a l l y l i k e to be a s t a f f member at Global Faith. "Our feelings while i n a p a r t i c u l a r role might mirror those who hold a s i m i l a r role i n the setting.... Thus our feelings suggest hypotheses about how others, members of a subgroup i n the se t t i n g or perhaps outsiders, f e e l about themselves and each other. If we examine our uncomfortable feelings rather than dismiss them, we can gain insights into how others f e e l and why" (Kleinman & Copp, 1993, p.31). My "uncomfortable feelings" while i n the role of a p a r t i c i p a t i n g member of Global Faith were linked to my perception that I could never do enough for "the cause." My volunteer services were appreciated but I always f e l t pressure that no matter how much I contributed, I should be doing more for the organization. I also sensed t h e i r high expectations of unwavering and undivided l o y a l t y to the organization. I experienced t h i s d i r e c t l y during a conversation with Gerald, the Executive necessary exchange for access. He emphasized again that doors were opened to me because of my "personality." 117 Director. Gerald c a l l e d me into his o f f i c e to talk about my help with note-taking at a Program Review Committee meeting on the previous Saturday. My infant son was sick that Saturday but I came anyway to f u l f i l l my promise to take notes for Global Faith. During the meeting break, I talked with one of the v i s i t i n g committee members (who also happened to be a doctor) about my son's strange rash and my worries about his health. The following excerpt from my fieldnotes describes Gerald's reaction to my predicament: [Gerald] was concerned that they did not have a back-up note-taker arranged for the day that I came i n to do the minutes and Geordie [my son] was sick at home. He was worried that i f I had stayed home because my baby was sick, what would they have done? He asked me i f I thought they should always have a back-up i n place for me. Was he t e s t i n g my loyalty? I said no, that was not necessary - that there would always be someone else there for my baby and I would be there for [Global F a i t h ] . [Gerald] said t h e i r other concern was that maybe I should have been at home with my baby and they were taking me away from him. Afterwards I had mixed feelings about th i s part of our conversation. I f e l t put to the test by [Gerald] as though he was challenging my commitment. I am a volunteer, not an employee. I am sympathetic to "the cause" but not a convert. And I am the mother of young baby. A l l of these can be seen as p o t e n t i a l threats to any l o y a l t y I might f e e l towards [Global Faith] , 3 2 Taking on the role of p a r t i c i p a t i n g member raises the question of a researcher's impact or influence on the a c t i v i t i e s of an organization. As Fine (1993) says, "recognizing that the 3 2 Gerald commented on t h i s section of the d i s s e r t a t i o n draft during the process of respondent v a l i d a t i o n . Gerald said he remembered our conversation that day about what to do i n the future i f I was the designated note-taker and my son was sick. Gerald r e c a l l e d that he saw the need to discuss the s i t u a t i o n beacuse he thought of i t as a "predicament" and not as an opportunity to test my l o y a l t y . 118 researcher should not di r e c t a scene, one might also wonder whether competent, active observers do not and should not have influence" (p.281). I had l i t t l e or no impact on planning at Global Faith. At the end of in-house meetings at Global Faith, Gerald usually asked each person i n turn i f they had any thoughts, questions or suggestions for the group to consider. When I sat i n on meetings, Gerald included me as well i n t h i s sweep for ideas. Often I simply said I had nothing to add. On several occasions, however, I did suggest minor changes to written documents (e.g., adding an author reference) and they were implemented. In one instance only, I offered an idea without being asked f i r s t and i t was not acted upon. It was several days before the annual Retreat and I was nervous about p a r t i c i p a t i n g . I imagined the Retreat would include opportunities for brainstorming on topics l i k e new fundraising options and I wanted to test one of my ideas out on Gerald f i r s t . My idea and Gerald's reaction are described i n my fieldnotes as follows: My idea was to combine a c u l t u r a l evening (dinner, music, information on a country or culture) with fundraising so that people would f e e l as though they had been on a journey and would f e e l close to the people they were ultimately helping. The money given would i n part be a thank-you for the journey and also a vehicle for helping. [Global Faith's] p r o f i l e would be very low - so low that the C h r i s t i a n orie n t a t i o n would be hard to see. I was t r y i n g to f i n d a way to make [Global Faith] and t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s more mainstream. [Gerald] l i s t e n e d p a t i e n t l y but'without enthusiasm. He said that the idea was " t r i c k y but not impossible." The main stumbling block to him was what I saw as the strength: the fact that the r e l i g i o u s focus would be fuzzed out or toned down. A f i n a l aspect of my role as a p a r t i c i p a t i n g member of Global Faith involved friendship with some of the other members. 119 For example, I was in v i t e d to attend an engagement party for one s t a f f member at the home of another (not a l l the s t a f f members were i n v i t e d ) . I was also i n v i t e d to attend the Executive Director's Christmas party for family, friends and s t a f f . On several occasions, I went with some Global Faith people to the cafe next door for a snack or a coffee a f t e r work. During the l a s t s i x months of my fieldwork at Global Faith, I was pregnant with our second c h i l d . He was born i n July a f t e r I had o f f i c i a l l y l e f t the f i e l d . For several months afterwards, I stayed i n touch with Global Faith through telephone c a l l s and when they had news of our baby's safe a r r i v a l , they sent us a large f r u i t basket. I f e l t very fond of many of the people I encountered while doing research at Global Faith and I was often touched by t h e i r kindness and t h e i r e f f o r t s to include me i n t h e i r world. Donor A f t e r donating money to Global Faith during the f i r s t fundraising Banquet that I attended with my husband, I was put on the donor mailing l i s t . Throughout the fieldwork and for many months afterwards, I received monthly and emergency appeal l e t t e r s from Global Faith. I responded to the emergency appeal for the famine i n Somalia and I also gave money at the second fundraising Banquet. I r e a l i z e that by Global Faith standards I was not a substantial or "important" donor. I gave only a small amount and on an i r r e g u l a r basis. I decided to donate money to Global Faith i n the same fashion that I have decided to donate to 120 other charitable organizations: I was impressed by an earnest appeal, ample background information, and a sense of urgency. Mother My role as a mother was the basis for closer relationships with some Global Faith s t a f f . Bernard (1994) points out that i n the context of fieldwork "being a parent helps you to tal k to people about cert a i n areas of l i f e and get more information than i f you were not a parent" (p.155). Because we had parenthood i n common, casual conversations were easy to i n i t i a t e and maintain. We always had something pleasant - or perplexing - to ta l k about: our children. Being a mother also served as a type of "escape route" from the in t e n s i t y of ethnographic fieldwork. My family r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and part-time childcare arrangements meant that I could not come i n to Global Faith every day and some weeks, I could not come i n at a l l . Adler and Adler (1987) point out that p e r i o d i c a l l y withdrawing from the f i e l d helps researchers to "realign t h e i r perspective with those of outsiders i n order to analyze the setting c r i t i c a l l y " (Adler & Adler, 1987, p.51). My mother role also affected Global Faith's expectations of me; both i n terms of frequency of p a r t i c i p a t i o n and also i n terms of continued involvement beyond the end of the fieldwork. Ultimately, leaving the f i e l d and the p o s s i b i l i t y of employment behind was not seen as a defection from Global Faith but as a choice made by a mother of a growing young family. 121 Data C o l l e c t i o n and A n a l y s i s Three data c o l l e c t i o n techniques were used i n t h i s research: pa r t i c i p a n t observation, interviewing and document analysis. This made i t possible to check the v a l i d i t y of constructs as the research progressed through technique and data-source t r i a n g u l a t i o n (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983; Sanday, 1979). Before describing the data c o l l e c t i o n and analysis procedures, the next section f i r s t reviews the time frame for the fieldwork. Time Frame My f i r s t contact with Global Faith was i n January, 1992. The p i l o t study (two observation sessions and two interviews) was c a r r i e d out i n February and discussions concerning the longer-term study and my potential role at Global Faith were conducted i n March. I began taking notes and minutes on behalf of Global Fai t h i n A p r i l . I also attended the fundraising banquet and started interviewing the departmental di r e c t o r s . I continued to interview the directors and to take notes at meetings during May. My v i s i t s to Global Faith increased i n June (to two or three days a week) and I started p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the Training Program - a series of interviews with a senior s t a f f member responsible for ori e n t i n g new members. I attended the three day Retreat i n July and the Board Meeting and the Walkathon i n October. In A p r i l 1993, I was i n v i t e d to attend another retreat - t h i s one for the senior s t a f f only to discuss the v i s i o n of Global Faith. I continued interviewing, observing, and p a r t i c i p a t i n g at Global 122 F a i t h throughout the fieldwork u n t i l May 1993. The fieldwork phase - including the p i l o t study - lasted for seventeen months (January 1992 - May 1993). My withdrawal from the f i e l d happened gradually a f t e r I r e a l i z e d that I was not r e a l l y discovering new things and that I needed to devote a l l my available time to taking a closer look at what I already had learned. Given the i n t e n s i t y of t h e i r commitment, I found i t very hard to leave Global F a i t h - whether i t was leaving at the end of the day or leaving at the end of the fieldwork. I maintained contact with Global F a i t h for several months afte r the fieldwork was fini s h e d . We talked on the phone and I brought our newborn son out to v i s i t i n August. In September 1993, our family went overseas for nine months for my husband's sabbatical. During that time, I exchanged cards and l e t t e r s with the Executive Director of Global Faith. Upon our return i n the summer of 1994, we talked again on the telephone and agreed to re-establish contact when I had a draft ready to send for t h e i r feedback. P a r t i c i p a n t O b s e r v a t i o n and F i e l d n o t e s Participant observation - first-hand involvement combined with systematic observation - was carr i e d out one to three days a week at Global Faith over a seventeen month period. Days for v i s i t s to the s i t e varied from week to week depending on the scheduling of meetings or other events to observe, the timing of interviews with Global Faith s t a f f , and my arrangements for childcare. I usually arrived a f t e r they did each morning (because 123 of the long drive from my home), though on several occasions I came i n early for a special morning meeting. My f l e x i b l e hours did not seem to be a source of disturbance or d i s t r a c t i o n for the people of Global Faith. They themselves kept varied hours and some s t a f f worked part-time from t h e i r homes. With short-term volunteers coming and going and the numerous t r i p s made by s t a f f across Canada and overseas, my frequent appearances and disappearances f i t into the rhythms of d a i l y l i f e at Global Faith. Also, as Bernard (1994) notes, "as you become less and less of a curiousity, people take less and less i n t e r e s t i n your comings and goings" (p.141). When I worried about the i r r e g u l a r scheduling of my v i s i t s , I was reassured by one s t a f f member: "You just do your own thing. You're part of the woodwork now." "Doing my own thing" as a p a r t i c i p a t i n g observer at Global Fait h transpired i n a va r i e t y of ways. On some v i s i t s , I spent most of the time at a desk i n an open hallway area reading organizational documents, writing up notes, l i s t e n i n g to conversations going on around me, and chatting with the s t a f f . During other v i s i t s , I sat i n on agency meetings - either as the designated note-taker (e.g., for a meeting with a high-ranking CIDA o f f i c i a l ) or as an observer (e.g., for the agency's in t e r n a l planning meetings). While observing the meetings, I wrote shorthand fieldnotes on a clipboard on my lap. If the conversation turned to f i n a n c i a l s p e c i f i c s or i f they indicated that a c e r t a i n part of the conversation was c o n f i d e n t i a l , I would stop writing and put my pen and clipboard on the table i n p l a i n 124 view. During the meetings, I remained quiet unless i t was my "turn" to o f f e r a prayer or to respond to one of Gerald's questions. I was t o l d that my style observing meetings was good; "you're so quiet that no one r e a l i z e s you're there." In order to keep a record of what I was observing, I wrote informal, condensed (Spradley, 1980) notes throughout the day and included descriptions of what I saw, who said what, and what we a l l did. These scratch notes were the basis for the fieldnotes which were written up as soon as possible a f t e r each v i s i t to Global Faith. No matter how detailed, fieldnotes cannot completely reconstruct everything that happened or even everything that was observed; rather, they are "approximations, signposts, and minidocudramas" (Fine, 1993, p.278). In addition to descriptions of behaviour and snippets of conversations, the fieldnotes also contained my r e f l e c t i o n s on what i t a l l meant, what s t i l l d id not make sense and a record of decisions about who to interview, and what, when, where to observe. Completed fieldnotes were printed and f i l e d chronologically i n a binder and also stored on diskette. Atkinson (1992) makes the point that the " f i e l d " of fieldwork i s produced, not given. Boundaries of the f i e l d are "the outcome of what the ethnographer may encompass i n his or her gaze; what he or she may negotiate with hosts and informants; and what the ethnographer omits and overlooks as much as what he or she observes" (p.9). Over the course of the fieldwork, the focus of my "gaze" changed. During the f i r s t few months, I concentrated 125 mainly on how the people of Global Faith described the planning process for s p e c i f i c overseas projects. 3 3 I asked them to t a l k about the sequence of events and the a l l o c a t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s across Head Office and Regional O f f i c e s t a f f i n program planning, t h e i r view of "successful" and "unsuccessful" programs, and how the r e l i g i o u s orientation of the agency might influence decisions about which programs to support. As I spent more time at Global Faith and was able to negotiate access to more a c t i v i t i e s at the core of the organization, I r e a l i z e d that I was having d i f f i c u l t y separating the process of program planning at Global Faith from the broader framework of organizational decision-making. For example, I needed to understand more about how the organization obtained resources (from government and general public donors) and whether and how the source of revenue would affect planning strategies. I therefore decided to include fundraising, marketing and i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e lations i n my "gaze." I also r e a l i z e d that an understanding of organizational decision-making at Global Faith would need to be based i n an investigation of Gerald's leadership. Shadowing Gerald changed the boundaries of the f i e l d 3 3 I i n i t i a l l y focused only on overseas projects that included nonformal adult education programs. I used the following description of nonformal education as guide for s e l e c t i n g these projects. "Nonformal education encompasses a wide range of educational and developmental a c t i v i t i e s that aim to r e l a t e to the immediate needs of the target population. The content of the program tends to be p r a c t i c a l and fu n c t i o n a l l y oriented. It i s usually intended to bring s p e c i f i c s k i l l s or changes i n attitude among c l i e n t e l e . Hence, the gain for nonformal education programs i s usually short-term and tangible" (Dejene, 1980, p.19). 126 yet again and gave me access t o meetings that were p r e v i o u s l y beyond my reach. As a p a r t i c i p a t i n g observer, I had to choose what t o focus on and what to leave out. Recognizing that my a b i l i t y to be observant v a r i e d throughout the day and from v i s i t to v i s i t , I r e a l i z e that what i s depicted i n my f i e l d n o t e s i s not the complete p i c t u r e . Fine (1993) emphasizes that " f o r reasons of space, events are excluded, but much i s excluded because i t passed r i g h t under our nose and through our ears and because our hands were too t i r e d to note the happening" (p.280). Kleinman and Copp (1993) a l s o s t r e s s that "compiled f i e l d n o t e s are h a r d l y f i n a l d r a f t s of what went on i n the s e t t i n g or group.... unrecorded memories or headnotes dispute the n o t i o n that f i e l d n o t e s can ever be complete" (p.25). Interviews Interviews were conducted c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h p a r t i c i p a n t o b s e r v a t i o n over the seventeen month p e r i o d at Global F a i t h . Twelve G l o b a l F a i t h s t a f f members were i n v o l v e d i n a t o t a l of 25 i n t e r v i e w s , 18 of which were audio-taped and 7 of which were recorded through hand-written notes. Figure 3.1 presents Global F a i t h ' s O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Chart and the p o s i t i o n s and t i t l e s of the people i n the i n t e r v i e w sample. Table 3.1 l i s t s the names of the in t e r v i e w e e s 3 4 and the dates of the i n t e r v i e w s . How was the i n t e r v i e w sample chosen? The p i l o t study 3 4 These names are a l l pseudonyms. 127 interviews were conducted with Richard, Director of Overseas Programs, and then with Gerald, Executive Director. Richard was selected i n i t i a l l y because of his direct involvement i n the management of overseas programs and he was interviewed a second time (almost a year later) because the fieldwork raised more questions that were relevant to his area of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . I decided to include an interview with Gerald i n the p i l o t study a f t e r meeting him and observing his style running the Monday morning staff/prayer meeting. His charisma, influence, and central role i n the organization were apparent early on i n the fieldwork. Consequently, I decided to interview Gerald on two other occasions (for a t o t a l of three interviews). A l l seven departmental directors (Dan, Asafa, Richard, Elizabeth, Stan, Charlie, and Pam) were eventually interviewed because t h i s group - along with Gerald - met regularly and acted as a cohesive unit d i r e c t l y involved i n a l l aspects of planning and organizational decision-making. This c o l l e c t i o n of central decision-makers i s c a l l e d "the Group of Eight" at Global Faith. In addition to the Group of Eight, the interview sample also included four other s t a f f members: Lisa, Ben, Kevin, and Ian. The f i r s t three were interviewed because of t h e i r involvement i n the Overseas Programs Department. Lisa, Ben, and Kevin a l l had experience representing Global Faith overseas and coordinating the regional programs i n India and Ethiopia. L i s a l e f t Global Fai t h shortly a f t e r our interview (to pursue f u l l - t i m e graduate studies) and Ben went back overseas to the Ethiopia o f f i c e . Kevin 128 had just returned from Ethiopia i n the early days of my fieldwork and remained at the Global Faith Head Office throughout the remainder of my term there. Ian i s a senior s t a f f member working part-time for Global Faith as an Advisor to the Communications and Fund Development Department. Six interviews were conducted with Ian as part of the Global Faith "Training Program" for new employees. This program consisted of a series of one-on-one sessions with Ian and covered the history, mission, goals, overseas programs and marketing strategies of Global Faith. The sessions were based on a rough course outline but were conducted as interviews with me asking c l a r i f y i n g questions and Ian, as the "instructor," elaborating on the course material by adding his own c o l l e c t i o n of stories (each with a moral or lesson learned). Seven people out of the sample of 12 were interviewed more than once. The decision to do multiple interviews with some Global Faith s t a f f was based on a number of factors: 1) the discovery of new areas for investigation during the fieldwork -either through the analysis or through the observation of behaviours or events that needed further explanation (for example, with Gerald and Asafa); 2) the need for a follow-up interview a f t e r the f i r s t interview because of time constraints and unexplored avenues (for example, with Dan and the Training Program interviews with Ian) and 3) the p o t e n t i a l for an indepth, i n s i g h t f u l conversation because of a key informant r e l a t i o n s h i p 129 FIGURE 3.1: G l o b a l F a i t h O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Chart B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s G e r a l d Execu l t ve D i rec to r S t r a t e g i c P l a r r i n g C c f r m t t e e M a r k e t i n g C o m m i t t e e P u b l i c a t i o n s C o m r r i t t e e P r o g r a m S t e e r i n g C o m m i t t e e P r o g r a m R n a n d n g C o m r i t t e e S t a n D i r e c t o r Communication & Fund Dev. Ian A d v i s o r | Prov inc ia l D i rec to rs Vo lun tee rs 130 TABLE 3.1: Record of Interviews NAME OF INTERVIEWEE DATE OF INTERVIEW (TAPED) DATE OF INTERVIEW (NOT TAPED) TOTAL Gerald 92/07, 93/05 92/02 3 Dan 93/04 92/04 2 Asafa 92/10, 92/12 92/04 3 Richard 92/02, 93/01 2 Elizabeth 92/09 1 Stan 93/03 92/05 2 Charlie 92/04 1 Pam 93/02 1 Lisa 92/09 1 Ben 92/06 1 Kevin 92/09 92/06 2 Ian 92/06, 92/07 (2), 92/08 (2) 92/06 6 TOTAL 18 7 25 131 with the interviewee (for example, with Kevin and with Richard) . 3 5 The group of people interviewed have positions across three layers on the organizational chart: Executive Director, Departmental Directors, and administrative and a d v i s o r i a l s t a f f . A diverse group i s desirable because of the "importance of allowing for differences i n the meanings people attach to c u l t u r a l manifestations....different c u l t u r a l members have d i f f e r e n t opinions" (Martin, 1992, p.7). While I did have informal conversations with support s t a f f about t h e i r backgrounds and how they joined Global Faith, I did not interview any support s t a f f . The support s t a f f realm of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s included word processing, data entry, telephoning donors, and receptionist and no d i r e c t involvement i n organizational decision-making or planning. Given more time, I would have l i k e d to have conducted interviews with everyone i n the Head Office, as well as the P r o v i n c i a l D irectors 3 6 across Canada, and the Board of Directors. But, r e a l i s t i c a l l y , I knew that I lacked the resources to conduct such a large and long-term study. A l l the interviews were conducted away from other Global 3 5 An additional factor was the a v a i l a b i l i t y of the s t a f f member. I had a second interview scheduled with Elizabeth which she cancelled at the l a s t minute. We were never able to reschedule another interview because of sudden health problems facing Elizabeth. 3 6 The Provincial Directors are responsible for coordinating development education and fundraising a c t i v i t i e s i n regions across Canada. The l o c a l Provincial Director worked out of the Head O f f i c e but was often t r a v e l l i n g throughout the province for speaking engagements at churches and community h a l l s . 132 Faith members. We either went o f f - s i t e to an uncrowded restaurant or, i f we stayed at Global Faith, we held the interview i n an o f f i c e with the door closed to ensure c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and a f e e l i n g of security. Eighteen interviews were recorded with audio-tape and then f u l l y transcribed, printed and stored on diskette. Seven interviews were not taped and were recorded through hand-written notes. These notes were also typed, printed and stored on diskette. The interviews that were not taped were conducted during the f i r s t few months of the fieldwork and were mostly set up by Dan, Director of Human Resource Development, as "orientation meetings" rather than formal interviews. Given a choice, I preferred to tape the interviews for the following reasons: 1) taped interviews run more smoothly without awkward lapses for note-taking; 2) I could concentrate more on the other person (their reactions and unspoken signals) and d i r e c t the conversation accordingly; 3) a transcript from a taped interview i s more complete than what comes out of piecing things together from rough notes and memory (I would rather have a record of t h e i r exact choice of words, i n f l e c t i o n s and even pauses); and 4) with a tape, I could r e l i v e and c r i t i q u e the interview experience and learn where i t i s necessary to improve my interviewing s t y l e . The main disadvantage of taping the interviews i s that, on some occasions, the sight of a tape recorder and attached microphone seemed to make people f e e l self-conscious and even s l i g h t l y anxious. I t r i e d to put them at ease before each interview by emphasizing that there were no "right answers" and that our 133 conversation would be informal and relaxed. Each interview began with a discussion of the interviewee's rights (e.g., the right to c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and the right to withdraw from the research project at any time without prejudice). They were then given a consent form to read and s i g n . 3 7 A f t e r making sure they were comfortable, I usually started the interviews by asking how they described the work that they did to other people and how they came to Global Faith. I made several pages of notes beforehand with s p e c i f i c questions or topic areas that I wanted to pursue and I would ref e r to t h i s guide throughout the interview. I also made b r i e f notes during the taped interviews and r e f l e c t e d on t h i s condensed version through an expanded account i n the fieldnotes. I started the time-consuming process of transcribing each of the taped interviews i n i t s e n t i r e t y i n January 1993 and had seven interviews transcribed before leaving the f i e l d i n May. Interview questions were general, exploratory, and open-ended i n order to "uncover the participant's meaning perspective" (Marshall & Rossman, 1989. p.83). Some questions were also more s p e c i f i c and asked the respondents to talk about a c t i v i t i e s which were observed during the fieldwork. The interview questions were also a way of investigating categories or constructs that were generated through ongoing analysis of the data. Examples of these types of interview questions are as follows: 1. How do you describe your work to other people? What do 3 7 Copies of the consent forms can be found i n the Appendix. 134 you l i k e the most/least about your work? 2. Can you describe what happened during the planning meeting t h i s morning? What do you think i t meant when...? 3. Who do you think your organization is/should be accountable to? How does private/government funding a f f e c t your programming? In addition to asking open-ended questions, I also r e l i e d on another interview technique: use of metaphors and analogies. For example, during one interview with Gerald, I asked him to imagine that i f the organization was a body, what part would he choose to be? Gerald's response was: "If I could pick a part of the body, I would hope i t would be the heart, but I wouldn't want to be that exclusive. The fear I have i n saying that i s that nobody else would be the heart. So I don't know. I am c e r t a i n l y not the mind." The analogy strategy helped Gerald to a r t i c u l a t e the high p r i o r i t y given to compassion as a motivational force at Global Faith. Another technique that proved to be useful during several interviews was to match the individual s t a f f members at Global Fai t h with t h e i r counterpart characters•on a popular t e l e v i s i o n show. For example, i n the second interview with Dan, we discussed the d i f f e r e n t p e r s o n a l i t i e s and the a l l o c a t i o n of r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and compared the Global Faith Departmental Directors to the main characters on Star Trek: The New Generation.38 This strategy was intended as a p l a y f u l exercise 3 8 For those readers f a m i l i a r with t h i s t e l e v i s i o n show and interested i n how we assigned the characters, the agreed upon match was as follows: Gerald = Jean-Luc; Dan = Counsellor Troy; Asafa = Worf; Richard = Riker; Elizabeth = Dr. Crusher; Stan = Data; Charlie = Geordi; Pam = Wesley. 135 that would also help Dan f e e l comfortable sharing his perspective on the nature of s o c i a l interactions and working relationships at Global Faith. Spradley (1979) points out that "ethnographic interviewing involves two d i s t i n c t but complementary processes: developing rapport and e l i c i t i n g information" (p.78). The interviews that I conducted at Global Faith did contribute to a deeper sense of rapport and mutual tru s t . Some s t a f f mentioned another advantage of our interviews: deliberate and constructive introspective analysis. For example, Asafa t o l d me: "I enjoy t a l k i n g to you. It i s fun to tal k to you because i t makes me think why I do things and how I view things. As I said, I don't s i t down and say 'well, we're l i k e t h i s because of t h i s and t h i s ' unless somebody asks me and forces me to think." Documents Documents - such as p o l i c y papers, project completion reports, annual reports, memorandums, meeting minutes, b u l l e t i n s , newsletters, prayer calendars, Strategic Plan, and correspondence - were c o l l e c t e d from Global Faith. Some documents were mailed to me a f t e r I made the f i r s t contact with Global Faith over the telephone i n January 1992. Other documents were photocopied and passed on to me by Global Faith s t a f f members when they thought I might be interested i n something or when I e x p l i c i t l y asked i f I could photocopy something myself. After p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the annual Retreat i n July, I was given a mailbox at the Head O f f i c e . 136 I was also put on the d i s t r i b u t i o n l i s t for committee meeting minutes and the monthly "Prayer Calendar." I checked my mailbox every day that I spent at Global Faith a f t e r that and was often delighted to f i n d i t overflowing with material. C o l l e c t i n g documents was an unobstrusive way to better understand how the people of Global Faith communicate with each other and how they present themselves to the outside world. It was also a way to access h i s t o r i c a l information from the preentry period of my study. For example, I was given permission to look through several f i l e cabinets f u l l of reports and correspondence r e l a t i n g to completed overseas programs. Though the people of Global Faith were very generous i n t h e i r offers to provide me with written materials, I r e a l i z e that I was not given the same access to i n -house documents as senior s t a f f members. I did not push t h i s l i m i t e i t h e r because I wanted to see only what they f e l t comfortable showing me. For example, I did not receive and d i d not ask for a copy of the binders given to the Board of Directors before t h e i r meeting. While I was permitted to observe t h i s meeting and to take notes for my own purposes, the formal documentation was reserved for the Executive Director, the Director of Finance, and the members of the Board. Friedmann (1973) draws attention to the fact that much of planning i s done "on the run" and i s not formally recorded. As such, "planning i s , to a large extent, an ephemeral process that leaves i t s traces primarily i n telephone conversations, the minutes of meetings, and f l o a t i n g memoranda. Formal documentation 137 appears to be important only i n connection with retrospective o f f i c i a l reports and the need to obtain resources..." (p.64). I had access to both the formal and informal traces of planning at Global Faith. A n a l y s i s In keeping with the ove r a l l r e f l e x i v e design of ethnographic research, analysis of the data was not carri e d out as a d i s t i n c t phase separate from data c o l l e c t i o n . Instead analysis was ongoing and fed' back into decisions regarding sampling and the focus of the interviews and observation sessions. Analytic strategies during data c o l l e c t i o n included repeatedly combing through fieldnotes, interview transcripts, and documents with new questions and writing memos to my Research Committee about what I discovered as a resul t of examining the data. 3 9 Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) describe t h i s early stage of analysis as follows: At t h i s stage, the aim i s to use the data to think with. One looks to see whether any int e r e s t i n g patterns can be i d e n t i f i e d ; whether anything stands out as surprising or puzzling; how the data relate to what one might have 3 9 Analytic memos also contained a record of methodological decisions. For example, the idea of continuing the d i s s e r t a t i o n research beyond the ethnography at Global Faith with a second phase was explored - and eventually abandoned - i n a series of analy t i c memos to the committee. The i n i t i a l strategy for Phase II was to determine the degree to which the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of planning at Global Faith also held i n other NGOs. The findings from the ethnographic research (Phase I) were to be the basis of interviews with experienced planners of international development projects at other Canadian NGOs. We eventually agreed that Phase II was not necessary - because an ethnography can stand alone -and that taking the ethnographic findings to other organizations for a type of comparison was better l e f t up to other researchers conducting follow-up studies. 138 expected on the basis of common-sense knowledge, o f f i c i a l accounts, or previous theory; and whether there are any apparent inconsistencies pr contradictions among the views of d i f f e r e n t groups or individuals, or between people's expressed b e l i e f s and attitudes and what they do. (p.178) For example, i n one analytic memo to my committee (dated August 1992), I i d e n t i f i e d "contradictions i n context" as an i n i t i a l theme. Within t h i s category I l i s t e d pairs of p o t e n t i a l l y c o n f l i c t i n g sets of interests or intentions, as follows: autonomy from CIDA (CIDA i s not considered a partner) v s . reproduction of CIDA (partnership agreements are modelled on CIDA format); fundraising to perpetuate the organization v s . fundraising to "help the poorest of the poor;" sponsoring programs to benefit the poor v s . sponsoring programs that have fundraising appeal; donor expectations of evangelizing (development i s viewed as a means) v s . CIDA r e s t r i c t i o n s on evangelizing (development i s viewed as an end i n i t s e l f ) . The idea of "bounded i n t e n t i o n a l i t y " was then explored with the following set of questions: - How are c o n f l i c t i n g intentions/interests negotiated? - Which intentions are r e a l i z e d without constraints? - Which intentions are bounded or never realized? - Which intentions act as a constraint on others? - What i s the hierarchy of intentions? The view of planning as the negotiation of interests (Cervero & Wilson, 1994; Cervero & Wilson, 1996) served as a s e n s i t i z i n g concept i n the ongoing process of analysis. "Sensitizing concepts are an important s t a r t i n g point, they are the germ of the emerging theory, and they provide the focus for further data c o l l e c t i o n " (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1983, p.181). Negotiation theory then helped me to apply ideas about relationships of the 139 negotiating parties, information about the other party's goals, and competitive or cooperative orientations to the process of planning at Global Faith (Kramer & Messick, 1995). In addition to writing analytic memos while s t i l l i n the f i e l d , I also kept a personal fieldwork journal i n order to keep track of the nature of my involvement as a researcher and to a i r my concerns and musings. I used the journal most i n t e n s i v e l y i n the early weeks of fieldwork and then again toward the end of the fieldwork phase during the process of disengagement. I needed an outlet - separate from my fieldnotes - to release worries and to examine feelings of d i s o r i e n t a t i o n and discomfort. Sanday (1979) emphasizes that " i n addition to the time required, p a r t i c i p a n t observation saps one's emotional energy. The ethnographer who becomes immersed i n other people's r e a l i t i e s i s never quite the same afterward. The t o t a l immersion creates a kind of d i s o r i e n t a t i o n - culture shock - a r i s i n g from the need to i d e n t i f y with and at the same time to remain distant from the process being studied" (p.527). The personal fieldwork journal was a "safe place" for dealing with my own case of "culture shock." The process of analysis continued aft e r I l e f t the f i e l d through the development of a coding system and the practice of timed writings. According to Bryman and Burgess (1994), "coding represents the gradual building up of categories out of data" (p.5). This was accomplished by f i r s t organizing and re-reading a l l the data (fieldnotes, interview transcripts, documents). 140 Then, I closed a l l the binders f u l l of notes and tr a n s c r i p t s and started a series of timed writings, 4 0 each one beginning with the phrase: "what I think I know about [for example, Gerald's leadership] i s . . . . " The purpose of the timed writings was to use my i n t u i t i o n to nurture ideas about I what learned, without t r y i n g to prove everything or even anything. These ideas then formed the basis for opening up fig u r a t i v e "folders" or "baskets" that contained groupings of i n i t i a l sub-stories. These s t o r i e s helped me to a r t i c u l a t e clusters of seemingly related concepts. For example, i n a cl u s t e r revolving around Gerald's leadership, I included the notions of "influence" and "exchange" and "family." The next stage i n the analysis was to go back to the data with an evolving l i s t of codes. Using "The Ethnograph" 4 1 I f i r s t re-printed a l l the fieldnotes and transcripts i n a format with a wide right margin and numbered l i n e s . I then read through every single page and looked for anything i n the texts that struck me as about "something." These "somethings" were then labeled with a code and the l i n e s containing them were noted i n the right-hand margin. The code labels were a l l ten l e t t e r s or less and were used as handles for the containers of meaning. I kept track of a l l the codes and added new ones when necessary. The next stage i n the coding was to enter a l l the code names with the 4 0 The use of timed writings i n analysis i s based on A l l i s o n Tom's approach which draws on Goldberg's (1988) guide for writing. 4 1 "The Ethnograph" i s a software program for computer asist e d analysis of text based data. For more information on "The Ethnograph," please see Tesch (1990, pp.251-268). 141 corresponding l i n e s of text and f i l e names into "The Ethnograph." I then asked "The Ethnograph" to print a l l the pieces of data corresponding to each code. These printed code sets were organized alphabetically and stored i n two large accordion f i l e s . I then had access to two sets of data: 1) the complete data set (fieldnotes, interview transcripts, and documents) organized chronologically and, 2) a subset of coded data organized a l p h a b e t i c a l l y by code. 4 2 I referred to both sets of data throughout the f i n a l stage of the analysis - which was writing the d r a f t . When necessary, I tracked sections of coded data back to the o r i g i n a l text which then provided the context for the excerpts or I searched through multiple codes applied to s p e c i f i c sections of orginal text. W r i t i n g the Ethnography The ethnographic process y i e l d s more than the product - the ethnographic account - can contain. As Wolcott (1990) says about ethnographic writing, "you cannot get i t a l l . You w i l l do well to get enough of the 'right s t u f f even after you decided what the right s t u f f i s " (p.59). Writing an ethnography i n e v i t a b l y involves choices about what to feature and what to forget. I 4 2 A l l the data texts were read for the coding, but not a l l of each text was a c t u a l l y coded. In other words, some portions of the fieldnotes and the transcripts did not receive a code because I did not think they were s i g n i f i c a n t or relevant (e.g., comments on the weather). Other portions of the data a c t u a l l y had as many as s i x codes overlapping because they contained thick descriptions or complex references to d i f f e r e n t issues. The documents were coded and sorted by hand into loose folders and stored i n a large basket. 142 chose to include enough descriptive d e t a i l i n order "to illuminate, to give readers a sense of being there, of v i s u a l i z i n g the people, f e e l i n g the c o n f l i c t s and emotions, and absorbing the flav o r of the setting" (Adler & Adler, 1995, p.21). I chose to omit d e t a i l that added only weight and shed no l i g h t on the research questions. I also l e f t out any d e t a i l that jeopardized c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y by revealing the i d e n t i t y of an i n d i v i d u a l or the organization. In addition to conveying a sense of "being there" at Global Faith, the detailed descriptions i n t h i s account provide a basis for applying the interpretive frame presented i n Chapter Two. Ayers (1980) emphasizes that the written account must go beyond merely presenting information by creating a frame for analysis and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n : An ethnographic account, then, analyzes information formally, rigorously, and e x p l i c i t l y . An ethnographic account, the product of the fieldwork, must be more than recordings of observations and interviews, and i t must be more than one's own feelings of what makes sense about something new or strange. The report must r e f l e c t an attempt on the part of the ethnographer to bring the data under control, so to speak, to create a frame through which information can be understood, (p.14) Pseudonyms for individuals and for the organization are used throughout the text. 4 3 Descriptions of ongoing states and practices at Global Faith are refered to i n the present tense i n t h i s account (corresponding to the "ethnographic present" which 4 3 I chose the pseudonyms myself according to my own sense of what names would be suitable and easy to remember. The people p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s study were given the opportunity to change them. 143 i s the time of the fieldwork). However, since the time of the fieldwork, some things may have changed and views of the part i c i p a n t s may now be d i f f e r e n t . The past tense i s used when describing events that happened only once or when r e f e r r i n g to something that people t o l d me. A d d r e s s i n g T r u s t w o r t h i n e s s C r i t e r i a This section i s organized around the c r i t e r i a set out by Lincoln and Guba (1985) for judging the trustworthiness of q u a l i t a t i v e research. The four methodological c r i t e r i a are: c r e d i b i l i t y , t r a n s f e r a b i l i t y , dependability, and con f i r m a b i l i t y . While these c r i t e r i a have been c r i t i c i z e d for res t i n g on assumptions that were developed for an empiricist philosophy of research (as opposed to the "co n s t r u c t i v i s t " or " i n t e r p r e t i v i s t paradigm"), I believe they can s t i l l be u s e f u l l y and s e l e c t i v e l y applied to ce r t a i n q u a l i t a t i v e studies. Lincoln (1995) states " t h e i r primary use now...is to help students understand that i n t e r p r e t i v i s t inquiry requires as serious a consideration of systematic, thorough, conscious method as does empiricist inquiry.... These c r i t e r i a act as reminders that seeking out multiple constructions of the world by multiple stakeholders has to be marked by serious, sustained searches for, and prolonged engagement with, those stakeholders and t h e i r constructions" (p.226). Each of the c r i t e r i a i s described and the strategies I used to improve the trustworthiness of my study are presented below. 144 C r e d i b i l i t y The c r e d i b i l i t y of a study i s related to the truth value which "establishes how confident the researcher i s with the truth of the findings based on the research design, informants and context" (Krefting, 1991, p.215). In t h i s study, I used four strategies to ensure c r e d i b i l i t y of the findings: 1) an extended time period for fieldwork allowing for submersion i n the research setting; 2) r e f l e x i v i t y ; 3) triangulation; and 4) respondent v a l i d a t i o n . Submersion i n the Setting Seventeen months of fieldwork provided ample time for rapport to develop with the people of Global Faith and for them to become accustomed to my presence. "This extended time period i s important because as rapport increases, informants may volunteer d i f f e r e n t and often more sensitive information than they do at the beginning of a research project" (Krefting, 1990, pp.218). Long-term participant observation conducted within Global Fa i t h also provided opportunities for early data analysis to guide further data c o l l e c t i o n . R e f l e x i v i t y R e f l e x i v i t y refers to a process of researcher self-monitoring, also termed " d i s c i p l i n e d s u b j e c t i v i t y " (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982, p.43). E a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter, I included a section t i t l e d "Where Self and Subject Join" i n order to discuss the influence 145 of my background, experience, and interests on the ethnographic research process. I have also c a r e f u l l y described the multiple roles I played while engaged i n the research. Use of a personal fieldwork journal and timed writings also contributed to the c r e d i b i l i t y of t h i s study by helping me to r e f l e c t on my feelings of a f f i n i t y and al i e n a t i o n and to a l t e r my data c o l l e c t i o n strategy accordingly. Triangulation Triangulation i s a strategy for improving c r e d i b i l i t y through the convergence of multiple data c o l l e c t i o n methods and data sources "to ensure that a l l aspects of a phenomenon have been investigated" (Krefting, 1991, p.219). This ethnography achieved t r i a n g u l a t i o n through the use of three data c o l l e c t i o n methods: part i c i p a n t observation, interviewing, and the gathering of documents. Three data sources - fieldnotes, interview tr a n s c r i p t s , and documents - provided d i f f e r e n t s l i c e s of data a l l contributing to a more complete understanding of the planning process at Global Faith. Furthermore, the long-term nature of the fieldwork, contact with a wide range of people, and my p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a variety of core a c t i v i t i e s at Global Faith helped to capture any v a r i a t i o n across time, seasons, settings, events and people. Respondent Validation Respondent v a l i d a t i o n i s one type of triangulation and refers to 146 a process of checking with informants to see i f they recognize t h e i r experiences i n the research findings as presented by the researcher. This "member checking" (Krefting, 1991) can occur throughout the fieldwork phase or near the conclusion of the study, or both. I conducted member checking p e r i o d i c a l l y throughout the fieldwork phase by following up on tentative ideas and interpretations during interviews with Global Faith s t a f f to see whether and how the same ideas made sense to them.44 I also c a r r i e d out a terminal member check near the conclusion of the study to give the people of Global Faith the opportunity to react to and comment on the near f i n a l presentation of the ethnography. I put more emphasis on the terminal member check for the reasons outlined by Miles and Huberman (1984) below: There are good reasons for conducting feedback a f t e r f i n a l analysis instead of during data c o l l e c t i o n . For one thing, the researcher knows more. You also know better what you know - are less tentative, have more supporting evidence, and can i l l u s t r a t e i t . In addition, you can get feedback at a higher l e v e l of inference: on main factors, on casual relationships, on interpretive conclusions. F i n a l l y , the feedback process can be done at t h i s point i n a less haphazard way. You can lay out the findings c l e a r l y and systematically, and present them to the reader for careful scrutiny and comment, (p.242) The f i n a l member check took place over a period of f i v e weeks i n the summer of 1997. In early June, I sent a copy of the 4 4 For example, i n an attempt to understand why Global F a i t h had been consistently successful i n obtaining increasing amounts of CIDA funding, during several interviews with d i f f e r e n t s t a f f members, I asked whether t h e i r success was due to a strategy of "mirroring CIDA's vagueness." 147 f i r s t f u l l d r a f t 4 5 to Gerald, as the central gate-keeper, with the following explanation included i n a covering l e t t e r : As we discussed, I am making the d i s s e r t a t i o n available to you while i t i s s t i l l i n draft form. The purpose of sharing the draft with you at t h i s stage i s twofold: 1) to ensure that the f i n a l text accurately r e f l e c t s the experiences and viewpoints of you and your colleagues; and 2) to include your reactions to my interpretations as another source of data and insight. Questions that I would l i k e you to consider as you read through the draft are: 1. How well do you f e e l the draft captures your understanding of the process of planning and the c u l t u r a l contexts of Global Faith that existed during the time of my research? 2. Do you f e e l c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y has been adequately respected? S p e c i f i c a l l y , do you f e e l that any in d i v i d u a l or the organization i t s e l f could be put at r i s k by the eventual public release of t h i s document? Are you comfortable with my choice of pseudonyms for the organization and.the people? The covering l e t t e r sent with the draft also emphasized that " i d e a l l y , everyone that participated i n the research should have a chance to read the draft and provide comments. However, as t h i s i s a large document and many of the s t a f f may not have the time to read i t , I understand that t h i s may not be possible." I offered to send additional copies of the draft for Gerald to d i s t r i b u t e i f he f e l t i t was necessary. I telephoned Gerald several days a f t e r mailing the d i s s e r t a t i o n draft and we agreed to meet over one month l a t e r i n mid-July to discuss the comments from Global Faith. During our meeting on July 15th (held away from Global Faith i n a coffee shop on the other side of town), I 4 5 A l l the chapters were i n place i n t h i s draft, but some sections i n Chapter Eight concerning the conclusions and implications of the study were only included i n note form. 148 learned that Gerald and one s t a f f member (Dan) had read the entire d r a f t . Two other s t a f f members (Richard and Asafa) were read excerpts of the draft over the telephone by Gerald because they were away from the Head Office for an extended period of time. During our meeting, we f i r s t discussed our families, changes at Global Fa i t h since the time of my fieldwork (e.g., who r e t i r e d , who moved away), and then the draft i t s e l f . Gerald i d e n t i f i e d two main areas of divergence i n our interpretations. F i r s t , Gerald t o l d me that he thought there was not as much exclusionary or protective feelings directed against me by the people of Global Faith - because I was a non-Evangelical C h r i s t i a n - as I had interpreted. Gerald said my C h r i s t i a n i t y was "not an issue" for them. Second, Gerald said he thought that I had a t t r i b u t e d too much control-to his p o s i t i o n as a leader of Global Faith. Gerald explained his view that he represents, rather than controls, the s t a f f : "In general, the people don't do what I say. I do what they say." As we went through the various pages of the draft where Gerald had comments, these two general areas - my role and his role - were repeatedly mentioned. In order to address his concerns over our divergent interpretations, we agreed that I would include Gerald's reactions and comments to s p e c i f i c passages as footnotes throughout the text. Most of these footnotes appear i n Chapter Three and to a lesser extent, i n Chapter Seven. Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) point out that "respondents' 149 reactions to the ethnographer's account w i l l be coloured by t h e i r s o c i a l p o s i t i o n and t h e i r perceptions of the research act" (p.197). Applying t h e i r observation to t h i s case, I can see how Gerald's " s o c i a l position" affected his reactions to the d r a f t . Gerald said that the people of Global Faith " a l l had i n common that they were hurt e a s i l y . " He explained to me that he thought the essence of his p o s i t i o n as Executive Director of Global Fa i t h was "to make sure that no one gets hurt." Therefore, Gerald may have been concerned about the people of Global Faith f e e l i n g hurt when they read my comments about f e e l i n g uncomfortable or l i k e an outsider. Gerald's perceptions of the research act - i n t h i s case, ethnographic fieldwork - also influenced his reactions to the d r a f t . Gerald was not f a m i l i a r with the usage of terms found i n the methodology l i t e r a t u r e , such as "negotiating access," to describe fieldworker strategies. Therefore, when Gerald read the section on negotiating access, he interpreted my use of the term as implying that they were actively, deliberately, and d i r e c t l y negotiating with me and t h i s did not f i t with his own view of t h e i r p o s i t i o n toward me as being an open welcome devoid of p r o t e c t i o n i s t feelings and even of discussion. Also, Gerald's concern about my view of having "outsider status" at Global Faith may be due to the fact that Gerald was not aware that feelings of "not belonging" and a sense of alienation are a r t i f a c t s of fieldwork involving participant observation and are a necessary part of ethnography, no matter where the setting. In addition to Gerald's feedback regarding my role and his 150 role, we also discussed several passages i n the draft where Gerald thought I had included information about Global Fa i t h that was too d e t a i l e d or s p e c i f i c and could be used by a reader to guess the i d e n t i t y of the organization. I have deleted these passages. Gerald also commented that one of the Chapter t i t l e s and one section heading were, i n his view, misleading. I have taken his suggestions into account and provided a new t i t l e and a new heading name. Overall, Gerald said that reading the draft was a "valuable exercise" - e s p e c i a l l y the material r e l a t i n g to my interpretations of t h e i r view of non-Evangelical Christians. Gerald said that i t i s always "interesting to see how others see oneself" and while he disagreed with certain interpretations I had of t h e i r behaviour, he emphasized that i t was my "camera." Because I did not set out to do a collaborative ethnography at Global Faith, my goal was not to arrive at a mutually agreed upon picture of r e a l i t y . Consequently, the respondent v a l i d a t i o n process was geared more toward gathering general reactions and addressing c o n f i d e n t i l i t y concerns than i t was toward the p o s s i b i l i t y of building theory together. T r a n s f e r a b i l i t y T r a n s f e r a b i l i t y refers to the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the research findings to other contexts or groups. T r a n s f e r a b i l i t y i s "more the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the person wanting to transfer the findings to another s i t u a t i o n or population than that of the researcher of 151 the o r i g i n a l study" (Krefting, 1991, p.216). However, i t i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the researcher to provide enough d e t a i l with respect to the findings and the methodology to allow others to make comparisions and t r a n s f e r a b i l i t y judgements. This ethnography provides dense background information on both the people and the setting of Global Faith (contained i n Chapters Four, Five, Six, and Seven). I have t r i e d to go beyond the s u p e r f i c i a l i n portraying scenes and behaviours and to "display empirical ' r i c h n e s s [ a n d ] v i v i d l y f l e s h i n the d e t a i l s " (Adler & Adler, 1995, p.21). As Geertz (1973) has emphasized, "ethnographic findings are not p r i v i l e g e d , just p a r t i c u l a r What generality [an ethnography] contrives to achieve grows out of the delicacy of i t s d i s t i n c t i o n s , not the sweep of i t s abstractions" (p.23-25). D ep endab i 1 i t y The c r i t e r i o n of dependability i s related to the concepts of int e r n a l and external r e l i a b i l i t y which are concerned with the pote n t i a l for r e p l i c a b i l i t y . "External r e l i a b i l i t y addresses the issue of whether independent researchers would discover the same phenomenon or generate the same constructs i n the same or si m i l a r settings. Internal r e l i a b i l i t y refers to the degee to which other researchers, given a set of previously generated constructs, would match them with data i n the same way as did the o r i g i n a l researcher" (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982, p.32). The notion of 152 dependability changes when applied to the context of ethnographic research. As LeCompte and Goetz (1982) make clear, "no ethnographer can r e p l i c a t e the findings of another because the flow of information i s dependent on the s o c i a l role held within the studied group and the knowledge deemed appropriate for incumbants of that role to possess" (p.37). The idea of r e p l i c a b i l i t y i s replaced instead with concern for consistency and the a b i l i t y to track any v a r i a b i l i t y across methods or sources. The s p e c i f i c methods of data gathering and analysis have been described i n d e t a i l i n previous sections of t h i s chapter. I have l e f t a type of "decision t r a i l " (Krefting, 1991) for other researchers to follow. I have also discussed my roles and changing status within Global Faith and r e f l e c t e d on how my relationships with informants may have influenced the research process. This ethnographic account i s r i c h i n primary data including quotations from the interviews and excerpts from the fieldnotes i n order to "substantiate inferred categories of analysis" (LeCompte & Goetz, 1982, p.41) further improving the dependability of the research. C o n f i r m a b i l i t y Confirmability i s related to the concept of n e u t r a l i t y of the findings. "Neutrality refers to the degree to which the findings are a function s o l e l y of the informants and conditions of the research and not other biases, motivations, and 153 perspectives" (Krefting, 1991, p.216). In ethnographic research, researcher n e u t r a l i t y i s not seen as always possible or even desirable (Peshkin, 1988). Lincoln (1995) emphasizes that "detachment and author o b j e c t i v i t y are barrie r s to quality, not insurance of having achieved i t " (p.280). Confirmability becomes an issue of value explication rather than value freedom. Ensuring that the research process i s "auditable" i s one strategy for addressing the c r i t e r i o n of con f i r m a b i l i t y (Krefting, 1991). By providing dense d e t a i l on the methodolgy used i n t h i s study and by making primary data and analytic memos available to my research committee, I have t r i e d to c l a r i f y the progression of events during the fieldwork and to explain how and why methodological decisions were made. L e a r n i n g from the Outside In Ethnographic research involves a process of going "into the f i e l d to learn about a culture from the inside out" (Schwartzman, 1993, p.3-4). However, learning about a culture also occurs on the journey from the outside i n . In my own case, the movement from a state of ignorance (I was i n i t i a l l y unaware of even the existence of Global Faith) to a state of understanding from the inside did not occur i n a single giant step. Being i n the f i e l d did not mean that I was ins t a n t l y or even automatically on the inside. Rather, as a fieldworker, I encountered various layers on my journey from the outside i n . Upon i n i t i a l contact with Global Faith and throughout the 154 early days i n the f i e l d , I was suspended at an outer layer - what I c a l l "the public s h e l l . " I had access to the same types of information that a member of the public would i f he or she came i n o f f the street expressing an interest i n the organization. Aft e r several more months of fieldwork, I took part i n Global Faith's Training Program for new employees. During t h i s same period, I pa r t i c i p a t e d i n Global Faith's annual s t a f f Retreat held over three days at a resort several hours out of town. I was the only participant who was neither a s t a f f member nor a Board member. Both the Training Program and the Retreat marked the passage through another layer of Global Faith - what I c a l l "the corridors of commitment." After many more months i n the f i e l d , I was f i n a l l y drawn into the heart of the organization by being i n v i t e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n another three day retreat, t h i s one only for the exclusive group of eight Directors and the senior s t a f f member who conducted the Training Program. The purpose of th i s retreat was to discuss the v i s i o n of Global Faith and how th i s v i s i o n related to each individual's personal v i s i o n and commitment to the organization. It was an emotional gathering with intense moments of personal exposure and v u l n e r a b i l i t y . Aft e r p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h i s Vision Retreat, I r e a l i z e d that I had come to yet another layer of the organization: "the inner sanctum." The purpose of the next three chapters i s to take you, the reader, on the same journey that I t r a v e l l e d from the outside i n . This journey moves from an outside view of the "public s h e l l " of 155 Global Faith (Chapter Four) to an awareness of how the organization operates based on both the o f f i c i a l version and the u n o f f i c a l s t o r i e s gathered while i n the "corridors of commitment" (Chapter Five) and f i n a l l y , on to a l e v e l of understanding gained through f a m i l i a r i t y with the people of Global Faith and time spent i n the "inner sanctum" (Chapter Six). 156 CHAPTER FOUR: THE PUBLIC SHELL I'd l i k e to believe that each NGO i s , i n i t s own way, the r e s u l t s of thoughts, and minds, and desire for action by a small group of people to do a s p e c i f i c and d i s t i n c t task overseas. And each one i s d i f f e r e n t than the next one i n that way. (Gerald, Executive Director of Global Faith) Good Works or God's Work? My f i r s t encounter with Global Faith occured while browsing through a l i s t of agencies printed i n a document prepared by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The l i s t gave the names and addresses of a l l the organizations that were currently executing CIDA contracts. The l i s t also included the sectoral focus and major a c t i v i t i e s of the CIDA funded projects. I decided to contact Global Faith f i r s t because t h e i r CIDA project focused on agro-forestry and included education and t r a i n i n g a c t i v i t i e s and also because they were located within an hour's drive from my home. I telephoned the organization, f e e l i n g very nervous making a cold c a l l and also f e e l i n g hopeful that t h i s might be an appropriate s i t e for my research. On the phone, I was transfered to the Director of Human Resources and Volunteers, a man with a gentle voice named Dan. Dan suggested that we talk again a f t e r I read the package of information that he promised to send. The package contained Global Faith's Annual Report, a few issues of the organization's quarterly newsletter and a single typed page with several• paragraphs describing Global Faith. Upon reading the f i r s t paragraph of t h i s single page, I learned that Global F a i t h i s 15 years old and that t h e i r "mandate i s to provide alternate 157 technological and educational support to people i n developing countries where environmental, economic and/or s o c i a l circumstances have interfered with the a b i l i t y of l o c a l communities to sustain themselves by using t r a d i t i o n a l methods. A l l projects are i n i t i a t e d by requests from l o c a l representatives." The second paragraph described t h e i r overseas projects as being "people-centred" i n that Global Faith "uses l o c a l people to implement the projects and Canadian compassion and resources to fuel them." So far, what the organization was saying about i t s e l f made sense to me. The t h i r d paragraph, however, quickly changed my perception of who they were..."the founders of [Global Faith] are Ch r i s t i a n people, and resources for i t s i n i t i a l projects were obtained p r i m a r i l y from the Chri s t i a n community; but [Global Faith] i s not a f f l i a t e d with any s p e c i f i c denomination." Global Faith's donors were described as people who "extend a hand to helpless people of the world so that they may once again stand and take charge of t h e i r l i v e s , or i n some cases, may simply stand." I wondered what the s i g n i f i c a n c e of having Christian founders would be. Did t h i s mean the organization had a missionary agenda? I r e a l i z e d that my own bias against pr o s e l y t i z a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y under the guise of international development work, might be fue l i n g my scepticism and s l i g h t sense of wariness. The Annual Report contained a l i s t of commencing programs, ongoing programs, and completed programs i n countries throughout A f r i c a , Asia, and Latin America. The program descriptions revived 158 my i n t e r e s t i n the organization. Phrases l i k e " t r a i n i n g and forming of poultry rearing cooperatives" and "income generation programs" and "community r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of degraded land" were f a m i l i a r to me and therefore, comforting. The focus of t h e i r development work was described as "improving water systems, food production and storage methods, education, health and n u t r i t i o n , community development and income generating opportunities" (Annual Report, 1991, p.4). I was also pleased to see an emphasis on long-term development projects as opposed to r e l i e f work (although i t was noted that they do provide food and medical supplies during " c r i s i s times") and I was surprised to read that Global Faith received well over $2 m i l l i o n from CIDA i n 1991 and raised over $2.4 m i l l i o n i n donations from the general p u b l i c 4 6 . From these impressive d o l l a r amounts and the f a m i l i a r i n t e r n a t i o n a l development jargon, I was ready to believe that t h i s organization did good work. I searched through the Annual Report for any clues about the C h r i s t i a n orientation of Global Faith. In the middle spread of the four page t a b l o i d style report, I found quotes from the Bible: "He changes the wilderness into a pool of water and a dry land into springs of water...and there He makes the hungry to dwell" (Psalm 107:35) and "Whoever i s kind to the needy, honours God" (Proverbs 14:31). The back page of the Annual Report referred to the organization as an "autonomous Canadian C h r i s t i a n 4 6 These figures indicate that Global Faith i s bigger than most NGOs i n Canada and yet s t i l l small on the international scene. 159 agency" and contained the following paragraph t i t l e d "Motivation": [Global Faith] believes i t i s God's intention that the earth's resources be used wisely to sustain l i f e for a l l people. [Global Faith] believes i n the worth of mankind as created by God. Accordingly, [Global Faith] i s motivated by the mandates for j u s t i c e and compassion as demonstrated i n the l i f e of Jesus Christ and seeks to be of service, through i t s ministry, to the people of the developing world. [Global Faith] believes that Scripture teaches that the g i f t of creation should be shared. Our r e s p o n s i b i l i t e s as stewards of God's g i f t s begin with those that are i n need, and extend to a l l who are our neighbours. Several phrases within t h i s passage made me f e e l uncomfortable. The work of Global Faith i s referred to as a "ministry" which once again seemed to point to a missionary agenda and "our r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as stewards of God's g i f t s " seemed to carry a self-righteous, "we know best" tone. The newsletters contained s t o r i e s emphasizing the p o s i t i v e effects of various programs, fundraising appeals, more quotes from the Bible, and an entire page dedicated to prayer with suggestions of who and what to pray for during the weeks and months ahead. Again, the question of whether Global Faith was a c t u a l l y doing "good works" (according to my personal view of successful international development projects) or "God's work" was s t i l l not resolved. In my mind, at that time, i t had to be one or the other. I c a r r i e d the question of where the l i n e i s drawn between good works and God's work with me the f i r s t day that I went out to v i s i t Global Faith along with a tangle of other questions related to the C h r i s t i a n orientation of Global Faith. The following excerpt from fieldnotes about t h i s f i r s t v i s i t reveals 160 my concerns, fears, and biases: What does i t mean to be a Christian organization? How does the r e l i g i o u s orientation of the founders and s t a f f a f f e c t the nature of the organization, the programs they are involved i n , and the people i n other countries that p a r t i c i p a t e i n the programs? I believe everyone has a r e l i g i o u s orientation (including atheists), but what does i t mean to put t h i s orientation up-front as a descriptive term for the agency? Are the s t a f f a l l Christians? Do they have to go to church or can they be passive/private Christians? If they are a l l Christians, are they a l l from the same church or the same denomination? The term "Christian" embraces a wide v a r i e t y of vi s i o n s and practices - what would happen i f the s t a f f were from d i f f e r e n t denominations with c o n f l i c t i n g views and approaches? Whose view would prevail? Who chooses the quotes from the Bible that are sprinkled throughout the newsletters? Do the people i n other countries that receive program support have to be Christians? Do the programs carry a r e l i g i o u s message, either d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y ? For example, would the participants ( i . e . , Hindu farmers i n India) planting trees i n a reforestation program know that the program was funded through a "Christian organization?" Would the people at Global Faith want to know i f I go to church regularly? Would they judge me as u n f a i t h f u l , ungrateful, or somehow unsuitable? Would they want to "save" me? Would reason or an i n t e l l e c t u a l approach take a backseat to r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s i n t h e i r development work? I r e a l i z e that these concerns come from some ri d i c u l o u s stereotypes I have been carrying around about p u b l i c l y r e l i g i o u s people -that they are judgemental, evangelical and unreasonable. A Tour: There's no Pl a c e L i k e Home These questions contributed to my sense of nervousness on the long drive out to v i s i t Global Faith. The f i r s t of several surprises came before I even went i n the door... Af t e r getting out of the car, I stood on the sidewalk scanning the buildings across the street to f i n d the one that housed Global Faith. My eyes kept skipping over two homes i n the middle of the block to search for the numbers on the commercial buildings on either side. Something was not right -I couldn't see any signs or numbers i n d i c a t i n g Global Faith's o f f i c e . I started over again looking at the bottom of the block... THERE, that small dreary-looking house has the right number and there's the sign. I crossed the 161 street and as I got closer I saw that the house next door also has a Global Faith sign. Both houses are two-storey and appear to be at least f i f t y years old....The houses are about 15 feet from the sidewalk and about 2 0 feet apart. There are low evergreen shrubs i n front of one house, giving i t a homey f e e l . This building has a sign with "Head O f f i c e " on i t . The other house, with a sign saying "Global Faith Development Education Centre," has a scruffy lawn and looks s l i g h t l y less cared for. I was not expecting Global Faith to have o f f i c e s i n two old homes.47 I suppose because t h e i r address indicates that t h i s i s t h e i r "Head O f f i c e " I imagined space i n an o f f i c e b u i lding with big glass doors and an elevator. Once inside the front door, I stood i n a small entrance h a l l simply furnished with a receptionist's desk and two p l a s t i c and metal chairs for v i s i t o r s . The d u l l brown carpet exuded a musty smell. The pale walls were p r a c t i c a l l y bare. I noticed a few black and white framed photos on the wall showing agrarian scenes and people i n straw hats. My f i r s t impression of the office/home was of a muted, s l i g h t l y s c r u f f y and even spartan environment -though i t did look more l i k e an o f f i c e than a home. I saw evidence of o f f i c e type a c t i v i t i e s : a computer and a phone with multiple l i g h t s on the desk and the expectant face of a receptionist regarding me. I introduced myself to the woman seated behind the desk and 4 7 I learned the rationale for being i n these two houses several weeks l a t e r from the Executive Director: " i t helps us to stay humble. We don't forget who we are." Another s t a f f member pointed out an additional advantage of not having t h e i r o f f i c e i n an elegant or expensive building: "I l i k e i t . When I was out doing fundraising a c t i v i t i e s , t h i s was a re a l plus because I could t e l l people that our head o f f i c e i s a house and we own i t . So i t i s a way of keeping overhead to a minimum." 162 explained that I had an appointment with Richard, the Director of Overseas Programs. She smiled and picked up the phone to l e t him know that I was there. I sat down on one of the two chairs to wait and while I waited I looked at her. She had short wavey brown hair and glasses and appeared to be i n her late f i f t i e s . She was wearing a pullover sweater and looked t i d y but not very sophisticated or professional. I wondered i f t h i s woman went to church every Sunday. I wondered i f she was kind and compassionate. I wondered i f my lack of regular church-going showed through to her somehow. I heard energetic footsteps and then Richard appeared, smiling and extending his hand. We had talked on the phone several weeks e a r l i e r and together agreed that I would come today to t a l k to him to learn more about Global Faith and to discuss the p o s s i b i l i t y of doing research there. We went into his o f f i c e which was modestly furnished - desk, chairs, f i l e cabinet, and no computer. I saw a world map and black and white photos of farmers and children i n what looked l i k e an Asian country on the walls. We sat down and chatted about the weather, my studies, his educational background, and our various travels overseas, and learned that we had both l i v e d i n Nepal during the same eight month period. We talked more about the structure of Global Faith and the s t a f f . As Richard described the various departments i n the organization, i t occurred to him that a quick tour of the o f f i c e s was the best way to explain who worked together. We started on the top f l o o r of the "Head Of f i c e " b u i l d i n g 163 where Richard's o f f i c e was located along with two other o f f i c e s 4 8 , both belonging to s t a f f who work i n the Overseas Programs Department (a Programs O f f i c e r and an Administrative A s s i s t a n t ) . On the main flo o r , we poked our heads i n a large o f f i c e with a f i r e p l a c e , a large meeting table and an uncluttered desk with a black leather swivel chair which belongs to the Executive Director, Gerald. Next door to t h i s , Richard indicated the closed door of the o f f i c e belonging to the Director of Human Resources and Volunteers, Dan (the gentle voice that f i r s t talked to me about Global Faith on the phone). Across the h a l l , there i s another o f f i c e with a desk, a photocopier and some f i l e cabinets for the Executive Director's Administrative Assistant, Joanna. We proceeded into an open area at the back of the house. I noticed a sink, cupboards, a coffee pot, a small r e f r i g e r a t o r , a table with a fax machine and stacked in-baskets for various s t a f f members on i t , a b u l l e t i n board, and a closet with a glass door that housed a big antiquated-looking computer. There are no chairs i n t h i s common area so i t does not have the f e e l of a lounge or a place where s t a f f would gather to relax. Coffee i s made here and faxes are sent and the b u l l e t i n board i s browsed for the l a t e s t news cl i p p i n g , cartoons, minutes from a committee meeting, memo or postcard. We went down the s t a i r s leading off t h i s area into the basement. 4 8 Several months l a t e r , a l l three o f f i c e s were moved to the other b u i l d i n g next door a f t e r the basement renovation was completed and the top f l o o r of the Head Office was rented out to another organization. 164 Richard referred to the basement as the "dungeon" and I could see why. Books and documents are p i l e d i n the hallway. The damp, musty smell of the house i s even stronger downstairs. Three more Directors who often work together have t h e i r o f f i c e s down here - the Director of Marketing (Pam), the Director of Funds and Communication (Stan), and the Director of Systems and Administration (Charlie). They have elaborate t i t l e s but the surroundings are modest with minimal furnishings and only a few pieces of fol k art and photos of r u r a l Asian areas on the walls. The tour continued i n the building next door - the "Education Centre." The inside of t h i s building looks brighter and newer. There i s a large open area with a receptionist's desk near the front door, a boardroom style oval table i n the center and a f i r e p l a c e i n the side wall. At the far end, there i s l i b r a r y - s t y l e magazine shelving and regular bookshelves. Along the l e f t side of t h i s main room, there are three o f f i c e s with glass walls enabling the occupant to look out into the l i b r a r y area (or vice versa). Two of these o f f i c e s have computers on the desks and they belong to the Director of Finance, Asafa, and his Assistant. At the time of my f i r s t v i s i t to Global Faith, the basement of the Education Centre was being renovated so that area was not included i n my i n i t i a l tour with Richard. Nevertheless, I w i l l continue the tour here i n order to present a complete picture of the s e t t i n g and the layout of the o f f i c e s . Wide, fre s h l y carpeted s t a i r s at the back of the bui l d i n g 165 lead downstairs to the basement. At the bottom of the s t a i r s , there i s an open area with a desk and a door leading to several steps going up outside towards the back lane. There i s a long h a l l with two o f f i c e s and a very small office/storage room down one side and a large meeting room with two doors on the other side. A long rectangular table with 15 to 20 chairs f i l l s the meeting room. The walls are empty except for a white board mounted on one of the end walls. There are two small high windows. The o f f i c e s across the h a l l also have small high windows and p r a c t i c a l l y empty walls. One o f f i c e belongs to Richard, the Director of the Overseas Programs Department ( i t was o r i g i n a l l y on the top f l o o r of the Head Office building). The other o f f i c e i s smaller and belongs to another member of the Overseas Programs Department, Kevin, and contains only a desk, chair, a small f i l e cabinet, and two guest chairs. The walls i n t h i s o f f i c e are empty. There i s a new computer on the desk. F i n a l l y , the back room has several large f i l e cabinets i n i t and a small desk and lamp. There are no windows i n thi s room. It i s b a s i c a l l y a storage area with an added desk for v i s i t o r s or volunteers. Occasionally, the Director of International Relations, Elizabeth, would use t h i s o f f i c e when she chose to work on the premises -otherwise, Elizabeth worked at home and only came i n to Global Faith for meetings. Throughout the course of the fieldwork, I spent most of my time downstairs i n t h i s basement area. When I had writing (e.g., meeting minutes, fieldnotes) or reading (e.g., project f i l e s , 166 CIDA reports, Strategic Plan) to do, I sat either at the desk i n the open area at the bottom of the s t a i r s or i n the small back o f f i c e f i l l e d with f i l e cabinets. On several occasions, I also sat at the large table i n the meeting room when the other two desks were occupied (by part-time volunteers or v i s i t i n g overseas s t a f f returning from a posting). The o f f i c e doors were open and no matter where I sat i n the basement, I could hear Kevin and Richard chatting back and forth, each s t i l l s i t t i n g at his own desk. Because my volunteer work related to Kevin's area within the Department, I was often i n his o f f i c e asking questions. Richard t r a v e l l e d a great deal while I was at Global Faith. Before a t r i p , he was often distracted and too busy to answer questions. When he returned from a t r i p , however, he seemed energized and more w i l l i n g to s i t and t a l k . During the early days of fieldwork, I learned about Global Faith mostly through my discussions with Kevin and Richard and through the documents that they passed on to me. Therefore, at t h i s point, I learned mostly about the Overseas Programs Department. Meat and Potatoes The Overseas Programs Department i s often refered to as the "meat and potatoes" of Global Faith by senior s t a f f members - the basic nourishment that keeps the organization going. Gerald described the overseas program as "our raison d'etre." Richard explained the importance of t h e i r overseas projects: Projects are necessary for our survival - for development education, and for public awareness. Their s t o r i e s become 167 our s t o r i e s . We need that relationship [with overseas partners] to maintain our own excitment and to become part of our corporate culture. Global Faith supports a c t i v i t i e s i n 16 countries throughout Asia, A f r i c a , and the Americas. The bulk of Global Faith's overseas projects are part of six d i f f e r e n t core programs receiving funding from CIDA and operating i n Ethiopia, Honduras, Dominican Republic, India, Bangladesh, and Nepal. While the s p e c i f i c projects i n each may d i f f e r , these core programs are a l l intended to address "poverty at the v i l l a g e l e v e l through community development that emphasizes land use and management, food production, water resource development, income generation, and human resource development" (CIDA multi-year program submission, January 1993). Richard stressed that the focus of the overseas programs i s "to work at longterm solutions. Even i n the midst of a natural disaster, we're not looking at a charity or a r e l i e f mentality." Gerald, Executive Director, was very pleased that CIDA had decided to increase Global Faith's funding l e v e l and yet he was hesitant to l i n k t h e i r success with CIDA to "good planning:" A l o t of s t u f f happens by the Grace of God.49 Things happen not because we're good or perfect. For example, with CIDA, everyone else i s getting 10% cuts and they increased ours by 12%. How do you explain that? I don't think you could c a l l that good planning. I don't think we're better than [other competing NGOs] but they a l l got cut. 4 9 During the process of respondent v a l i d a t i o n , Gerald commented on his use of the phrase "by the Grace of God." Gerald said that he was using the phrase i n the sense of "unmerited favor" - which points to mystery or unexplainability surrounding CIDA's actions - not i n the sense that Global Faith was more s p i r i t u a l l y deserving. 168 In addition to the core programs, Global Faith also supports overseas projects through t h e i r membership i n an umbrella organization c a l l e d the Canadian Council for International Cooperation (CCIC) and i n various NGO c o a l i t i o n groups (e.g., South Asia Partnership, Philippines Development Assistant Program, and Partnership A f r i c a Canada). Involvement with c o a l i t i o n s i s not considered to be "a s t r a t e g i c a l l y c r i t i c a l piece of the puzzle" at Global Faith. Richard maintains that "core commitments come'first, and c o a l i t i o n s are ad d i t i o n a l . " However, i n most cases, c o a l i t i o n work complements the core programs at Global Faith. Organizational membership within a c o a l i t i o n i s also viewed as an opportunity for s t a f f to t r a v e l to Ottawa to interact with other Canadian colleagues. Overseas projects are mostly managed through a partnership mode50. Global Faith has established long-term relationships with organizations (local NGOs or churches) i n the core program countries. Global Faith provides f i n a n c i a l , managerial and technical support and the l o c a l organizations are responsible for the actual implementation of the project. Relationships with the partner organizations are maintained through contact with Global Faith's two regional o f f i c e s (in Ethiopia and India) and v i s i t s from head o f f i c e s t a f f i n the Overseas Programs Department. The beneficiaries, of Global Faith's overseas projects are 5 0 There are exceptions to the partnership mode. Global Fai t h has also had di r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for project implementation as an executing agency for the B i l a t e r a l Branch of CIDA. In another case, Global Faith has worked with a larger NGO as a sub-contractor on a project. 169 described as "the neediest of the needy" or "the neglected poor." Success s t o r i e s written up i n the newsletter or monthly project b u l l e t i n s often focus on women and children from r u r a l areas -usually widows struggling to support a family or young g i r l s yearning for a better education. A new overseas program was also being planned while I was doing research at Global Faith. This program i s based on a sponsorship model with monthly commitments from donors - except that instead of sponsoring a c h i l d , donors are linked with an entire family within targeted communities i n India and i n Ethiopia and there i s no l e t t e r exchange (donors receive a p r o f i l e of the family only and reports on the progress of the community). This linkage program i s not e l i g i b l e for funding from CIDA and i s based completely on general public donations. It i s assumed that the linkage program w i l l cover i t s own administration costs. The expectation at Global Faith i s that t h i s program would generate funding from general public donors who have not given recently, encourage e x i s t i n g donors to give consistently on a monthly basis, and also a t t r a c t new donors. Elizabeth, Director of International Relations at Global Faith, explained the connection between fundraising needs and the rationale for the new linkage program: We seem to have a core of donors that w i l l give under any circumstances but that core doesn't seem to be expanding at the rate of our needs i n terms of what we want to do overseas and so on and so forth. So we have to f i n d a way that would bring other people to become involved i n what we are doing overseas and maybe getting back some people who have f a l l e n off or getting new people that we can't a t t r a c t i n a normal way. 170 In addition to increasing fundraising capacity, t h i s linkage program i s also intended to help Global Faith's partner organizations plan community programs on a longer-term basis because the flow of funding would be constant and not dependent on the whims or requirements of CIDA. Beyond the S h e l l This chapter has provided a package of background information and f i r s t impressions of Global Faith based on an outsider's perspective. The reader, l i k e an interested member of the general public, has been given the opportunity to leaf through some of Global Faith's l i t e r a t u r e , to tour the o f f i c e s , and to learn the basics about Global Faith's overseas programs. The next chapter takes the reader a step deeper and tracks some of the questions that might have surfaced as a re s u l t of t h i s i n i t i a l encounter. How did Global Faith evolve? What does i t mean to be a Ch r i s t i a n organization - both here and overseas? What drives the organization: commitment to praying, planning or both? How does Global Faith deal with the pressures to raise money? What i s the nature of the relationships Global F a i t h has with the Board of Directors, with CIDA, and with t h e i r overseas partner organizations? 171 CHAPTER FIVE: THE CORRIDORS OF COMMITMENT Each NGO has a history, an impetus, an experience, and a structure, including a funding base, that reinforce the basic a c t i v i t y i n which i t i s engaged. This i s a strength; i t i s also a l i m i t a t i o n . (Murphy, 1991, p.184) Going Back i n H i s t o r y The h i s t o r y of Global Faith can be traced back to 1975 when i t existed under a d i f f e r e n t name and as a type of branch o f f i c e for an American NGO. Elizabeth, the Director of International Relations, was one of the founders of the o r i g i n a l organization. She remembers: "the organization was started for some wrong reasons and for some right reasons. The right reasons have prevailed." According to Elizabeth, the right reasons for s t a r t i n g the organization included a concern that i n the early 1970s, overseas work focused on r e l i e f or sponsorship programs and not enough was happening to promote long-term development or to e s t a b l i s h l a s t i n g relationships with groups overseas. Elizabeth explained that " i f you are i n a r e l i e f s i t u a t i o n , something happens - once the donor organization or the donor country i s fin i s h e d doing i t s thing, the problems are s t i l l there. So a group of us got together and f e l t that i t was important to f i l l that gap at t h i s point i n time because nobody was into longevity." The "wrong reasons" for s t a r t i n g the organization included the American NGO's objective of establ i s h i n g a branch o f f i c e i n Canada i n order to access Canadian government money and donations from the general public and channel them back to the head o f f i c e . The American NGO wanted 172 to continue with r e l i e f a c t i v i t i e s , while the Canadian Board of the branch o f f i c e wanted to focus on long-term development. The period between 1975 and 1980 i s seen as particularly-unsavory and therefore not referred to often or with ease by the s t a f f of Global Faith. The o f f i c i a l l i n e about t h i s time i s that the organization here focused on building up partnerships and re l a t i o n s h i p s with other organizations overseas through small projects. However, the "inside" story about t h i s time i n Global Faith's history, according to Elizabeth, i s as follows: There were a couple of Board members and our accountant at the time who were doing a few things that perhaps were not on the up and up and [Gerald] became Treasurer to change that....[the American NGO] d e f i n i t e l y were interested i n having a support e n t i t y that would raise money i n Canada but would not have any say i n how that money was spent.... Revenue Canada started looking c l o s e l y at organizations that were channelling funds to U.S. organizations. And i t just became impractical to do that....So i t was coming from both sides. The Canadian e n t i t y here wanted more say i n how the money was spent....And i t was just inevitable that there would be a separation because our goals were not the same anymore. When Gerald became Executive Director of the organization i n 1980, there were only three s t a f f members. He said that when he became Executive Director, he "didn't know anything about anything" and that he was "a do-gooder." Gerald was working as a minister of a Baptist church when he was i n v i t e d to move from being Treasurer of the organization to Executive Director. Gerald inherited a very d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n . According to Ian, a senior s t a f f member who f i r s t had contact with the organization i n 1982, " i n the early days of the organization - at about the time that [Gerald] came on stream - t h i s organization 173 had an absolutely t e r r i b l e reputation with CIDA because of mismanagement and squandering of money." Ian stressed that they were not involved i n anything i l l e g a l ; they were just i n e f f i c i e n t . CIDA threatened to cut them off from funding but Elizabeth managed to prevent t h i s by being persistant and asking CIDA repeatedly: "What steps exactly do we have to do to'get back i n your good graces?" Ian said: "and she kept hammering at whoever i t was u n t i l they f i n a l l y got the series of steps and the deadlines and so on." While the problems with CIDA were eventually overcome, the organization continued to have c o n f l i c t s with the American NGO of the same name. Ian explained the developing r i f t as follows: We had a d i f f e r e n t approach to the matter of overhead and the percentage of money that would go d i r e c t l y into projects. There were c o n f l i c t s and i t kind of ended up that the money that we were r a i s i n g here was going to fund projects that the American organization had - they spent a l l the money and didn't have enough money to do t h e i r projects. We wanted to do ours. There were many c o n f l i c t s . It just was not a good thing. So, obviously, separation had to occur -which i t did. Global Fa i t h changed i t s name and f i n a l l y became t o t a l l y independent from the o r i g i n a l organization i n 1985. Another d i f f i c u l t time i n Global Faith's history occured i n 1987-1988 when Gerald was away on a sabbatical leave pursuing a Master's degree at an American university on the east coast. That year, there was a substantial drop-off i n donations. Ian speculated that t h i s might have been due to the scandals with T.V. evangelists that were then i n the news. Gerald t o l d me about his experience at the time: "I drove across the country [coming 174 home from his sabbatical] and was t o l d [by the Treasurer] 'You're insolvent'....What happened l a s t time when I was away was we didn't do anything u n t i l we got to the bottom of the trough and then we went zonkers try i n g to pick up the pieces." As a r e s u l t of the f i n a n c i a l c r i s i s , some s t a f f s a l a r i e s were cut on a volunteer basis (the s t a f f were paid back l a t e r for the cuts) and payments to some of the operations overseas were delayed and rescheduled. Letters to overseas partners explained the need for the rescheduling of payments: "for the f i r s t time i n our 15 year history, we have experienced economic s t r a i n i n our organization." In the summer of 1988, Gerald decided to hold the f i r s t annual s t a f f retreat as a motivational event to rai s e morale a f t e r the d i f f i c u l t year and to talk as a group about how to improve t h e i r f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n . 5 1 Global Faith then underwent an i n s t i t u t i o n a l evaluation i n 1989 (conducted by independent consultants) which resulted i n s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n the organization including: further cuts i n administrative expenses, increased fundraising e f f o r t s (with two senior s t a f f given f u l l - t i m e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to r a i s i n g funds), development of a new organizational structure (fi n a n c i a l control made separate from project management), projections as to when commitments w i l l be completely met, creation of the Program Steering Committee for project approval and monitoring, implementation of new fund flow 5 1 Over the years, the annual s t a f f retreat has gradually evolved to become more of a r e l i g i o u s or s p i r i t u a l gathering. Gerald wryly commented that the f i r s t retreat did not have a strong r e l i g i o u s focus, though they were " r e l i g i o u s l y searching a f t e r money." 175 reports for management information, and placement of regional d i r e c t o r s i n India and Ethiopia (Executive Summary, Strategic Plan, 1991). By 1989, the c r i s i s had passed. Funds increased, communication systems with overseas partners improved and a f i v e year Strategic Plan was developed and implemented. Ian thinks that the f i n a n c i a l troubles of the sabbatical year w i l l never return. "It was the one and only f i n a n c i a l c r i s i s that we have had and w i l l ever have. Because they have got so many safeguards b u i l t into the structure of the organization now, i t won't happen again." A C h r i s t i a n Ideology Throughout the turning points i n Global Faith's h i s t o r y -becoming autonomous from the American organization, surviving the f i n a n c i a l c r i s i s of the sabbatical year, undergoing an i n s t i t u t i o n a l evaluation, and implementing a Strategic Plan - one aspect of the organization has remained constant: a strong C h r i s t i a n foundation. In 1975 and s t i l l today, promotional material describes Global Faith as an "independent Canadian Ch r i s t i a n development organization" that i s "not a f f l i a t e d with any s p e c i f i c denomination." What does i t mean - both here and overseas - for Global Fa i t h to be a C h r i s t i a n organization? In simple terms, i t means that money comes from, and goes to, Christians. Global Faith's donors are "99 percent Christian" and most of the overseas 176 partners are church organizations or are run by a l o c a l C h r i s t i a n leader 5 2. It also means that the s t a f f at Global Faith are a l l C h r i s t i a n . During one of my f i r s t v i s i t s to Global Faith, Richard commented on t h i s : "Being small, that's sort of part of our personality here." Gerald explained the rationale behind h i r i n g only Christians: And the reason we do that i s how are they compatible with the rest of us? Right? Because i f we make a l o t of the decisions by consensus, I mean i t becomes a r e a l problem i f that i s not there. Or, i f they are going to f e e l uncomfortable with i t i f Monday morning we read the Bible and s t u f f and you f e e l i t offensive, well, we're r e a l l y s t a r t i n g on d i f f e r e n t streets together....And the other thing i s t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and accountability to donors. By and large our donors are of that kind. Then what we do i s decide to be offensive to them. Right? What i f i t offended our donors that we had a l l Hindus working here? Global Faith s t a f f belong to a v a r i e t y of C h r i s t i a n denominations - Baptist, Mennonite, Charismatic, Pentecostal, Assembly of God, Evangelical Free - a l l with an evangelical orie n t a t i o n . Kevin, i n the Overseas Programs Department, explained to me that I was "unique" at Global Faith because I was from a "mainstream church" (United Church) and the s t a f f a l l belonged to "evangelical churches." Gerald joked on several occasions that "United Church people aren't r e a l l y r e l i g i o u s . " 5 3 Ian also emphasized that "the subject of denominations never 5 2 Not a l l of the participants i n Global Faith's overseas programs are necessarily Christians themselves. 5 3 During the process of respondent v a l i d a t i o n , Gerald commented on t h i s joke. Gerald said that he was using the joke to comment on the Evangelical community i n general and to show that he disapproved of t h e i r "narrowness" and t h e i r judgemental attitude toward non-Evangelical Christians - a view that he himself did not share. 177 comes up i n the organization except for a b i t of good-natured kidding 5 4 and i f we can't survive that, our f a i t h i s n ' t very-strong . " While the evangelical ideology i s a unifying theme across the d i f f e r e n t denominations represented at Global Faith, there i s s t i l l the p o s s i b i l i t y of variance across i n d i v i d u a l s t a f f member's interpretations and expressions of t h e i r f a i t h . Consequently, Global Faith adopted a Statement of Faith that lays out the c o l l e c t i v e l y acceptable elements of evangelical C h r i s t i a n b e l i e f s . Statement of Faith [Global Faith] believes i n : 1. The Holy Scriptures as o r i g i n a l l y given by God, d i v i n e l y inspired, i n f a l l i b l e , and the only supreme authority i n a l l matters of f a i t h and conduct. 2. One God, et e r n a l l y existent i n three Persons: Father, Son and Holy S p i r i t . 3. Our Lord Jesus Christ, God manifest i n the fl e s h , His V i r g i n b i r t h , His sin l e s s human l i f e , His divine miracles, His bodily resurrection, His ascension, His mediatorial work, and His personal return i n power and glory. 4. The salvation of lo s t and s i n f u l man through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ by f a i t h apart from works, and regeneration by the Holy S p i r i t . 5 4 For example, Mennonites are c a l l e d "Menno's" and are teased for being conservative and private thinkers. Charismatics were singled out at a s l i d e show put on during a s t a f f party: a photo of s t a f f playing v o l l e y b a l l leaping around awkwardly and waving t h e i r arms was referred to as "a meeting of Charismatics who had just seen the l i g h t . " The s t a f f i n the photo were themselves not a l l Charismatics but everyone seemed to think the joke was very funny. 178 5. The Holy S p i r i t by whose indwelling the believer i s enabled to l i v e a holy l i f e and to work out a witness for the Lord Jesus Christ. 6. The Unity i n the S p i r i t of a l l true believers, the Church, and the Body of Christ. 7. The resurrection of both the saved and the l o s t ; they that are saved unto the resurrection of l i f e , and they that are l o s t unto the resurrection of damnation. I asked Ian during one of the Training Program sessions how t h i s Statement of Faith was developed at Global Faith. He explained: I think there are a l l kinds of d i f f e r e n t statements of f a i t h around and I think t h i s i s just sort of a standard one that a l o t of d i f f e r e n t churches have accepted and I suspect that our people looked at i t and said "well, that's got the basic need and we are avoiding the controversies [about Communion and speaking i n tongues, for example] and that i s great." The fact that divergent denominational viewpoints are not routinely debated i s the result of Gerald's preference to minimize such discussions. I asked Gerald during our f i r s t interview about the d i f f e r e n t denominations at Global Faith and whether the v a r i e t y "helps to enrich things" and "Do people think of the differences much?" Gerald r e p l i e d : Well, the Pentecostal people might want more pizazz i n s t u f f . I t r y to l i m i t the time spent discussing r e l i g i o u s questions or issues because we have a job to do. These discussions are d i f f e r e n t from t h e i r job. I don't want them to think that God solves a l l t h e i r problems. While r e l i g i o u s debates are discouraged, time i s put aside every Monday morning for the s t a f f to a l l meet to l i s t e n to readings from the Bible and to pray together. The purpose of the meetings, according to Gerald i s "to challenge them to think." During my f i r s t v i s i t to Global Faith, Richard mentioned t h i s "Monday morning s t a f f meeting" and I asked i f I could observe the meeting 179 on a return v i s i t . Richard said "Well, you know we have a prayer session as part of the meeting, and i f you are not a Christian, that may be a problem [for y o u ] I assured him that was not a problem - though l a t e r I was almost dreading going back out to Global F a i t h to observe the meeting. What did he mean by a "prayer session?" Would I say or do the wrong thing? I f e l t as though I had accidently uttered the secret password ("Christian") and now I was being admitted into a club where I didn't know the rules. The following excerpts from my fieldnotes describe the meeting that morning: My f i r s t impression as I stepped inside was of a sea of faces arranged i n a c i r c l e around a big table a l l looking serio u s l y i n my di r e c t i o n . I stuttered an apology about being late and something about having to wait for the babysitter and I heard [Gerald], the Executive Director, say i n a joking voice "Ph.D. students are always l a t e . " Everyone laughed... Once I was seated [Gerald] introduced me to the group. There was a pause a f t e r the i n i t i a l introductions and people around the table looked at [Gerald] expectantly. He pulled the big book i n front of him i n closer and opened i t up to a marked page while he started to speak. He said "I'd l i k e us to t a l k about forgiveness today. I hope y o u ' l l f i n d t h i s choice i n t e r e s t i n g - though I have more say about i t than you do." Laughter a l l around... I was waiting for [Gerald] to explain why he had chosen the topic of forgiveness for discussion but he never did. I thought maybe there had been a r i f t between some of the s t a f f members and he was tryin g to help people make up and get on with t h e i r work. I expected the discussion of forgiveness to be a preamble to the "r e a l " business of the s t a f f meeting but i t wasn't. [Gerald] continued speaking about forgiveness while thumbing through the pages of the book i n front of him. By now I r e a l i z e d that the book was a Bible. No one else had a copy i n front of them. Only [Gerald]. He read a quote from the Bible and then summed up i n his own words: "The re a l issue of forgiveness i s that they wrong you, but the onus i s on you to forgive." He stressed how important forgiveness 180 was i n a marriage and that forgiveness was not the same as forgetting. I didn't know anything about these people - I was completely i n the dark i n terms of his motivation for choosing t h i s topic and a l l the hidden meanings and innuendos behind his remarks. I was i n t h e i r c i r c l e around the table, positioned as one of them and I had no idea what was going on. It was very nerve-racking. My own anxiety l e v e l climbed a notch when Gerald stopped his musings about marriage, forgiveness, and forgetting and asked: "What i s forgiveness?" He looked around the table. Silence. A few people lowered t h e i r heads or studied the coffee cup i n front of them. F i n a l l y , an older man spoke up: "It means you stop making an issue of something. You stop being resentful or angry." [Gerald] nodded and said something approving back. It seemed that the meeting had moved into a d i f f e r e n t gear. [Gerald] had said his i n i t i a l piece and now i t was lesson time. [Gerald] directed the conversation for the next 3 0 minutes almost l i k e a t r a f f i c cop - releasing and halting, encouraging and ignoring comments from the people around the table. A l l remarks were channelled through him. The s t a f f did not b u i l d on each other's comments - instead they waited for [Gerald] to respond.... The "lessons" continued with another silence-provoking question from [Gerald]: "How i s t h i s a l l related to Jesus on the cross?" I found myself avoiding his glance i n case he decided to c a l l on me -because I had no idea how to answer. My discomfort l e v e l reached i t s peak when [Gerald] said: "O.K. now we'll say our prayers. We'll go around the table t h i s way. If you don't want to say anything, we'll just go on to the next person." By the time the woman next to me said her prayer, my heart was pounding and my face was probably bright red. What should I do? No one else had skipped t h e i r turn - even though [Gerald] had said they could - there seemed to be pressure on people to say something, anything. For example, one man said simply "I pray for peace i n t h i s world." I began my prayer rather abruptly: "Thank you for l e t t i n g me come into the world of [Global Faith] and for l e t t i n g me learn from these people. I hope I can contribute something back." I stopped. There seemed to be a long pause and then the person next to me said his prayer. The spotlight moved on around the table. A f t e r everyone had t h e i r turn, people seemed to breath out and relax. Someone began gathering the coasters under the coffee cups and stacking them i n a l i t t l e box. Gerald closed the big Bible i n front of him. I could see signals that the 181 meeting was ending. That was i t ? No discussion of agency business? Why did they c a l l i t a s t a f f meeting? It was r e a l l y a prayer meeting that started with a l i t t l e sermon. The language of prayer i s prevalent i n other a c t i v i t i e s of the organization as well. Board meetings, fundraising banquets, s t a f f p a rties, the annual s t a f f retreat (the mornings and a l l the meals) are a l l "blessed" with prayers at the beginning by a selected "volunteer." For example, at a Board meeting, the opening blessing included Bible verse and an expressed hope "that God w i l l guide our thoughts today." At the V i s i o n Retreat for the Directors, Gerald began the morning session by praying to God for " c l a r i t y i n thinking" and at the end of the day, Charlie offered the following prayer: "Lord, thank-you for allowing us to plan." Planning and praying are viewed as compatible and equally necessary. Dan elaborated on t h i s during an interview: I think i t i s true [that things happen by the grace of God]. But God does give us a brain and we have to use that. I c e r t a i n l y wouldn't minimize the God power i n that but I think i t i s a combination of both. Relying on Him - we pray for our projects every Monday morning. You know, we pray for people. It i s extremely important. But then we have to go upstairs and use our brains and t r y and make sure we do things i n the right way....I don't think we can get confused and say that "God i s going to do everything." He did create us with i n t e l l i g e n c e and He did create us as people who can make decisions and we do that day by day. The s t a f f are also expected to contribute personal "prayer requests" or "praise items" to the monthly Prayer Calendars (there i s an entry for each day and for each week of that month). The Prayer Calendars are c i r c u l a t e d to a l l s t a f f , Board members, and volunteers. Some examples of entries i n the Prayer Calendars are given below: 182 It's a New Year. [Gerald] says 'Let us pray together that i n 1992, we w i l l never lose sight of the fact that we exist for the poor and oppressed, that we are only stewards of what has been given to us and we are servants of God' (December 31, 1991). Pray for [Dan] who was i n the Dominican republic i n August, that he i s able to catch up on o f f i c e work without too much d i f f i c u l t y (September 4, 1992). [Global Faith's] prayer request for the f i f t h week i n September i s : India - Pray for our newest s t a f f member and her family as they encounter the d a i l y challenges and blessings of working i n the r u r a l areas of India (September 1992) . Please pray for a number of proposals for programming i n the drought areas of Southern A f r i c a and Bangladesh for which we are requesting i n s t i t u t i o n a l funding (March 13, 1993). Praise God for a l l our f a i t h f u l volunteers, those that come both weekly and monthly and on special occasions (June 9, 1993) . The Prayer Calendars, the Monday morning s t a f f meetings, the Statement of Faith, and the homogeneous nature of the s t a f f ' s i n d i v i d u a l church a f f l i a t i o n s are a l l manifestations of Global Faith's C h r i s t i a n foundation - as seen here i n Canada. What about overseas? The question that immediately comes to mind i s : Is p r o s e l y t i z a t i o n included i n Global Faith's overseas projects? In our f i r s t interview, Richard gave his answer to t h i s question: You know we're an autonomous Christian Canadian organization. So, obviously, we have r e l i g i o u s values which f i r e our compassion or service i n the work we do. But, given that, we're not into p r o s e l y t i z a t i o n . We'll work with a l l kinds of people because that's the group of people we wanted to work with. During one of the t r a i n i n g program sessions, Ian also emphasized that Global Faith i s not involved i n p r o s e l y t i z i n g overseas. Our mission - our type of ministry to people i s b a s i c a l l y to keep them a l i v e and give them a f i g h t i n g chance to make i t on t h e i r own and to show that God's love i s r e a l , i t i s not 183 just a bunch of talk. We are out doing i t . We're not out e s s e n t i a l l y to educate them th e o l o g i c a l l y . Bible teachers can do that. Gerald commented as well on the lack of p r o s e l y t i z i n g i n overseas projects: I think [Global Faith] i s unique within evangelical c i r c l e s for sure i n that there i s no other organization within evangelical c i r c l e s that i s w i l l i n g to say "we do development work and that i s s u f f i c i e n t . " That i s what we do. I asked Gerald whether CIDA's p o l i c y that government funding i s not provided for p r o s e l y t i z a t i o n has influenced Global Faith's decision to abstain from evangelizing i n overseas projects. He answered: Even i f we had a l l our own money, hopefully - at least from my perspective - we wouldn't go out and be evangelists. You know I don't think that i s how we are supposed to be helping....I'm not sure who would or wouldn't agree with me here. But I think we have a task to f u l f i l l . It i s very C h r i s t i a n and I think we need to do that. We should never get caught up i n t r y i n g to be evangelists. It would be a mistake. If we're going to do that, we might as well be with B i l l y Graham or Campus Crusade or some other r e l i g i o u s organization that just does that. From P r a y i n g to P l a n n i n g Global Faith's C h r i s t i a n orientation i s an i n t e g r a l part of the organization's Strategic Plan. In 1989, Global Faith s t a f f p a r t i c i p a t e d i n a strategic planning exercise which resulted i n a Board approved Strategic Plan document for 1990-199455. The double purposes for the Strategic Plan - measuring e f f i c i e n c y and obeying God's command - are given below: 5 5 A new Strategic Plan was intended for 1994-1999. 184 As a C h r i s t i a n development organization, [Global Faith] recognizes the need for an e f f e c t i v e strategic plan i n order to measure the progress and e f f i c i e n c y of the organization. [Global Faith] also recognizes that i t s purpose i s i n obedience to God's command to reach out to the poor. Accordingly, compassion continues to play an active role i n a l l [Global Faith's] decision making processes. (Strategic Plan 1990-94, Introduction, p.2) Pam, Director of Marketing, explained during an interview that Gerald i n i t i a t e d the strategic planning exercise a f t e r the f i n a n c i a l c r i s i s of 1987-1988 i n order to "know ahead when you are getting into problems. Way, way, way before i t would ever become a problem. So i f you can track i t , then you would be able to know: 'We are not getting enough i n . Are we going to increase advertising? How are we going to do t h i s before i t gets into major, major problems?'" According to Pam, another reason Gerald encouraged strategic planning i s that the bulk of the information about donors and fundraising was i n Stan's head and that made Gerald "nervous." Pam explained that the Strategic Plan " i s just an element of control that was necessary and to document i t on paper so that i f [one of us] i s not here someday, somebody can f i l l t h e i r place or we have some kind of tracking i n the past to know what works and what doesn't i n the future." Before the Strategic Plan was developed, Global F a i t h s t a f f r e l i e d on a Mission Statement - written i n the early 1980s - as a reference point i n decision-making. This Mission Statement i s also related to the Christian orientation of the organization i n that i t f i l l s a gap l e f t by denominational differences. Kevin, from the Overseas Department, explained t h i s to me over lunch one day. 185 We're not p r o s e l y t i z i n g i n the f i e l d , so we don't need to pretend that we are i d e n t i c a l i n our f a i t h s . It i s important that we subscribe to our mission statement because the s t a f f have to have a common b e l i e f i n something. Global Faith's M i s s i o n Statement i s as follows: [Global Faith] exists to improve the supply of basic human necessities for the neediest of the needy i n the Third World through self-help a c t i v i t i e s , and to challenge, educate and involve North Americans regarding development issues (Strategic Plan, 1990-94, p.7). The V i s i o n Statement, which was a r t i c u l a t e d i n 1989 through a group process that involved a l l the s t a f f and Board members, i s more general and more of a motivating phrase than the Mission Statement. Global Faith's V i s i o n Statement 5 6 i s as follows: [Global Faith], a development agency extending Christ's compassion to the neglected poor. The motivational component of the Vision Statement i s described as "our love of God and our desire to be obedient to Him" (Strategic Plan 1990-94, p.3). It i s emphasized i n the Strategic Plan that the Vis i o n Statement i s intended to act as "a motivator, a common bond to encourage a l l [Global Faith's] s t a f f and associates to work not only to the best of t h e i r a b i l i t y but also to work u n s e l f i s h l y together as a team" (Strategic Plan 1990-94, p . l ) . The V i s i o n Statement contributes to the value-basis of decision-making at Global Faith. One s t a f f member explained that decisions about overseas programs are made according to whether 5 6 The story of the development of the Vis i o n Statement i s discussed i n d e t a i l i n Chapter Seven. 186 they are an expression of the Vision Statement: We are not li m i t e d by getting results [in overseas programs]. If t h i s i s not going to bring re s u l t s , do we s t i l l go and t r y to express our love to these people? I f e e l our role i s one which requires us to s t i l l continue to express love to these people whether that brings about tangible results or not....Our action i s not determined by expected outputs. So, i f the output i s not going to be very, very p o s i t i v e , i t i s not necessarily the thing that i s going to keep us from acting i n some way because there i s a humanitarian element i n there. People are suffering. I followed up on t h i s comment at a l a t e r date with Gerald, the Executive Director. I asked Gerald: "Would you s t i l l do an overseas program i n order to express neighbourly love, i f there weren't tangible results?" Gerald re p l i e d : "Would we? Oh yeah. I don't think there would be a problem with that. In fact, we would probably create tangible results for the benefit of our funders." I asked Gerald to c l a r i f y : "Do you mean create as i n fabricate? Or a c t u a l l y get them to happen?" Gerald explained: No, get something on paper. Not l i e , but f i n d something that i s a r e s u l t just to appease the funders so that we can continue with the things that aren't as measurable. And because the non-measurable things are often more important to us....So we are result-oriented but not i n the sense of wanting to say we planted 13 trees. We're result-oriented i n thinking that we have got to know that we are having a p o s i t i v e impact i n helping those people. In addition to the Mission Statement and the V i s i o n Statement, the Strategic Plan 1990-1994 also lays out a lengthy declaration of Global Faith's philosophy. Portions of t h i s section i n the Strategic Plan 1990-1994 are used often i n the organization's promotional materials. Excerpts from the P h i l o s o p h y of Global Faith are given below: [Global Faith] believes that a l l people, regardless of t h e i r geographical setting, have basic rights and should be given 187 the opportunity to achieve t h e i r God-given p o t e n t i a l . Basic needs such as clean water, food, shelter, health, work, recreation, socio-economic independence and basic education are seen by [Global Faith] as being fundamental human rights upon which growth can occur. [Global Faith] i s dedicated to working alongside the poor, helping set up programs which enable the poor to c u l t i v a t e t h e i r s k i l l s and knowledge, taking advantage of ex i s t i n g resources (when available) to develop s e l f - r e l i a n t communities.... Following Christ's example, [Global Faith] extends i t s assistance to the poorest of the poor without discrimination as to the r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s of the b e n e f i c i a r i e s . [Global Faith's] development programs represent a tangible expression of the organization's r e l i g i o u s values (Strategic Plan 1990-94, pp.7-8) . The f i r s t point - about universal rights regardless of geographical location - i s vague enough for f l e x i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Global Faith's overseas programs are spread throughout A f r i c a (mostly eastern A f r i c a ) , Asia and La t i n America. This statement i n the Philosophy section i s another way of explaining the wide scattering of t h e i r overseas e f f o r t s . The second point emphasizes the importance of basic human needs and provides j u s t i f i c a t i o n for projects that focus on water, agriculture, and income generation as opposed to evangelizing. The t h i r d point highlights a partnership mode and the goal of s e l f - r e l i a n c e i n development work. F i n a l l y , the l a s t two points cl e a r the way for the participants i n Global Faith's projects to be non-Christian. The rationale for thi s i s given i n an in t e r n a l memo related to the Strategic Plan t i t l e d Evangelism: Adhering to the view that God commands us to reach out to the needy without regard to r e l i g i o u s a f f l i a t i o n , [Global Faith] sees no problem reaching out to groups outside the Chr i s t i a n realm. (Due to anticipated objection from supporters, [Global Faith] tends to steer away from p u b l i c i z i n g target groups of varying b e l i e f s , i . e . , Moslem, Athiest.) It i s important that we see our image from the perspective of the needy non-Christians. When asked by 188 supporters why [Global Faith] would help [them], we should simply be stating, "If not us, then who?"....Furthermore, most Ch r i s t i a n r e l i e f and development organizations seek out the needy who are s i m i l a r l y Christian i n t h e i r b e l i e f s . Consequently, most r e l i e f and development agencies give aid to the same geographical areas. Recognizing t h i s , [Global Faith] sees great value i n focusing on people who may not share i n [Global Faith's] Christian b e l i e f s , and on areas which are neglected by the bulk of Ch r i s t i a n r e l i e f and development agencies. The bulk of the Strategic Plan 1990-1994 document i s dedicated to a presentation and elaboration of seven s p e c i f i c Objectives 5 7 which "are deemed to be attainable through hard work, stra t e g i c planning and e f f i c i e n t use of resources" (Strategic Plan 1990-94, p . l ) . Each Departmental Director i s responsible for setting the objectives for t h e i r own areas of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The O b j e c t i v e s given for 1992-1994 are as follows: 1. Increase income from $11.8 M i l l i o n to $16 M i l l i o n . 2. Increase the number of overseas programs by 61%. 3. Increase the percentage of water and agriculture programs to 80% of o v e r a l l costs. 4. Encourage Chr i s t i a n values through the use of 12 Pro-Tech volunteers. 5. Increase the number of persons informed about Third World needs by 14,000. 6. Improve and increase the f i n a n c i a l control of the organization. 7. Increase the e f f i c i e n c y of the organization (Strategic Plan Update 1992-1994, p.6). Each objective i s c l a r i f i e d with the following sections: 5 7 Objectives 1, 2, and 5 were revised i n 1991. The objectives given here are from the Strategic Plan Update 1992-1994 . 189 numerical breakdown, basis for objective, major a c t i v i t i e s enabling achievement of objective, assignment of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , and income and expenses. For example, the numerical breakdown of Objective 3 shows that 74 water and agriculture projects are planned for 1994 i n order to t o t a l 80% of o v e r a l l program costs. The basis for t h i s objective stresses the past success of these types of programs and "commits the organization to expend the majority of i t s energies to the area of i t s expertise" (Strategic Plan 1990-1994, p.28). The major a c t i v i t i e s enabling the achievement of t h i s objective are presented i n point form on a yearly basis and mention s p e c i f i c overseas programs that are being planned, i n i t i a t e d or continued. The assignment of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y section features the Director of Overseas Programs (Richard), the Director of International Relations (Elizabeth), the Director of Finance (Asafa), and the Director of Communications and Funding (Stan). The f i n a l section related to t h i s objective presents yearly projections for income and expenses for water and agriculture programs. The Strategic Plan was revised at the end of 1991 and the Strategic Plan Update 1992-1994 was produced. Quarterly Strategic Plan updates are prepared by Pam, the Director of Marketing, for the Board. Each departmental Director gets a weekly f i n a n c i a l report for t h e i r own department and Gerald, the Executive Director, receives copies of a l l of these. The reports compare actual income with projected income as outlined i n the Strategic Plan and help each Director to monitor t h e i r department's 190 progress. Pam explained that when the Directors see that an area of income i s lower than expected, " i t forces us to make the extra e f f o r t to meet our goals." A l l the departmental Directors and the Executive Director are members of the Strategic Planning Committee (also known as "the Group of Eight") which meets every Friday afternoon for "the weekly coming together of everything." Each Director presents a report giving an overview of what has happened during the past week and points out any issues or decisions that need the group's attention. Topics and issues discussed during the Group of Eight meetings include delegating jobs while s t a f f are t r a v e l l i n g , analyzing projections and explaining s h o r t f a l l s , r e v i s i n g budgets, planning for fundraising events, reporting on projects, organizing CIDA proposal writing, and coordinating volunteers. Personnel issues involving c o n f i d e n t i a l personal problems or personality c o n f l i c t s are not brought before the Group of Eight meetings. However, Dan acknowledged that the Group of Eight meetings are also a forum for Gerald to communicate d e l i c a t e issues (e.g., coming to work on time) to the group without s i n g l i n g out an i n d i v i d u a l . The weekly meetings are usually held i n the Executive Director's o f f i c e around a large table. On occasion - when the Executive Director decides that a more relaxed s e t t i n g would be b e n e f i c i a l - the Group of Eight meets i n the lounge of a nearby restaurant. 191 F u n d r a i s i n g : An I n d u s t r y and a M i n i s t r y "The one essential thing i n order to exist at a l l i s obvious: money. Without i t , we cannot exist - however noble the cause." This observation was made by Pam, the Director of Marketing during a Group of Eight meeting dedicated to r e v i s i n g the Strategic Plan. Pam put the Mission Statement and the V i s i o n Statement on the overhead projector and then asked the group: "If we, as di r e c t o r s , believe t h i s i s why we exist, what i s the best way to achieve t h i s goal?" Pam then outlined the main ways that Global Fa i t h makes money: grants from NGO consortia (2.6%), donated commodities (46.4%), funds raised for t r a v e l and l i v i n g expenses for overseas volunteers (0.6%), CIDA grants (18.5%), p r o v i n c i a l government grants (1.2%), and donations i n cash from the general public (21%) . 5 8 The l a s t three categories are linked i n that government grants are based on, and cannot exceed, the amount raised from the general public. Pam made a d i s t i n c t i o n between government as donors and the general public as donors. Whereas government grants can help the organization meet the mission statement, the rules associated with government funding (e.g., concerning p r o s e l y t i z a t i o n overseas) i n h i b i t r e a l i z a t i o n of the v i s i o n statement. General public donors, on the other hand, are the only e f f i c i e n t way of achieving the v i s i o n statement. Pam emphasized the importance of increasing general 5 8 The percentages are from the 1991 Annual Report, page 4. When the fund balance at the beginning of the year i s added (9.7%), the percentages t o t a l 100%. Total income i n 1991 was almost $12 m i l l i o n . 192 public income and pointed out the relationship between Global Faith's image and how much donors are w i l l i n g to give. She elaborated on t h i s using another overhead with the following well-known statement: "They may forget what you said, but they w i l l never forget how you made them f e e l . " The need for fundraising and the c i r c u l a r connection between people's perceptions of the organization and fundraising strategies together put pressure on Global Faith. Ian commented on the pressure of fundraising during one of the t r a i n i n g program sessions: Once again, i t becomes a matter of s u r v i v a l . . . . We've come to the state of mind that we r e a l i z e that fundraising i s an industry. Because i f we don't raise the money, there aren't any projects. So i t i s a v i t a l part of us. And i t i s ministry because people here have to learn to give. Most of them don't know how. Viewing fundraising as an industry i s not uncommon i n the voluntary sector. Considering fundraising as a ministry - where an organization claims r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for d i s c i p l i n i n g the soul of the giver - i s an attitude uniquely related to the evangelical foundation of Global Faith. This section explores both dimensions of fundraising at Global Faith. Global Faith has a donor base of 4000-6000 people with a "phenomenal rate of consistent monthly giving." Global Faith's success at fundraising i s attributed to a strategy of "being personable." This means that donors are acquired through personal contact and di r e c t mail campaigns only go to people who are fa m i l i a r with Global Faith. Pam refers to t h i s strategy as "friendship marketing" and describes i t as "taking a prospective 193 donor and being personable enough to have them commit to the v i s i o n of [Global F a i t h ] . " Gerald also equates donations with allegiance. During an interview, he made the following observations: We don't make our philosophic statements out of what the donors say. Right? The donors buy into our philosophic statements. Right? I mean to some degree - i n theory that i s what i s true. You may bend and so on. But when a donor comes to give money to t h i s organization, they - to one degree or another - w i l l agree with what we are p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y . Approximately 3000 appeal l e t t e r s - written i n Gerald's name and with his picture i n the letterhead - are sent out to donors each month. The appeal l e t t e r s include a form and a return envelope for sending back donations. The forms contain words of encouragement such as: Your g i f t s to these people w i l l be mul t i p l i e d 4 times by Canadian Government grants, an opportunity to change the l i v e s of at least 12 families! Your investment of: - $36 becomes $144 ( s k i l l s t r a i n i n g for 12 family bread-winners) - $12/month plus grants transforms 48 families/year... Enclosed with the l e t t e r s are monthly reports written by overseas s t a f f or volunteers who are posted overseas. The reports focus on a p a r t i c u l a r project or, i n rare cases, on an emergency need l i k e the Somalian famine. They are written i n an intimate voice mixing project s t a t i s t i c s i n with emotion and urgency. This intimacy i s achieved through d i r e c t and frequent contact between Global Fai t h s t a f f and overseas partners. Richard explained how the close relationships with t h e i r partners influence fundraising: Direct involvement i s very important for Canadian NGOs because we need stories of what i s going on i n the f i e l d for us to both educate Canadians and raise more money. And i f you've got a bunch of intermediaries, how do you fundraise 194 from a bureaucratic report that you have received that has been sort of sanitized three times? It doesn't work. The reports also contain an appeal to the r e l i g i o u s motivation of most of the donors. Some closing remarks from the monthly reports are included below: Your prayers and g i f t s are a great encouragement to [Global Faith's] field-workers, and to me personally. You are the reason [Global Faith] can touch the l i v e s of so many i n such a C h r i s t - l i k e way. May God r i c h l y reward you for doing whatever you can do. Our many Chr i s t i a n brothers and s i s t e r s here send t h e i r greetings and t h e i r thanks for a l l that has been done through [Global F a i t h ] . In addition to an intimate tone with educational and r e l i g i o u s elements, the reports also contain a sense of urgency. Stan, Director of Communications and Fund Development, expressed his amazement that l e t t e r s and reports can move people to donate and c a l l e d i t a "wonderous, phenomenal act of compassion." He provided the following explanation of how t h i s happens: It i s pretty phenomenal that somebody would give money i n response to a l e t t e r to begin with. They just get something i n the mail. They didn't see anybody but they are a c t u a l l y moved to write out a cheque and give of themselves i n response to t h i s written information. There i s nothing that i s going to come back to them i n return. It i s quite a phenomenon. But i t doesn't happen e a s i l y so there has to be cer t a i n elements. There has to be a sense to the person that they can't wait. If they can wait and you make i t too easy to wait, people w i l l wait and when they do that, they forget that the need i s there. And the longer they forget about i t , the less thay are motivated because they forget what was i n the l e t t e r . And the moment i s gone and they won't give. If donors request i t , they w i l l also receive a newsletter from Global Faith four times a year. The newsletter i s also 195 available for d i s t r i b u t i o n at various fundraising events. Global Faith's newsletter i s an eight page t a b l o i d s t y l e paper containing black and white photographs, a section t i t l e d "Thoughts from the Executive Director," l e t t e r s from overseas volunteers, reports on special circumstances i n various areas (e.g., the drought i n Namibia), one page t i t l e d "Pray for the World" (with suggestions for prayer corresponding to s p e c i f i c events or projects), and requests for donations. Quotes from the Bible are interspersed throughout the newsletter, such as: He who i s kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and He w i l l reward him for what has done (Proverbs 19:17) . ...be generous and w i l l i n g to share. In t h i s way...they may take hold of the l i f e that i s t r u l y L i f e ! (1 Timothy 6: 17-19) If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother i n need but has no p i t y on him, how can the love of God be i n him? Dear children, l e t us not love with words or tongue, but with actions and i n truth (1 John 3:17, 18) . In addition to appeal l e t t e r s , monthly reports, and the quarterly newsletter, donors are also sent an annual "Christmas Catalogue." Donations are presented i n the catalogue as g i f t s that can be given " i n honour of a fr i e n d who shares your compassion for the poor" (e.g., one g i f t i s "Clean Safe Water -Ethiopia $8.50") . The "friend" receives a l e t t e r advising them of the g i f t and the name of the giver. Global Faith s t a f f also conduct telephoning and v i s i t i n g campaigns. Gerald v i s i t s certain donors - selected on the basis of duration and amount of giving - and has mixed feelings about asking for money. He addressed t h i s at the Group of Eight's 196 "Vision Retreat." Gerald said to the group: "Where i s my i n t e g r i t y i n asking for money from old folks with none?.... Some of us are c a l l e d to be beggars. My comfort zone i s handled by saying I'm begging for someone else." Gerald also recognizes that his v i s i t s are a way of giving back to the donors - giving his time, his attention, and his willingness to l i s t e n - and that donors' reasons for giving money go beyond supporting projects i n the Third World. In Gerald's words: They are often simple people giving a l o t . I f e e l g u i l t y and I wonder i f they can afford i t . I think of my own mother who gives $250 a month to the church. They a l l want to t a l k about being lonely, getting older, t h e i r kids growing up. It i s very hard to talk about the issues [i.e . , Third World issue s ] . People may not give money to help the Third World. The money they give does help the Third World, but there are other things going on. Global Faith also r e l i e s on a series of banquets organized by dinner coordinators (they are paid $1000 for organizing a dinner) across the country for fundraising. The main banquet i s held i n A p r i l i n the ballroom of a large downtown hotel. People are personally i n v i t e d by table hosts (staff, associates, established donors) to attend. The i n v i t a t i o n reads: "This w i l l be an evening of i n s p i r a t i o n and information regarding the ministry of [Global F a i t h ] . Your involvement at t h i s event can make a difference i n the l i v e s of hurting people i n the world. Please j o i n us!" I attended the main Banquet i n A p r i l 1992 and again i n A p r i l 1993. White linen table cloths covered approximately 5 0 large round tables adorned with flowers and candles. At each place setting, a p i l e of l i t e r a t u r e on the evening's agenda and on the background of Global F a i t h was neatly 197 arranged. The people attending were mostly elegantly dressed and appeared mainstream. There was no wet bar - no alcohol served at a l l - and t h i s was a clue to the evangelical o r i e n t a t i o n of many of the guests (Global Faith avoided serving alcohol for fear of offending many donors). The evening was a series of speeches (by the Executive Director, by the Chair of the Board, by the head of an overseas partner organization, by a l o c a l p o l i t i c i a n ) , with a devotional led by a Minister, hymn singing and an audio-visual presentation on one of Global Faith's programs i n India. There was also time for writing cheques and f i l l i n g out donation forms which were placed i n s i l v e r bowls i n the center of the tables. The main Banquet raises approximately $40,000. Additional fundraising events at Global Faith include the annual Walkathon (the $6000 raised was applied to the costs of shipping milk powder to Somalia i n 1992) and the Christmas tree display at a l o c a l shopping mall (50 - 60 trees on display raised approximately $7000 i n 1992). Global F a i t h also c a r r i e s out a development education program which involves presentations i n churches ( a l l denominations), schools, and service clubs. The purpose of Global Faith's development education i s "to provide Canadians with the resources to better understand the issues surrounding poverty and development i n developing countries" (1991 Annual Report, p.4). Another aim of development education i s to promote Global Faith's overseas programs and to raise money. Stan, the Director of Communications and Fund Development, describes the close f i t 198 between development education and fund r a i s i n g : Fundraising i s l e t t i n g people know what the program i s so they can decide whether to give to i t or not. And development education i s l e t t i n g people know what the program i s so they can decide whether to give to i t or not [chuckles]. It i s the same thing. Fundraising i s the production of money and in e v i t a b l y there are costs involved. Approximately 2.9% of t o t a l expenditures 5 9 at Global Faith are from administration and fundraising (Annual Report 1992, p.4). Due to the recession, Global Faith has been spending more at fundraising i n order to raise the same amount. Gerald commented on the contradictions inherent i n fundraising: Money i s a big issue for us - a mammoth issue. We're always caught on the horns of a dilemma and the dilemma i s money. We're spending more on Somalia than we are r a i s i n g . And at the same time that we are tal k i n g about r a i s i n g money, we are t a l k i n g about cutting costs. Everything we do contradicts everything. Richard also sees money as a "mammoth issue" and one that i s at odds with a people-centred approach: "[Global Faith] cannot aff o r d to lose sight of people [in the Strategic Plan], but money i s the bottom l i n e i n order for the organization to e x i s t . I w i l l always struggle with the interplay between the two." Another d i f f i c u l t aspect of fundraising i s that "you need disaster i n the world i f you want to raise money." Gerald mentioned t h i s paradoxical relationship at a Group of Eight meeting while they were reviewing the budget. We're short about $200,000 i n government funds. It i s a yucky way to look at i t , but the s i t u a t i o n i n Somalia could turn i t around i n no time. People have to die by the z i l l i o n 5 9 Other expenditures were " i n and for development" (94.1%) and "development education" (3%) (Annual Report, 1991, p.4) . 199 to get people to donate money - which i s a rather strange paradox. Suffering i n the world not only motivates the general public to donate money but also provides a focal point for the s t a f f while they are caught up i n fundraising e f f o r t s . Gerald stresses the importance of including a focus on suffering along with the concern for r a i s i n g money and compares t h i s deliberate attitude to a type of method acting: Certainly I know i t i s true here and I know i t i s true for some other organizations, the biggest issue i s one of money, right? I mean you do nothing without money so you're t r y i n g to address that a l l the time. The problem with addressing i t a l l the time i s you forget why you're doing i t . . . . S o somehow you can never think of the problems overseas without thinking about the money. But because you always have to think about the money, you have to continually remind yourself to think about the thing overseas, right? And perhaps i t i s a b i t l i k e method acting. You know, when you're f i g h t i n g for money, you've got to also be able to remember that instant when you saw the c h i l d die [of starvation i n Ethiopia]. Because i f you can't bring that to your mind, you might end up laughing and saying i t i s a l l a farce.... Every night when you go to bed and every morning when you get up, you've got to be able to say to yourself: "this i s why I do i t . " E x t e r n a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s In order to understand the organizational behaviour of Global Faith, i t i s necessary to include a description of how Global F a i t h relates to other actors or organizations i n i t s environment (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978/1990). In addition to the many relationships established with indivdual donors, Global Faith i s also involved i n , and influenced by, relationships with Board members, with CIDA, and with overseas partners. I consider these a l l to be external relationships because they span 200 organizational boundaries. 6 0 The Board of Directors The Board of Directors at Global Faith i s made up of nine men and one woman, a l l of whom share an evangelical C h r i s t i a n background. The denominations of Board members are Baptist, Vineyard Church, and United Brethren i n Christ. Gerald commented that i n general, the Board members are "more conservative" i n t h e i r theological perspectives than most of the s t a f f at Global Faith. The professions of the Board members include a Member of Parliament, Executive Vice President of a large land development company, former Chief Executive O f f i c e r of a hydro-electric corporation, lawyer, chartered accountant, pastor, Director of an aviation i n s t i t u t e , p i l o t , and r e t a i l entrepreneur. Asafa, Director Finance, commented that the Board i s made of up of "a high number of business people. We need technocrats, Third World people, and there i s another woman I guess they have been thinking about." The Chair of the Board i s a Minister (United Brethren of Christ Church), and a business woman. She also used to be a p r o v i n c i a l d i r e c t o r for Global Faith i n the early 1980s. The Chair i s elected by the Board every year for a term of one year. The term for serving on the Board i s two 3 year sessions 5 0 I am using Pfeffer and Salancik's (1978/1990) int e r p r e t a t i o n of organizational boundary which "...can be defined by the organization's control over the actions of part i c i p a n t s r e l a t i v e to the control of other s o c i a l e n t i t i e s over these same a c t i v i t i e s . Control i s the a b i l i t y to i n i t i a t e or terminate actions at one's di s c r e t i o n " (p.147). 201 (maximum 6 years) which means there i s a turnover every two or three years. Board members are elected by the Society and they are not s a l a r i e d . Gerald, as Executive Director, i s not a member of the Board, though he reports d i r e c t l y to them. Gerald explained t h i s by pointing out that "my r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s to support the people here [the s t a f f ] " and that "the Board doesn't want everybody accountable to them. They want a hierarchy of accountability." While most of the Board members are well-established i n t h e i r f i e l d s and a few are extremely wealthy, they are not considered to be generous donors. According to Gerald, "the Board i s there because of control, not because of money. They are capable of giving a l o t but they are not giving i t . " The Board i s functional; they are not i n place for fundraising. The administration of Global Faith answers to the Board, though Board members are not involved i n the day-to-day operations of the organization. At one Board meeting, a Board member stressed that " i t i s important that Board members are compatible and that they are on the same wavelength. For example, that they a l l agree to stay arm's length away from administration. It i s easier for [Gerald] that way." The Board's "arm's length" approach i s viewed d i f f e r e n t l y by some of the s t a f f . One s t a f f member commented on the Board's low p r o f i l e at Global Faith: The Board of Directors are a b i t disappointing to me. I don't know who the Board of Directors are. I have met some of them and I know some of them but I don't see them around here. Maybe that i s not t h e i r role but I would l i k e to see them around here t a l k i n g to s t a f f and finding out exactly how programs are going. You know, taking a more ground view 2 0 2 of what i s happening at [Global Faith] . . . .I don't r e a l l y know how they f e e l about what we are doing. Gerald recognizes that his relationship with the Board i s complex and at times, even problematic. The Board's involvement i n the day-to-day operations of Global Faith i s as much of a problem for Gerald as t h e i r lack of involvement. Gerald describes these dynamics below: It i s a struggle not to be defensive when the Board has t h e i r own ideas about how things should be going. It i s a struggle for me when the Board wants to get too involved here. And i t i s a struggle for me when the Board i s not involved enough here. And so i n that way the Board has said i n p r i o r times that I'm supposed to be the l i n k between them and the organization and I'm not sure every Board member would buy into that. I'm the only one here who has nine bosses. Right? And that i s i t s own struggle. Sometimes that means that nobody r e a l l y comes forward as the boss. Sometimes i t means that everybody i s . But these guys being mainly business people w i l l therefore be a Board of that f o r - p r o f i t kind. They don't want to be i n here everyday. They just want to know what the results are at the end of each month. If the results are O.K., they're not worried. The Board meets quarterly and the Executive Committee meets once a month. Richard explained to me that "the Board meetings are to educate them and give them an update." I asked Richard i f they were also for decision-making. Richard said: "No, they are for r a t i f y i n g decisions already made." Board members receive a report every Board meeting on what expenditures the Department Directors have approved. Every month they get a f i n a n c i a l report on monthly and year-to-date income levels, and on projections and future commitments. The Board also receives a yearly report from the Audit Committee. Board approval i s required for overseas projects $200,000 and over or for projects involving $25,000 or more of General 203 Public Income. Board approval i s conditional on funds being there ( i . e . , CIDA approval). The Board i s also responsible for approving the Strategic Plan, departmental budgets and any c a p i t a l expenditures. Gerald distinguishes between the Board and the s t a f f at Global Faith by who holds the guiding v i s i o n for the organization. I don't think our Board has a v i s i o n . The textbooks say the Board should develop a v i s i o n and hire people to carry i t out. The v i s i o n for our organization comes out of administrators - i t i s not coming out of the Board. Planning i s approved by the Board but done by the s t a f f . Because of who they are, the Board sees things from a f o r - p r o f i t type of perspective. They approve plans, they don't design them. Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) CIDA support to Global Faith began i n 1975 on a project-by-project basis. One Year Program grants have been received since 1986 from the NGO D i v i s i o n of CIDA. These grants are based on an i n d i c a t i v e planning figure (IPF) which i s a yearly funding c e i l i n g r elated to an analysis of i n s t i t u t i o n a l management c a p a b i l i t i e s . Proposals for the One Year Program specify countries, sectors, and overseas partners and cover a l l the i n d i v i d u a l projects that are to be supported by the CIDA grant and the general public donations. Reporting to CIDA i s required twice a year and includes a l l of the a c t i v i t i e s of the One Year Program. Proposals, interim reports and f i n a l reports are not required for every single project. The One Year Program i s also c a l l e d Responsive Programming, because the funds from the NGO 2 0 4 D i v i s i o n at CIDA match the NGO's i n i t i t a t i v e and t h e i r p u b l i c l y r a i s e d f i n a n c e s . Global F a i t h has a l s o implemented three country focus programs as an executing agency f o r the B i l a t e r a l Branch of CIDA. In January 1993, Global F a i t h submitted an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a m u l t i - y e a r program (1993-1996) f o r funding from CIDA w i t h an a d d i t i o n a l amount from Global F a i t h to support core programs overseas and to expand Global F a i t h ' s development education a c t i v i t i e s i n Canada. Global F a i t h a l s o r e c e i v e s CIDA funding f o r emergency r e l i e f programs, through involvement i n v a r i o u s NGO c o n s o r t i a (e.g., South A s i a P a r t n e r s h i p ) . Funding from CIDA f o r Global F a i t h i s provided through the f o l l o w i n g windows: - Responsive Programming (NGO D i v i s i o n ) - D e c e n t r a l i z e d Funds - C o a l i t i o n s - Country Focus Programs ( B i l a t e r a l Branch) - I n t e r n a t i o n a l Humanitarian A s s i s t a n c e - Reconstruction and R e h a b i l i t a t i o n - Food A i d While the va r i o u s funding o u t l e t s at CIDA have allowed Global F a i t h to keep expanding and accessing more money, they have a l s o c o n t r i b u t e d to a sense of confusion or a murkiness i n NGO de a l i n g s w i t h CIDA. Kevin, i n the Overseas Program Department at G l o b a l F a i t h , describes CIDA as "...such an octopus. You know, i t i s s l i p p e r y . There are so many arms that i t i s hard to get a handle on i t . " CIDA may be an e l u s i v e bureacracy, but Global F a i t h s t a f f a l s o recognize that CIDA i s not a f a c e l e s s i n s t i t u t i o n . As Gerald 205 says, "CIDA i s n ' t only rules, i t i s also people" and "when you deal with CIDA, you deal with individuals - CIDA doesn't have a soul but the individuals do." Personnel changes at CIDA have an impact on Global Faith's strategy i n t h e i r dealings with CIDA. Richard emphasizes the importance of f l e x i b i l i t y and maintaining strong relationships with a var i e t y of people at CIDA: Our a b i l i t y has to be to change and to access funding where we can i n CIDA and to keep up the relationships with people because i t i s not th i s i n s t i t u t i o n with no personality. It i s a thousand individuals. Global Faith's relationship with CIDA i s ac t u a l l y a combination of many individual relationships. However, i n the context of funding, CIDA i s considered as one entity, one force. Gerald describes CIDA as Global Faith's "biggest donor." Like a donor, CIDA holds Global Faith accountable for how the money i s spent. While CIDA funding has the advantage of matching general public donations (with r a t i o s as high as nine to one), there i s also the disadvantage of government r e s t r i c t i o n s placed on how the funding i s spent. Ian discussed the tension inherent i n receiving CIDA funding during one of the Training Program sessions: CIDA i s not involved i n every project. And t h i s i s by choice for a number of reasons. I suppose number one i s that the person who puts up the money can t e l l you how to spend i t . We don't necessarily want to have our t o t a l p o l i c y of what we do overseas to be dictated by Canada's current foreign p o l i c y which can be subject to change. And we make a commitment to an area and our commitment i s to the people, not to the p o l i t i c s . If we became involved i n any kind of a s i t u a t i o n where evangelism becomes very prominent, there i s no way we can use any CIDA money for anything l i k e that....We don't want them funding everything. What i f they suddenly decide to cut our allotment i n half? What i f they do i t before we have finished a project and we have made a 206 commitment on the basis of the money that they are going to pay? CIDA's presence i n the corporate consciousness at Global Faith i s shaped mainly by uncertainty. Kevin, who deals with CIDA on a d a i l y basis, said: There are huge changes at CIDA and no one knows what they are. There are rumours....CIDA people are nervous. Part of i t i s p o l i t i c a l . There has been a bringing together of the a i d and trade issues. The facts that CIDA i s a government instrument and that decision-making i s related to p o l i t i c a l imperatives i s only part of the uncertainty. Another contributing factor has been the infamous "Secor Report," a management review of CIDA ca r r i e d out i n 1991. The Report was i n limbo for several years leaving everyone unclear as to how the recommendations would be applied. Commenting on t h i s , Richard said: It has been a year and a half and they haven't decided what they are going to do and that affects the whole structure of CIDA....We can't wait around for a year and a half to see what the changes are. We have to just keep hustling. The climate of i n s t a b i l i t y has led Global F a i t h s t a f f to conclude that CIDA funding i t s e l f i s precarious or uncertain. When asked how the uncertainty surrounding CIDA a f f e c t s Global Faith's work, the Director of Overseas Programs i n s i s t e d that Global Faith's survival i s not conditional upon CIDA funding: The uncertainty only affects the amount of programming we could do with our partners, our core partners, and that i s about i t . Because at the core, what we raise from the public, we program with that. If that i s a l l we had, we'd be much smaller and much more lim i t e d but [Global Faith] would s t i l l be around. Another aspect of Global Faith's relationship with CIDA i s 2 0 7 the lack of r e c i p r o c i t y i n urgent requests for information. Richard was expressing his f r u s t r a t i o n that Global F a i t h was required to submit a proposal to CIDA by a c e r t a i n deadline but "there i s no way we could say: 'We have to have a response from you i n two weeks.'" It i s an i n t e r e s t i n g relationship. Because, on the one hand, CIDA can demand of us things and we have to do i t - but we r e a l l y can't demand anything of them.... though we can influence over time what they demand from us....Now, we get money from them to do what we want to do, so, i n a way, we'll b i t e our l i p s and apologize and walk away. The one-way d i r e c t i o n of reporting and accountability i s a consequence of the donor-recipient relationship between CIDA and Global Faith. Global Faith i s on the other side of that dynamic with t h e i r overseas partners. In that context, Global F a i t h i s the funding agency. However, the relationship between Global Faith and t h e i r overseas partners bears l i t t l e resemblance to the CIDA - Global Faith relationship. Overseas Partners V i r t u a l l y by d e f i n i t i o n as an NGO, Global Faith does not consider i t s relationship with CIDA to be that of partnership. Instead, Global Faith feels the need for "an arms length r e l a t i o n s h i p from CIDA." On the other hand, Global F a i t h considers i t s "Third World relationships" as partnerships. This i s evident i n the very name used to categorize these organizations: "overseas partners." Richard describes Global Faith's approach to t h e i r work with overseas partners: We do have a relationship focus i n the work we do rather 2 0 8 than a program focus i n the sense that we r e a l l y do want to work together and i n concert with l o c a l organizations. So, i n India we want to f i n d Indians i n an Indian-run organization who have developed a strategy for working with the poor i n t h e i r place and we want to work together with them. And we want - as an organization - to b u i l d a r e l a t i o n s h i p with them over time out of which grows the work that they're doing and we're supporting. So, I'm not going to - uhh, we don't want to t e l l people what to do which i s very easy to do when you're signing the cheques. Another c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Global Faith's relationships with t h e i r overseas partners i s t r u s t . These relationships are "based more on the trust established through a history of working together than on rigorous formal working agreements" (Evaluation Report, p.IT). Richard also commented on the role of trust i n spite of the donor-recipient relationship: What I f i n d encouraging i s the degree of trust b u i l d i n g with the people that we work with. We have access to tremendous resources and with that comes tremendous power. Yet we have a whole number of q u a l i t y relationships. Kevin also brought up the issue of trust i n a donor-recepient r e l a t i o n s h i p during an interview: If you have a donor-recipient relationship, the issue i s getting beyond the point of the relationship hinging on finances. Right? Now, you can't t o t a l l y get away from i t because you have resources that your partner wants. Right? You can't say that i s not an important part of the r e l a t i o n s h i p because i t i s . So the issue i s to get to the point of trust where what they want to do i s based on t h e i r needs and not your p r i o r i t i e s . . . . I think as an organization, our goal i s to get to the point where we have b u i l t up a trust r e l a t i o n s h i p with a partner strong enough to do j o i n t long-term planning. Another aspect of Global Faith's power as a funding agency i s t h e i r desire to "shield" instead of control t h e i r partners. Richard r e f l e c t e d on Global Faith's role as follows: We're a f a c i l i t a t o r or bridge [between technical or f i n a n c i a l resources and overseas partners]. And also a 209 s h i e l d . Because I think donors - people who give money, people who have resources - do t r y to exert control often times. I mean there's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y that goes with financing which i s legitimate. But there can also be control - e s p e c i a l l y western organizations - we don't separate r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of resources and control very well. So, i n a way, we t r y to be a shie l d on behalf of both the NGOs implementing overseas and the people they work with so that a l l the reporting requirements on a l l l e v e l s don't hinder them i n t h e i r work....Our role i s to translate what i s happening i n the program i n a way that addresses - that f i t s into - the categories that are defined over here.... My own philosophy and the philosophy of our organization and i n our department i s that our job here i s to generate the reports i n the format required for us and our v a r i e t y of donors so that we allow the l o c a l organization with l i m i t e d time and resources to primarily do the implementation of the fieldwork - not to primarily keep t h e i r donors happy. And that i s a s i g n i f i c a n t problem for a l o t of national organizations because they're usually not working i n t h e i r f i r s t language. They have d i f f e r e n t administrative styles or accounting styles or reporting formats that they use i n t h e i r own environment. And when they are forced externally to do something d i f f e r e n t to keep the donor happy, generally i t takes up a huge amount of t h e i r time. In contrast with the Board of Directors or CIDA, overseas partners contribute to and also implement Global Faith's v i s i o n . A memo to the Group of Eight that was c i r c u l a t e d a f t e r a retreat for the departmental Directors said: "Regarding [Global Faith's] partners, i t must be emphasized that the partners are the hands and feet of [Global Faith's] v i s i o n statement. The partners are the c r i t i c a l l i n k between [Global Faith], [Global Faith's] v i s i o n , and the poor." Overseas partners are granted t h i s instrumental status because of who they are and how they are chosen. During one of the t r a i n i n g program sessions, Ian explained that Global Faith applies a p r i o r i t y framework for choosing partners for overseas work. The l i s t i s as follows with the most preferred choice at the top: 210 1. Indigenous Christian NGO 2. Indigenous Evangelical Church 3. Mission group 4. NGO with Christian leadership 5. NGO (non Christian) Choosing to work with Christian groups over non-Christian groups i s based on Global Faith's emphasis on the importance of inner motivation - as opposed to a professional interest i n the f i e l d of international development. Richard provided his view of who Global Faith's overseas partners should be: We do work with people who somehow i n t h e i r heart care about the poor and the marginalized and the vulnerable i n t h e i r countries and work together with them. And on that l e v e l , we obviously share something both i n a philosophical and one may c a l l i t a s p i r i t u a l sense because I think you do have to have some kind of inner motivation to continue to work at i t because there continues to be more that needs to be done. Gerald compared the selection of an overseas partner to a search for a soul mate and stressed the importance of f e e l i n g kindred with the head of the organization: You have to be able to look [the Director of the overseas partner organization] i n the eye and say "Is there some match? Can we be soul mates?" If not, why would we even move an inch toward them? I asked Richard to explain why Global Faith would prefer to work with a C h r i s t i a n NGO before an Evangelical church overseas. We're non-denominational so we w i l l not work very often with churches overseas. We would prefer to work with organizations l i k e us that are registered as sort of service development organizations. In fact, my own personal experience i s that i f you work s p e c i f i c a l l y with church organizations, even i f they have development arms, you get caught up i n church p o l i t i c s and i t i s very hard a c t u a l l y to serve and work with the poor because you get caught right up i n church p o l i t i c s . Most of Global Faith's overseas partners are i n relationships with other funding agencies as well - they do not 211 depend s o l e l y on Global Faith for resources and support. 6 1 Richard explained the advantages of a partner organization having a d i v e r s i f i e d funding base: "I would think that implementing organizations - voluntary organizations i n Third World countries - are better off having a d i v e r s i f i e d support or funding base because i t allows them to maintain t h e i r own i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e g r i t y and independence.... Even as a small supporter, you can f i n d a strategic way to be involved s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the [partner] organization without necessarily signing the biggest cheques." What Makes Them T i c k ? This chapter has delved deeper with a more intimate look at the workings of Global Faith. I have included both the o f f i c i a l s t o r i e s and also the u n o f f i c i a l descriptions of how things happen at Global Faith and why. While I was learning about the people of Global Faith, they were also t r y i n g to learn about me. Gerald t o l d me: "We're examining you to see what makes you t i c k . There i s a process of indoctrination whether i t i s conscious or not. It i s the c u l t i s h nature of an agency l i k e t h i s . We can't get away from i t . " It i s time now to take another step - into the "inner sanctum" - to examine the people themselves, t h e i r backgrounds, 6 1 For example, one of Global Faith's partner organizations i n India has a s t a f f of approximately 600 people and receives funding from the Canadian Hunger Foundation, Foster Parents Plan, the Swedish government, and the B r i t i s h government, among others. Global Faith has a special role with t h i s organization by providing programs for i n s t i t u t i o n a l strengthening and t r a i n i n g of s t a f f . 212 roles, motivations, and interactions. The next chapter looks at what makes them t i c k . 213 CHAPTER SIX: THE INNER SANCTUM Each one of us has a unique contribution to make. The name of the game i s to take the unique contributions and put them together and r e a l i z e that the organization has a unique cause. It comes together l i k e a collage. There are p a r a l l e l s to a family. We couldn't raise money i f we were a l l the same. We are l i k e a peg board. The scary part i s when you p u l l one of the pegs out or put another peg i n , you change the picture forever. (Gerald, Executive Director of Global Faith) A C o l l a g e of People There are 19 people working i n the Head Office of Global Faith and additional representatives are based i n other provinces across Canada and overseas. This section presents b r i e f p r o f i l e s of twelve of the people i n the Head Office - the Group of Eight and four other senior s t a f f members.62 Gerald, Executive Director Gerald joined Global Faith's Board of Directors i n 1977 and became Executive Director i n 1980. Before coming to Global Faith, Gerald worked as a u n i v e r s i t y chaplain and a youth minister at a Baptist church. In addition to pastoral experience, Gerald also has a business administration background with a Master's i n Applied Behavioural Science (Human Resources Development). During 1988, Gerald took a sabbatical leave and completed a second Master's degree - t h i s one i n International Public Policy. 6 2 Interviews were conducted with each one of the people described i n t h i s section. Please see the Data C o l l e c t i o n and Analysis section i n Chapter Three for more information on how t h i s sample was selected. 214 Gerald has a kindly face with crow's feet around his eyes, a double chin, and tousled grey hair. He speaks i n a soft " l i b r a r y voice" which sinks almost to a whisper at times. People focus and s t r a i n to hear him. As he s i t s back comfortably i n his chair, they lean forward, a l e r t and attentive. When Gerald speaks, he often plays with an elegant fountain pen and his folded reading glasses l y i n g upside down on the table. Gerald chuckles frequently and teases his colleagues constantly. As a leader, he seemed to me to be domineering i n a "father knows best" kind of way and d e f i n i t e l y a central figure at Global Faith. Gerald pondered his p i v o t a l role during one of our interviews: The question intrigues me about being the centre of t h i s thing. Why am I the centre? And I noticed when I was away -af t e r coming back from being away i n 1987-88, I would prefer to see i t (and maybe I am saying t h i s with a l i t t l e more humility than I r e a l l y feel) at least l i k e a puzzle where i f you took a piece of the puzzle out and the picture didn't look very good. I was the piece of the puzzle that was removed. So, i n that sense, maybe I am the centre. But i t wasn't - or is n ' t - because I do i t a l l or make a l l the decisions. Gerald seems to be highly regarded and admired by the s t a f f . They t o l d me they f e e l l o y a l to him and they sense his l o y a l t y being returned to them. One s t a f f member described Gerald as a leader whose "committment i s stronger to people than to the i n s t i t u t i o n - which can be both good and bad for the organization. Even i f 15 people at [Global Faith] say that a person should be f i r e d , [Gerald] would never do i t . He would s t i c k with him....With [Gerald], i t a l l comes down to rela t i o n s h i p s . Everything he does i s influenced by that." Other 215 s t a f f members also commented on Gerald's committment to people and his focus on relationships. The remarks below are a l l excerpts from separate one-on-one interviews with d i f f e r e n t s t a f f members, yet they are a l l sim i l a r : [Gerald] i s the best motivator I have ever seen because he i s f a i r l y even-keeled....His door i s always open. He i s the type of guy that you want to work for because h e ' l l do anything for anybody.... 11 i s not just the people overseas that he cares about. It i s the people here that he cares about. I know that to a large degree his own personality i s such that he gets involved i n people's personal l i v e s . So i f I come to work depressed, h e ' l l ask me what the problem i s . So i t i s almost l i k e a very good HRD person who i s into counselling. I think his a b i l i t i e s i n leadership, to me, are based on his orientation to people. He i s very much a people-oriented person. Very, very much....So I go and I s i t down and I talk to him and I come out of there f e e l i n g that he i s on my side. And somebody else feels that he i s on t h e i r side. And i f two c o n f l i c t i n g people go i n there at the same time, they s t i l l f e e l l i k e winners when they leave even i f they are there at the same time. He i s very much a people person. And he i s i n c r e d i b l y s e n s i t i v e to everybody i n the organization as well as to the people overseas. He carries a t e r r i b l e load. So, he i s f r i e n d l y but firm. Very loving. He i s emotional. Compassionate. Tries very hard to hide i t with his humour and jokes but i t comes through every now and again. Sometimes i t comes through very, very strong. He i s a special person. Very special. Gerald's compassion, as perceived by the s t a f f , i s p a r t l y related to a t r a g i c story from Gerald's past. Gerald refered to t h i s story during our f i r s t interview and mentions i t on occasion at fundraising events. Below i s a quote from another s t a f f member who decided to t e l l me more d e t a i l s about the tragedy during an interview: I have seen him come through some pretty tough times. Even 216 he w i l l see how to turn t h i s so that i t becomes a plus for the ministry, for the organization: a very, very t r a g i c thing quite a few years ago. I guess i t was before he was with [Global F a i t h ] . But he had a l i t t l e son that was born -t h e i r second one I guess i t was - with a very severe b i r t h defect and he only l i v e d about two months. And i t came pretty close to tearing [Gerald] completely to pieces. He -i t was one thing that he just about couldn't handle. It was very very hard but he came through i t . And when he was i n Ethiopia at the time of the big famine - he has talked about t h i s even at dinners on occasion. He saw a mother holding her c h i l d and her c h i l d died i n her arms of starvation. The anguish. And he said he could look at that and he could understand maybe why God had t h i s happen to his own family because he knows the pain of that. Just to keep him from ever forgetting why t h i s organization e x i s t s . And he has never r e a l l y gotten over that. So that i s there. That i s part of the d r i v i n g force of the organization. Gerald refers to himself as a "schizo" with his i n t e r e s t i n working with people and his concern for business always i n c o n f l i c t . He also recognizes his own emphasis on relationships as a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of his leadership. According to Gerald, "management i s not something that you read about i n a book. For me, i t i s always about relationships. I put a weight on myself that doesn't need to be there." Gerald's analysis of his own motivation for working at Global Faith i s : "I have a strong b e l i e f that my goal i n l i f e i s to help people.... working here gives me an avenue for doing that." Dan, Director of Human Resources and Volunteers Dan started at Global Faith i n 1982. He had contact with the organization through correspondence and several meetings with Gerald. Then, his current job (in the public sector) ended on the same day that Gerald - not knowing that Dan's job had just come to an end - contacted him about a job at Global Faith. Dan 217 r e c a l l s his decision to accept Gerald's o f f e r : "In my mind, i t was an act of God that happened and an opportunity that I couldn't refuse." Dan was hired to develop a procedure for handling volunteers, complete with a process for recruitment and r a i s i n g funds and preparing them to go overseas. In 1984, Dan became more involved i n the administrative aspects of Global Faith. Then, i n 1989, he was stationed i n Ethiopia as the A f r i c a Program Coordinator for Global Faith. Dan i s currently involved i n h i r i n g new s t a f f , r e c r u i t i n g and placing long-term overseas professional-technical volunteers, managing the comprehensive benefits plan, sorting out inter-personal problems, and coordinating the overseas summer team of youth volunteers. Dan also issues memos on Gerald's behalf and more recently has begun producing a newsletter issued to a l l s t a f f and volunteers. Dan holds a weekly s t a f f meeting (modelled on the Group of Eight weekly meeting) with the people that are responsible to him (long-term o f f i c e volunteers and support s t a f f ) . Dan i s a gentle, accommodating, and unpretentious man. He was kind and helpful throughout my fieldwork at Global Faith (making me a set of keys, i n v i t i n g me to a s t a f f party, etc.) . He has a s l i g h t build, glasses, and thick greying hair. His o f f i c e , which i s next door to Gerald's o f f i c e , i s simply furnished with only a desk and a spare chair for guests. He i s "the l a s t on the l i s t " for a computer at Global Faith, but he said he doesn't r e a l l y miss one because he can use other people's computers when they are free. 218 Gerald respects Dan. He t o l d me that he "would l i s t e n to [Dan's] advice, on a private and informal l e v e l , more than anyone else at [Global F a i t h ] . [Dan] anticipates what i s going on without saying anything. It i s a g i f t he has." Gerald's trust i n Dan i s evident i n his unwritten role as "Assistant to the Executive Director." For example, Dan comes up with the l i s t of guests for Gerald's Christmas party, he has personal power of attorney on Gerald's bank account, and he automatically takes care of Gerald's mail. Gerald describes Dan as "the most determined person at [Global F a i t h ] . He i s very, very strong and yet he would appear to be very passive. He i s also the most a l t r u i s t i c at [Global F a i t h ] . He wants to help people and he doesn't ask for much i n return." During an interview, Dan commented on his job at Global Faith: "I love the type of work I am doing so I think i t i s easy for me to make my personal goals l i n e up with the agency goals." Dan described his motivation for coming to Global Faith and for staying many years: "I believe very strongly i n the p r i n c i p l e of being my brother's keeper or brother's brother - that i s a better way of putting i t . That i s o r i g i n a l l y why I came to [Global F a i t h ] . From my v i s i t s overseas, I can see that the poor t r u l y are poor. I am s t r i v i n g to l i v e a C h r i s t - l i k e l i f e . ... [Global Faith] i s a channel for me to use whatever a b i l i t i e s I have to help the poor and to raise them above the poverty l e v e l . " 219 Asafa, Director of Finance Asafa, born and raised i n Ethiopia, started out as a volunteer at Global Faith doing painting and research work. Asafa's father, a high ranking o f f i c i a l i n an A f r i c a n based church, f i r s t met Gerald and introduced Asafa to the organization. Asafa has a Business Administration degree from a r e l i g i o u s college and i s a registered CMA. Asafa was hired i n 1986 as Assistant Director of Personnel and Administration. His current job as Director of Finance includes safeguarding Global Faith's assets, adhering to internal and external p o l i c i e s , implementing a formalized mechanism for approval of expenditures and being accountable to the Board and funding bodies. Much of Asafa's time i s spent preparing regulatory reports (for Revenue Canada, Consumer and Corporate A f f a i r s , Canadian Council of C h r i s t i a n C h a r i t i e s ) , f i n a n c i a l statements (for the Board), and weekly income reports and monthly expense reports (for Departmental Directors). Asafa i s i n his mid t h i r t i e s . He has a beard, a f r i e n d l y smile, and elegant clothes (tie, blue blazer and l o a f e r s ) . Asafa jokes a l o t about his African heritage. On one occasion, he slipped a note under Gerald's closed o f f i c e door during a meeting and l a b e l l e d i t "African fax." Asafa seems to f e e l r e a l l y comfortable with Gerald and speaks of him as a fr i e n d and a colleague i n addition to a supervisor. Dan described Asafa and Gerald's r e l a t i o n s h i p : "I think they are very close. When you talk about right-hand people, 2 2 0 I would think that [Asafa] would be his right-hand person." Together, Asafa and Gerald set the tone of Group of Eight meetings with t h e i r banter and teasing of others. Asafa explained t h i s dynamic and t h e i r use of humour i n groups: "I use [Gerald] as sort of a - i f I make fun of somebody, I t e l l [Gerald], right? So I am saying i t out loud to him but attacking somebody else or making fun and he does the same thing with me." While Asafa was always p o l i t e to me during the fieldwork, he seemed to be the most guarded of a l l the people at Global Faith. This i s p a r t l y due to his role as a "security o f f i c e r " for Global Fait h (making sure the f i n a n c i a l c r i s i s of the late 1980s doesn't happen again) and also due to his cautious nature. Asafa seemed to take delight i n the cases when i t was obvious that I didn't understand something during a meeting - either an inside joke or an unfamiliar acronym. During one Group of Eight meeting, Asafa, with a very serious expression, said "CHDT" to the group. He then explained, to everyone's amusement, that t h i s meant "Cathie i s Here, Don't T e l l . " I found i t easier to be with Asafa one-on-one. He was more relaxed and refrained from the constant jokes and teasing remarks. Gerald described Asafa as "the most p o l i t i c a l l y astute i n the organization" and he continued to say "If I was leaving today, i f the Board was wise, they would choose [Asafa] to replace me." Another s t a f f member commented on Asafa: "[Asafa] i s imposing. You know, he speaks with authority. But he i s a b i t of a comedian too.... [Asafa] i s the custodian of the organization." 221 Gerald thinks that Asafa's motivation for working at Global Faith comes through "a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y l a i d on from his father. He gets to be an accountant and also he wants to help." Asafa does not see his own job as being r e s t r i c t e d to just f i n a n c i a l matters. "My interests are not limi t e d to finance. My a b i l i t i e s I hope are not limi t e d to finance either....1 have a l o t of input. Or I f i n d myself tr y i n g to give input anyway i n areas outside of finance." Asafa describes his own motivation for working at Global Faith as follows: "My commitment to [Global Faith] begins with the commandment of Jesus Christ of loving thy brother and neighbour. [Global Faith] enables me to do that. [Global Faith] i s a vehicle. [Global Faith] i s unique for me because i t provides me with the opportunity to share a v i s i o n with other people. I would leave [Global Faith] when that v i s i o n i s lost....My focal point i s service to God. We're here because we're committed to a commandment made by Jesus Christ." Richard, Director of Overseas Programs Richard joined Global Faith i n 1985, with previous experience working i n international development for the Mennonite Central Committee. Richard has a Bachelor's degree i n Development Studies from a r e l i g i o u s u n i v e r s i t y i n the United States, and a diploma from a l o c a l Bible college. In his current job, Richard tra v e l s a great deal - both overseas and to Ottawa - and i s responsible for the administration of overseas programs which involves report and proposal writing and frequent contact with 2 2 2 CIDA and Global Faith s t a f f posted overseas. Richard i s a t a l l serious man i n his late t h i r t i e s . He has pale blue eyes, a square jaw, thick blond hair, and a mustache. He often wears a t i e and a blazer around the o f f i c e even when he does not have to dress formally for a meeting with someone from outside the organization. Richard seems proud of his extensive experience l i v i n g overseas and of his a b i l i t y to speak Nepali and Bangladeshi. His knowledge of languages was apparent i n many of our conversations when he would r o l l a few exotic phrases o f f his tongue with great pleasure. The following excerpt from my fieldnotes i s one example: I t o l d [Richard] my research proposal had been approved and that i t was " a l l o f f i c i a l now" He said "Good! So, you're a thesis-walla now!" I laughed because I thought he said something about "wallowing i n my thesis" but i t didn't quite f i t so I asked him to repeat what he had just said. He said "thesis-walla" again. I didn't understand and looked stupid. He said something quickly about being a "thesis-expert" and that i n India they use the term "walla" that way. During my time at Global Faith, I admired Richard for his understanding of other cultures and his dedication to his work. Because of his grueling t r a v e l schedule and the consequent p i l e up of work between t r i p s , Richard often seemed preoccupied and distant. His colleagues attributed t h i s type of behaviour to the pressure Richard seemed to be f e e l i n g i n his job: [Richard] i s an inte r e s t i n g guy. It i s not that he doesn't have a sense of humour but I think he has a hard time laughing at things sometimes. But he works under t h i s enormous pressure. I don't know how he gets i t a l l done when he has to do so much t r a v e l l i n g and everything. I don't know how he gets a l l his work done here. So he comes back every time to ten times the work to do. So that puts pressure on people. S t i l l , he i s very much a part of the group and we enjoy having him around. 2 2 3 The s t a f f also seem to respect Richard. One s t a f f member said: "One thing about [Richard] i s that he i s a paper-pusher deluxe. So he r e a l l y keeps on top of projects....[Richard] i s very t i e d up with what he i s doing. Very dedicated to the task. And l o y a l . " Gerald appreciates Richard's l o y a l t y and dedication. He t o l d the Board of Directors: "I won't desert [Richard] and he won't desert me. We w i l l s t i c k with each other." Gerald also said: "When I s i t down with Richard, I don't have to make sure that he has dotted the i ' s and crossed the t's." Gerald's analysis of Richard's motivation for working at Global Fa i t h i s : "He i s quite committed to walking and ta l k i n g with the poor. His sense of worth i s t i e d to helping the poor." Richard describes his own commitment to Global Fa i t h as follows: "As an anarchist, I can't commit myself to an organization but I can commit to a cause and to sharing deeply with other people....At the Banquet during the audio-visual presentation, I started to cry during one of the v i l l a g e meetings scenes. I wasn't i n Canada, I was i n the video. That t y p i f i e s my own struggle with the issues." I asked Richard during an interview about how he feels about his work during his t r i p s to t h e i r overseas project s i t e s . He re p l i e d : I think i t i s incumbent on me to f i n d a way to somehow make people f e e l comfortable that just because I'm from the outside with resources, they don't have to treat me s p e c i a l . They don't have to garland me forever and feed me forever and do that. Somehow i n spite of the resources that we have, we are t r y i n g to support them, we are tr y i n g to work together with them....I have a Santa Claus t i e just to i n humour remind myself that when I go overseas I'm the Santa Claus carrying the bag of presents. If you take that seriously, you're i n trouble. You have to be able to laugh 2 2 4 about i t and say 'No, that's not ri g h t . ' Elizabeth, Director of International Relations Elizabeth has been at Global Faith the longest - since the beginning of the o r i g i n a l organization. Richard i s currently doing Elizabeth's "old job" (administering overseas programs) and Elizabeth i s now responsible for finding i n s t i t u t i o n a l funds for overseas programs, acting as a l i a i s o n with government agencies, coordinating inter-agency collaboration, developing NGO consortiums, and planning and evaluating overseas projects. Elizabeth has a c e r t i f i c a t e i n Business Administration. Elizabeth i s i n her late f o r t i e s . She speaks c a r e f u l l y and eloquently i n a high voice with a restrained B r i t i s h accent. Elizabeth's success at r a i s i n g government funds almost has f o l k l o r e status at Global Faith. One s t a f f member described Elizabeth as: A very special person. Tremendous a b i l i t i e s and over the years has b u i l t a network of important people i n high places i n the governments of many countries. Very highly regarded. She has personally raised m i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s for t h i s organization. I mean m i l l i o n s . Another characterized Elizabeth as follows: Very formal i n her approach to things. She i s i n t e l l i g e n t . Independent i n some ways. Very confident. A caring person....She i s able to say things to [Gerald] that probably a l o t of us couldn't do. Elizabeth's success i s attributed to her s k i l l s as a " p o l i t i c a l operator." One s t a f f member t o l d me: "[Elizabeth] i s a master of c u l t i v a t i n g relationships. A l l the stuff coming down the pipe [from CIDA] i s because of her....The good news about [Elizabeth] 225 i s that while she has an unorthodox style, she can squeeze money from a rock." Gerald described Elizabeth's strategy with people as being "compliant and w i l l i n g to please" or acting "giving, submissive, and passive and that gets her whatever she wants with CIDA." During an interview I asked Elizabeth: "Where did you learn t h i s s k i l l - of moving things forward, of getting people to agree, of building consensus? Where does that come from?" Elizabeth answered: It i s very, very d i f f i c u l t for me to talk about myself. I can t a l k about a number of other people but i t i s d i f f i c u l t to t a l k about myself. I think you should ask [Gerald] that question. I am not a negative person. I tend to look at things from the perspective of what we can do, not what we can't do. I tend to say to people: 'Oh, I ' l l think things through.' I mean I don't react quickly to anything. I tend to think about things a l o t and I tend to be very quiet about things u n t i l I have an answer. I would work at something for a long time u n t i l I got a p o s i t i v e response.... Somebody once said to me that I was tender and tenacious....And somebody just recently said my s t y l e was an ir o n hammer i n a velvet glove. But I wouldn't say that and I don't know where i t comes from except that with working with the government, I w i l l not take no for an answer. There has to be a way. But that i s not just with the government, i t i s with ' everything. Gerald's analysis of Elizabeth's motivation for working at Global Faith i s as follows: "I don't think [Elizabeth] goes to church. This i s her C h r i s t i a n i t y . " I asked Elizabeth about her own motivation and she r e p l i e d : It might sound i d e a l i s t i c but I don't believe that I have any option to do any other than what I am doing....1 don't see how we can not t r y and do something to help. At the Directors' V i s i o n Retreat, Elizabeth also commented on her motivation: It i s important for me to know that I am where God wants me to be. We should ask: What steps can we take to be i n a 226 better p o s i t i o n to benefit the poor? Christ w i l l always be there and the neglected poor w i l l always be there. We are the l i n k between the two. Stan, Director of Communications and Fund Development Stan started with Global Faith i n 1981. He has a business background mainly i n sales and has always been active i n churches. While Elizabeth i s responsible for r a i s i n g money from the government, Stan i s responsible for fund r a i s i n g with the general public. This involves "looking a f t e r " donors through telephone c a l l s and l e t t e r s (appeal l e t t e r s , thank-you l e t t e r s , pledge reminders, and receipts), mailing out project reports and updates to interested donors, and acting as l i a i s o n with Global Faith's P r o v i n c i a l Directors. The appeal l e t t e r s that go out every month are signed by Gerald and drafted by Stan. More recently, Stan has been spending less time on writing l e t t e r s and more time on r a i s i n g money through presentations and banquets across the country for a new program at Global Faith that involves l i n k i n g families i n Canada with communities i n India (this program i s not e l i g i b l e for CIDA funding because i t i s b a s i c a l l y sponsorship). Stan i s i n his early f o r t i e s and exudes energy and int e n s i t y . He walks quickly, with determination, r a t t l i n g the spare change i n his pocket. He i s c a l l e d a "character" by his colleagues. One s t a f f member said that Stan i s "probably the busiest man i n the whole organization. He works absolutely incredible hours. He i s t o t a l l y , obsessively dedicated to the 2 2 7 mission of [Global F a i t h ] . " Stan i s often interrupted and teased good-naturedly during presentations at the s t a f f retreat or at weekly Group of Eight meetings. One s t a f f member explained the concentration of teasing on Stan as follows: [Stan] i s intense.... He doesn't have the same sense of humour because he i s so intense. I think he i s focusing not necessarily on what we happen to be t a l k i n g about at the moment, but he i s focusing on what he thinks i s important at that p a r t i c u l a r point. Stan spends more time i n meetings with Gerald than the other Directors (three to four hours each week) because his fundraising work i s so public and things going out i n Gerald's name need to be s c r u t i n i z e d and c a r e f u l l y checked. Gerald i s impressed by the strength of Stan's "commitment to the cause" and his a b i l i t y to buy into an organizational strategy or a new program idea even though he disagrees with i t . Gerald described t h i s as "...a phenomenal t r a i t . I have never met the equivalent of that: being able to hate something and yet r e a l i z e the consequences of hating i t and therefore, be able to buy i n and go with i t . He can do that. I don't know anybody else who can do that." Gerald also described Stan as "a big person who loves the world." According to Gerald, Stan's motivation for working at Global Faith i s : "He l i k e s his job because he helps the poor and he can be a 'suffering servant.'" Stan commented on his own motivation at the Directors' Retreat: Loving my neighbour - that was my v i s i o n when I came to [Global F a i t h ] . I was sponsoring World Vi s i o n kids and I had 2 2 8 a concern to do something s i g n i f i c a n t with my time. I wanted to spend my working hours doing something s i g n i f i c a n t . I t r i e d prison ministry and hospital v i s i t a t i o n but I didn't have a g i f t for that. In my job at [Global Faith], I am helping, people here and overseas. I have a ministry i n both places. Pam, Director of Marketing Pam started at Global Faith i n 1989 as a summer volunteer. She then worked part-time on graphics for fundraising materials. Pam was hired f u l l - t i m e i n 1990 to write up a Strategic Plan and put i t into action. At that time, Pam's t i t l e was Assistant to the Executive Director. Pam was subsequently promoted to Director of Marketing. Pam has a Bachelor's degree i n Psychology and Religious Studies and also a Diploma i n Graphics and Visual Design. Pam went to a l o c a l Bible college as well. It was through a friendship that started at the Bible college that Pam f i r s t heard about Global Faith and t h e i r need for someone with graphics s k i l l s . Charlie, described i n the next section, was Pam's classmate and her contact at Global Faith. Pam's parents are missionaries (Mennonite) with experience working i n A f r i c a . As Director of Marketing, Pam i s responsible for producing Global Faith's newsletter, designing the Christmas g i f t catalogue, writing public service announcements, advertisements, inserts, and mail i n magazines. Pam described t h i s work as "development education" and "being i n charge of the organization's image." Pam i s also s t i l l involved i n graphics design and writing a Marketing Plan as a companion to the Strategic Plan. Pam i s i n her early t h i r t i e s and i s poised and well groomed. 229 She i s quiet during meetings and i s rar e l y the target or source of teasing. Pam i s the most recent addition to the Group of Eight. Gerald i s impressed with Pam's a b i l i t y to always meet deadlines. Other s t a f f appreciated her organizational s k i l l s i n putting together the Strategic Plan: [Pam] coordinated the whole thing on the Strategic Plan and did a l l of the many, many, many revisions and contacting people and back and forth. [Pam] was the brains to get i t a l l down to something that we could work with and l i v e with. Because i f a l l the people i n the organization had t h e i r way, i t probably could have ended up being a yard thick. Gerald described Pam's motivation for working at Global F a i t h as follows: "She i s more and more f e e l i n g good because she has helped people. She used to view i t as just a job." Pam said "I believe that God led me to [Global Faith]....What i s my own contribution to the big picture? I want to use my God-given talents to make the Strategic Plan user-f r i e n d l y and something that can be updated and monitored. I'm motivated by the people that we work for and also by my personal v i s i o n . If [Global Faith] changed i t s v i s i o n , i t would become closer to a nine to f i v e job for me and I would end up putting my extra energies i n elsewhere." Charlie, Director of Systems and Administration Charlie has a background i n computer programming, systems design and business communication. He has a Diploma i n Computer Science and also a Diploma from a l o c a l Bible college. Charlie started part-time at Global Faith i n 1987. His current 230 r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s include administration of the Head O f f i c e buildings (renovations and repair), helping to make systems more automated, personalizing automated l e t t e r s , tying the accounting system to the donor tracking system, and phasing out the old computer system. Charlie i s i n his late t h i r t i e s . He has a f u l l , f r i e n d l y face with dark brown straight hair which i s short on top and longer i n the back. Charlie moves quickly and purposefully through the o f f i c e s but he does not have an a i r of nervous energy l i k e his colleague, Stan. Charlie i s a casual dresser - mostly khakis, cotton s h i r t s and ra r e l y a t i e or coat. Charlie i s comfortable with the banter produced by Gerald and Asafa (and usually aimed at Stan or Dan) and he often joins i n i n a cheerful way (he i s never malicious i n his teasing) . 6 3 Charlie decided to c a l l me "Cath" early on i n my time at Global Faith - which f e l t welcoming and relaxed to me. One s t a f f member described Charlie as "the computer genius that locates or designs programs for us for a l l the sp e c i a l i z e d st u f f that we need and he i s into a l l that and administration and running the o f f i c e . An incredible handyman." Gerald t o l d me that Charlie " i s closest to [Dan] i n terms of being a l t r u i s t i c . He has a l o t of compassion." Charlie characterized his own motivation for working at Global F a i t h as follows: "I grew up i n a church. I wanted to work 6 3 For example, Charlie once joked about putting bar codes on return envelopes by hand so that they would look personalized instead of automated. 231 for a C h r i s t i a n organization i n order to use my talents for the Lord." Ian, Advisor Ian was i n v i t e d to the Directors' Vision Retreat even though he i s not a member of the Group of Eight because he has the status of an "elder" at Global Faith. Ian i s r e t i r e d now but he i s s t i l l involved i n developing an orientation program, and for t r a i n i n g new people coming into the organization (including me). He i s developing a course for the Provincial Directors to use when t r a i n i n g representatives and banquet organizers. Ian f i r s t had contact with Global Faith by being a donor i n 1982. In 1983, Ian was hired f u l l t i m e at Global Faith as Director of Church Relations. Ian remembers: "It was a scary time. The job description was not complete. [Gerald] gave me a pat on the head and said 'there's [the province] - go t e l l them.'" Ian's background i s i n sales, advertising, and Bible teaching. He was also a music teacher (accordion). Ian i s an earnest man i n his mid-sixties with glasses, and neatly combed hair. His clothes are t i d y and casual with a mid-western f l a i r (string t i e s ) . Ian talks slowly and d e l i b e r a t e l y i n a calm, almost w i s t f u l , voice. He seemed to me l i k e a wise man i n a small town. Ian i s not a target of teasing. He i s confident i n his knowledge of the Bible and he seems to be respected by the others. He does not have enough authority to be l i k e a father figure - he i s more l i k e a well-regarded "uncle figure." 232 Gerald describes Ian as "very sensitive. His feelings are hurt e a s i l y . Being sensitive also means that he can pick up on nuances i n meetings which i s very valuable. He i s an 'elder.' He has a l o t of experience." Ian c a l l s himself "a fanatic. I get heavily involved i n anything I do...I go a l l out. That's my nature....[Gerald] knows that I can preach and he knows I can s e l l . He knows that I love to teach. So he gets me doing that kind of s t u f f . " Kevin, Overseas Programs Manager Kevin has a Diploma i n Building Technology from a technical i n s t i t u t e as well as a Diploma from the l o c a l Bible college. Kevin f i r s t had contact with Global Faith through his wife's Baptist church - Gerald was the Youth Minister there and suggested i n 1980 that Kevin contribute some time as a volunteer. Kevin became a f u l l - t i m e s t a f f member i n the Overseas Programs Department i n 1985. He had no p r i o r experience i n in t e r n a t i o n a l development or working overseas. Kevin has since been posted overseas with his family twice: i n 1986-1987 and again i n 1990-1992. While both postings were i n Ethiopia, the goals and challenges of the job were d i f f e r e n t i n each term: In 1986, structures were i n place to make sure I had the support I needed. The program that I went into there was well-managed. There were technical people i n the f i e l d . The program was functioning and my job was b a s i c a l l y to manage the program administratively. And that i s my strength. Administration. When we went back i n 1990, the s i t u a t i o n was d i f f e r e n t . We had new s t a f f . We had a less stable environment. There was a dual job function: i n addition to managing the Ethiopia program, we were s t a r t i n g a regional o f f i c e . So, i t was a growing step for the organization and 233 we sort of f e l t our way....I am very task-oriented so I was f a i r l y methodical i n my approach. Kevin had just returned from his p o s i t i o n as the A f r i c a Regional Representative when I began my research at Global Faith. Kevin i s i n his early 40's. He speaks slowly and d e l i b e r a t e l y , weighing each word and wearing a thoughtful expression. Kevin - i n addition to Richard, Pam, and Charlie -was born a Mennonite. Kevin once t o l d me: "I am very proud of my heritage and I suppose the fact that there are a number of Mennonites i n t h i s organization makes me f e e l happy. We're taking over" [laughing]. Kevin's role i n the Overseas Programs Department meant he was f a i r l y self-contained but when he had dealings with other s t a f f , he seemed to prefer the company of the other "Menno's" (their term). Because of my volunteer work with his department and because of Kevin's fresh perspective on the people and work of Global Faith (due to his recent return), I developed a type of key informant relationship with Kevin. I made a point of checking i n with him every time I v i s i t e d Global Faith - either to discuss how I could help with work or to simply chat and learn his views on various issues. Kevin was valuable as a key informant p a r t l y due to the fact that he seemed to always keep a part of himself separate from his "membership" i n the Global Faith family. Gerald described t h i s as being "...compartmentalized. There i s only so much room i n his l i f e for [Global F a i t h ] . " "He has got a pie and everything has a piece of i t . A piece of i t i s his family. A piece of that pie i s work. A piece i s his r e l i g i o n . A piece i s his church. A piece of 234 i t i s his friends." Gerald explained that t h i s i s why he has not asked Kevin to j o i n the Group of Eight: "He could never be part of that group unless those things somehow were stew. You can't have separate pieces." Gerald's view of Kevin's motivation for working at Global Faith i s : "He wants to help the poor from 9:00 to 5:00, but he can't do i t past 5:00. He l i k e s his job because he gets to t r a v e l and deal with [Secretariat] people." Ben, A f r i c a Regional Representative Ben was born and raised i n Ethiopia. He worked for a Chr i s t i a n voluntary agency i n Addis helping street children learn income-generating s k i l l s before coming to the United States to complete a degree i n Development Studies at a r e l i g i o u s college. Ben's i n i t i a l contact with Global Faith came through one of the Board members who knew him while he was s t i l l i n Ethiopia and recommended him for a pos i t i o n i n the Overseas Programs Department. Ben came to work for Global Faith i n 1981. From 1982 to 1984, Ben was the Central A f r i c a Coordinator (based i n Canada). He traveled frequently to A f r i c a to monitor and evaluate projects, to research development needs i n the region, and to i d e n t i f y organizations that "we could trust and that we could develop a relat i o n s h i p with." In 1985, Ben was stationed i n Addis to set up a well-digging program and returned i n 1986 when Kevin was sent over to manage the program. In the summer of 1992, Ben was on his way back to Ethiopia (to take over from Kevin's second term overseas) as the A f r i c a Regional Representative. Kevin 235 commented on the difference between his own sty l e and Ben's s t y l e i n t h e i r postings overseas: The people who f i l l e d that role [in Ethiopia] have very d i f f e r e n t approaches. If you compare [Ben] and myself, for example, we're night and day. I'm very task-oriented and he i s people-oriented. And each has, obviously, i t s strengths and weaknesses. So, i n that sense, the organization i s very dependent on the people that are there. And p a r t i c u l a r l y because the organization i s that person for those people over there. Ben considers his role as a representative of Global F a i t h overseas as "a dream come true.... There i s something so magnetic about being there [in Ethiopia] that i s so a t t r a c t i v e . It i s s a t i s f y i n g to you. It i s healthy. It i s r e a l . . . . Every l i t t l e thing you can do for people there - whether i t i s a project or whatever - i s very rewarding....You give a person some hope and tr y to help him go from there." Lisa, India Program Coordinator Li s a , o r i g i n a l l y from Hong Kong, grew up i n the United States. L i s a has a Bachelor's Degree i n L i n g u i s t i c s and a Diploma i n C h r i s t i a n studies from a l o c a l college. Before being posted overseas, L i s a helped organize the educational resource materials at Global Faith and designed curriculum materials for schools and churches focusing on international development issues. From 1989 to 1992, L i s a was stationed i n India as Program Coordinator of Global Faith's CIDA-sponsored agro-forestry project there. L i s a was responsible for overseeing the work of 25 l o c a l voluntary groups that were involved i n the project. This entailed s e t t i n g up accounting systems, disbursing funds, reporting to Global 236 Faith's Head Of f i c e and to CIDA, designing and d e l i v e r i n g t r a i n i n g programs, and encouraging networking and information exchange among the 25 l o c a l NGOs. I met Lisa i n July 1992 at the s t a f f retreat right a f t e r she returned from India and I interviewed her i n September. L i s a l e f t Global Faith a few months l a t e r . Gerald refered to tensions between Lisa and many of the s t a f f and explained that he and L i s a had f i n a l l y had a "war" which resulted i n her leaving the organization. During our interview, L i s a only alluded b r i e f l y to t h i s tension i n a comment about f e e l i n g i s o l a t e d during her posting i n India: "I received very l i t t l e feedback and there was very l i t t l e going back and f o r t h from the f i e l d to the Head Of f i c e . " Gerald a t t r i b u t e d the tension surrounding Lisa i n the Head Office to the fact that her motivation for working at Global Faith was d i f f e r e n t from the other s t a f f : "[Lisa] did a superb job i n India - they love her there.. .. [Lisa] sees [Global Faith] as a stepping stone i n her career path. Which i s n ' t bad i n i t s e l f but i t means that she doesn't f i t i n . " I asked L i s a during our interview: "What led you to do t h i s kind of work? E s p e c i a l l y the overseas work?" L i s a r e p l i e d : A r e a l mixture. Partly because I think we f e e l , as a [nuclear] family, that God has said something about helping the poor. So, t h i s i s one way that we can do that and we have f e l t i t a l i t t l e b i t more d i r e c t l y there than here. Part of i t i s an interest i n other people and other cultures so going to l i v e overseas i s a very e x c i t i n g thing so i t i s n ' t just motivated by Christian issues. So, we didn't go because we f e l t God i s c a l l i n g us and a l l the usual sort of jargon that you hear, but i t i s an area of work that we are interested i n . 237 The Workings of the Peg Board The p r o f i l e s presented above help provide a snapshot of the "collage of people" at Global Faith. But, as Gerald said, the people also come together l i k e a peg board with moving pieces. This section examines the structure of Global Faith, the r e s u l t i n g roles and interactions, and the nature of decision-making . The organizational structure of Global Faith i s essentially-f l a t with seven departments d i r e c t l y under the Executive Director, Gerald 6 4. The seven departmental Directors and Gerald together make up the e l i t e Group of Eight. Gerald describes the Group of Eight as one layer i n the organization and the rest of the s t a f f as another layer. "We have two layers i n the organization. And the one layer has eight people and most every decision involves just about every one of those eight people." There i s a close relationship between a l l the departments and each department also has dire c t dealings with the Executive Director. Richard explained: "I relate on a l e v e l to a l l the other people dealing with the various departments i n the organization.... and then I b a s i c a l l y deal d i r e c t l y with the Executive Director." The weekly meetings of the Group of Eight provide a forum for a l l the Directors to interact. Beyond these meetings, there are clusterings of roles or "couplets" [Gerald's term] among the Directors related to overlap i n t h e i r areas of 6 4 Global Faith's organizational chart can be found i n Chapter Three i n the "Data C o l l e c t i o n and Analysis" section. 2 3 8 r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . According to Gerald, these couplets are: Pam and Stan, E l i z a b e t h and Stan, E l i z a b e t h and Richard, Dan and Richard, Asafa and Richard, and Asafa and C h a r l i e . An example of one of these couplets i s E l i z a b e t h and Richard where E l i z a b e t h i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r a i s i n g funds from government and Richard i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r e p o r t i n g back to government. These p a r a l l e l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s w i t h i n an overlapping area can l e a d to t e n s i o n or "panic" as Gerald describes below: [Richard] i s r e a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of programs. [Elizabeth] i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r f i n d i n g funds f o r programs. Obviously, i t leaves a gap. You have a d m i n i s t r a t i o n over here and f i n d i n g funds there. Who decides on the programs? That i s where the wheels g r i n d together. That i s where the panic comes i n . In cases where there i s t e n s i o n from overlapping r o l e s , Gerald sees himself as a "negotiator" between the two people i n the couplet. Asafa explained that Gerald's p a r t i c i p a t i o n as a n e g o t i a t o r can have a moti v a t i n g e f f e c t on the people i n v o l v e d : He i s a l s o able to use p o s i t i v e tensions very w e l l i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n as motivators. So i f there i s t e n s i o n between you and I, he i s able to harness that t e n s i o n f o r a p o s i t i v e end....for example, i f you and I have job d e s c r i p t i o n s which c o n f l i c t - no, I should say which overlap - then i n that o v e r l a p p i n g area, i f we are having a l o t of d i f f i c u l t i e s , he i s able to d i v i d e that up by g e t t i n g us to r e a l i z e what I am stronger at and what you are stronger a t . So there i s s o r t of a l e v e l of mutual respect that i s gained out of that and a l s o s o r t of a win-win type of s i t u a t i o n . And t h e r e f o r e , because you are stronger at that area of the overlapping area, you tend to t r y and work harder and continue to prove t h a t . Three of the departments (Marketing, I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e l a t i o n s , and Systems and Administration) c o n t a i n only the D i r e c t o r of that department and yet there does not seem to be an ethos of i s o l a t i o n or segregation. Even the s t a f f posted overseas 239 f e e l a strong connection to the organization. 6 5 Kevin described t h i s f e e l i n g as "comforting:" Organizationally, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that even though roles are defined here, what we do i s always seen as part of the whole of what we are organizationally.... The whole i s always placed before the i n d i v i d u a l . . . . In terms of being overseas for the organization, that i s of some consequence because you r e a l i z e that even though you're over there and at times can f e e l disconnected, there i s an underlying knowledge and comfort i n the fact that you are connected and that every diverse part of the organization i s part of the whole. Ian compared Global Faith to "the body of Christ with a l l d i f f e r e n t parts and no one part has a l l the truth. Everything i s working together. It i s beautiful to see i t i n action." While no one "has a l l the truth," many s t a f f commented that Gerald was the only one "who sees the whole picture" or "who i s on top of everything." Gerald accomplishes t h i s through mechanisms such as the following order issued i n a memo to a l l the s t a f f (dated June 26, 1990): "Please note, for the 60th time, that a copy of a l l correspondence both external and internal must.come to me. Don't forget." Gerald's awareness of the whole picture does not necessarily mean that he i s involved i n every decision down to the l a s t d e t a i l . Pam described Gerald's role i n decision-making as follows: Certainly as far as s t u f f a f f e c t i n g [Global F a i t h ] , [Gerald] would d e f i n i t e l y have a grip on whatever i s going on. But I mean the smaller things that the Directors are responsible for, he usually knows a l l about them but he probably wouldn't need to be involved. He usually t r i e s to get to see i t once....So with some of the s t u f f , he says: 'I trust you. 6 5 Lisa's description of her posting i n India as i s o l a t e d i s an exception to t h i s f e e l i n g of connection. 240 You decide. You make a d e c i s i o n . ' But other than t h a t , he does have a very good g r i p on what i s going on. Gerald expects the D i r e c t o r s to know what t h e i r own r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s without having to t e l l them. He t o l d me: "I don't enjoy b a b y s i t t i n g . I have t r i e d to f o s t e r i n t e r -dependencies, but not dependencies." However, he does get i n v o l v e d i n decision-making to a greater or l e s s e r extent depending on the department and on the D i r e c t o r . Gerald explained: In overseas programming, I make no d e c i s i o n s . . . . I wouldn't a l l o w myself to make those d e c i s i o n s that I don't have t o . We have i n c r e d i b l y competent l e a d e r s h i p i n that department and that i s what we're about so we'd b e t t e r have t h a t . [In other cases], I would c e r t a i n l y ask a way more questions.... Just my own guts questioning why....So I would f o l l o w the S t r a t e g i c Plan q u i t e c l o s e l y and ask the questions. Richard, D i r e c t o r of the Overseas Programs Department, confirmed Gerald's l a c k of involvement i n h i s department: "On the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e side of things i n the Overseas Programs Department, I b a s i c a l l y have a blank cheque to operate." Stan, D i r e c t o r of Communications and Fund Development, commented on h i s i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h Gerald d e s c r i b i n g a s i t u a t i o n of g r e a t e r involvement: "Sometimes, [Gerald] won't give you enough rope. H e ' l l be asking you every second day to come to a meeting to account f o r what you are doing and you don't have any time to do anything because you're busy i n meetings e x p l a i n i n g what you are doing." The r o l e of Executive D i r e c t o r gives Gerald g r e a t e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and hence, more a u t h o r i t y . However, Gerald a l s o i n s i s t e d that everyone i s "equal:" 241 A textbook would say don't ever get caught saying everyone i s equal, because they're not. I have no doubt that we are equal. I also have no doubt that we have roles i n t h i s organization. My role indicates that I am responsible. I don't think that I am more important than [the secretary], but I sure as heck have a d i f f e r e n t role. I can't pretend that I don't have more authority. Gerald uses his authority i n group decision-making situations, which occur often at Global Faith. In addition to the Group of Eight (the Strategic Planning Committee), there are four other committees that meet regularly: the Program Steering Committee, the Finance Committee, the Publications Committee, and the Marketing Committee. Gerald chose the Chair and the members of each committee himself. The Program Steering Committee i s chaired by Richard and consists of Gerald, Asafa, Dan, and Elizabeth. This committee meets f o r t n i g h t l y to review current and completed overseas projects and to recommend new projects for approval. 6 5 New projects are written up i n report format and are c i r c u l a t e d for approval to a l l the members of the committee. Asafa explained that "usually everyone [on the Program Steering Committee] does approve i t because by then, i t has already been worked through. When i t comes to the paper-flow situation, i t i s usually a formality because there i s consensus and there i s agreement that people are going to approve the program." Asafa chairs the Finance Committee and Gerald, Dan, and 6 6 Recommendations go to the Executive Director, Gerald, who has the authority to approve projects that are under $200,000 (or use less than $25,000 of general public funds). Otherwise, Board approval i s required. 242 Richard are the members. This committee looks at the amount of money expected to be coming i n (e.g., from CIDA for programs) and the amount that w i l l be spent on overseas programs before year end. According to Gerald, c a l c u l a t i n g future bank balances i s important because the Board wants to see a healthy bank balance even though i t i s committed money. The . Publications Committee i s chaired by Elizabeth who also acts as Gerald's designate on the committee. Other members are Dan, Pam, Richard, Stan, and two other people who are not part of the Group of Eight (one i s a secretary who has been given more r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n writing the monthly appeal l e t t e r s and the other i s the l o c a l Provincial Director). Richard was asked to be on t h i s committee to confirm that the contents of the newsletter and the monthly reports are factual (with respect to overseas programs). Pam i s responsible for graphics and design. The P r o v i n c i a l Director i s i n close contact with the churches of the region and Stan gives the fundraising perspective. Dan s i t s on t h i s committee as another designate of Gerald or an alternate Chair. Drafts of the material to be considered by the Committee are c i r c u l a t e d before the meeting and comments are returned to the Chair, Elizabeth. One of the c r i t e r i a for approval that i s considered by committee members i s whether there i s enough "Christian content" i n the material. Meetings are scheduled to coincide with various publications or mailouts during the year. The Marketing Committee i s chaired by Pam, Director of Marketing. Gerald, Stan, and Ian are also members of the 2 4 3 committee. This committee looks at projections for what the Pro v i n c i a l Directors are expected to raise from the general public. They also discuss various options for advertisements i n magazines and newspapers (e.g., Faith Today) weighing that against a concern that donors might think they were spending too much on publications. Gerald views his role i n the Group of Eight and on the various committees as the person with the authority to determine whether there i s enough agreement to proceed with a decision. The content of the decision i s worked out by the group as a whole and then Gerald " r a t i f i e s " the decision or "makes sure that we don't make a decision" i f there i s not enough consensus. When a group of people s i t around, one of the decisions that I have to make i s the decision regarding whether there i s consensus i n the room or not. I know that when there i s consensus, i t usually i s n ' t based just on money. Money might k i l l i t . No money might k i l l i t right up front. But once you get into discussions about everything and sundry and i n the end, there w i l l be a decision based on whether they think i t w i l l be a good idea. You know or something. I don't know how you word that. But i t i s there. It i s important to Gerald to proceed only i f there i s consensus among the group because without i t , "you end up destroying each other and you destroy the program." Gerald defines consensus as "pretty darn close to unanimous.... Each and every one has to own the whole copy....So i t i s not just one piece of a plot of land that each of you are going to buy. Each of you are buying the whole plot of land." Asafa also explained to me the importance of consensus i n decision-making at Global Faith: "In a team si t u a t i o n , when you want minimal disruption and you want maximum 2 4 4 support for the decision that has been made, you have to go by consensus....We can't afford to have disruption here. When you c u l t i v a t e a relationship with people, you c u l t i v a t e a team. And once you have c u l t i v a t e d the team, you want the team to be happy and stay together." Asafa pointed out the relat i o n s h i p between the framing of issues that come before a group and success at achieving consensus: There are areas which are not within reach of the Group of Eight [e.g., sensitive personnel issues]. However, with whatever i s within reach and I guess that maybe that i s the key: i f you define i t properly, then you would have no problem getting consensus decisions because those with which you have c o n f l i c t , you have separated them. Maybe that i s the key to our success. Maybe that i s our uniqueness. I don't know. Gerald attributed the high l e v e l of consensus decision-making at Global Faith to the cohesive nature of the group and to t h e i r s i m i l a r v i s i o n s . "The wind blowing i s always i n the same di r e c t i o n . There i s a non-orchestrated energy. If we had no Strategic Plan and no organized plan of attack, we would s t i l l be going the same way." This "non-orchestrated energy" comes from a commitment to the same cause: We're a group of people here who seem to have a strong enough commitment to a cause and I hate to make i t corny and use 'compassion' and a l l those terms, but there i s something - I can't compare i t to others, but I know that i t i s here. And I know that the people, by the grace of God both to me as well as out there, would do r i g h t . . . . I f you lose your sense of compassion, you then are up the creek and you are just doing i t for the money so you have a nine to f i v e job....In many of the organizations, you'd be there nine to f i v e . That i s your job. You're i n a union and you go home. And that i s your career path. You know, you quit t h i s one and you go to that one and then you go to that one. I don't think that i s the way to operate. I think there has to be enough of a commitment to the poor that you see t h i s as a vehicle to have that f u l f i l l e d . And therefore, you are 245 [Global Faith] and [Global Faith] i s you. E l i z a b e t h echoed Gerald's view: "We always have our r a i s o n d'etre i n mind. We have a commitment to something other than j u s t having a job." An entry i n the Marketing Plan puts i t i n even stronger terms: As C h r i s t i a n s we b e l i e v e God has a hand i n what we do. Our m o t i v a t i o n i s God's compassion. I f you don't t h i n k t h i s i s where you should be, you shouldn't be here. During one of the t r a i n i n g sessions, Ian explained to me: " [ G l o b a l Faith] does not pay good wages. We want people w i t h compassion. Not people who are a f t e r the money. S a l a r i e s here are below market value." Gerald i s wary of s t a f f viewing t h e i r work at Global F a i t h as j u s t a nine to f i v e job or a stepping stone on t h e i r career path because he wants to avoid high turnover of s t a f f . When people leave the o r g a n i z a t i o n , "you l o s e the synergy every time. I t doesn't mean you shouldn't expand or a l l o w new thought i n , but you l o s e the sense of common task and morale and being able t o deal w i t h each other honestly." With the exception of Pam, the members of the Group of Eight have a l l been at Global F a i t h f o r ten or more years. Asafa pondered why most of the s t a f f have stayed so long at G l o b a l F a i t h : "I t h i n k people stay because at l e a s t there i s one common denominator. I t may not be the sole motivator of everybody but that common motivator i s as C h r i s t i a n s coming together and saying: 'Look, l e t ' s help these people.'" 246 A View from the I n s i d e This chapter and the two preceding ones have traced the journey that I took at Global Faith - learning from the outside i n . Now, with a view from the inside, i t i s possible to imagine the organization, i t s people, t h e i r concerns and inte r a c t i o n s . Descriptions of the history, ideology and operations of Global Fai t h have provided clues about the complex interplay between the i d e n t i t i e s of the s t a f f as Christians, the congruence between t h e i r personal and organizational goals, the central role of the Executive Director, and the organization's a f f l i a t i o n s with a v a r i e t y of stakeholders with p o t e n t i a l l y c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s . I have addressed the f i r s t research question concerning the e s s e n t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Global Faith as a context for planning nonformal adult education programs i n overseas development projects. I have also dealt with the second research question by providing a general description of the planning and decision-making processes and the nature of the interactions of the people involved i n planning. While the t h i r d research question concerning the intentions, interpretations, and strategies of the people involved i n planning has been foreshadowed i n the preceeding three chapters, i t i s time to push the i n v e s t i g a t i o n further by focusing on s p e c i f i c examples or episodes of planning and by examining variations across these episodes. The next chapter draws on the conceptual framework l a i d out i n Chapter Two i n order to make sense of the descriptive accounts 2 4 7 given i n Chapters Four, Five and Six. In addition to drawing together the fundamental attributes of the Global Faith context through the use of Martin's (1992) "cu l t u r a l puzzle" matrix, s p e c i f i c episodes of planning i l u s t r a t i n g the negotiation of meaning are presented and analyzed. The fourth research question concerning the relationship between the NGO organizational context, the process of planning, and planners' perspectives i s also examined. 248 CHAPTER SEVEN: GLOBAL FAITH CULTURES AND THE NEGOTIATION OF MEANING It i s perhaps well to remember that NGOs also have i n s t i t u t i o n a l interests to protect, c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r n a l views to reconcile, and a d i f f i c u l t task of s t r i v i n g for organizational coherence while remaining responsive to a multitude of needs and pressures. (Brodhead & Herbert-Copley, 1988, p.70) This chapter i s divided into three main sections. The f i r s t section integrates the descriptions woven throughout the three previous chapters and summarizes the data through the use of Martin's (1992) matrix framework.67 The completed matrices, which are organized around content themes corresponding to the f i v e tenets of NGO behaviour, provide a basis for thinking about "context" i n a v a r i e t y of ways. The context of Global Faith i s analyzed as "cultures" and i s examined through three d i f f e r e n t lenses: 1) the integration perspective focusing on consistency, c l a r i t y , and organization-wide consensus; 2) the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n perspective high l i g h t i n g contradictions and c o n f l i c t ; and 3) the fragmentation perspective revealing confusion, ambiguity and paradox. The second section of t h i s chapter focuses on planning at Global Fa i t h whereby planning i s viewed as the negotiation of 6 7 Martin's (1992) matrix framework for analyzing organizational cultures i s presented i n the Conceptual Framework section of Chapter Two. 249 meaning. S p e c i f i c planning episodes 6 8 i l l u s t r a t i n g the negotiation of meaning at Global Faith are presented using the organizing framework developed i n Chapter Two. These episodes involve negotiations with CIDA, general public donors, the Board of Directors, overseas partner organizations, and the s t a f f of Global Faith. Each episode occurs within and enacts a c u l t u r a l context that corresponds to one of the three subjectively perceived "ideal types" of organizational cultures (Martin, 1992) . F i n a l l y , the t h i r d section of t h i s chapter uses the organizing framework again for a comparison and analysis of the negotiation of meaning episodes. A C u l t u r a l P u zzle To t h i s point I have described Global Faith i n terms of i t s public documents, physical layout, overseas programs, history, C h r i s t i a n foundation, formal and informal decision-making practices, fundraising strategies, and external r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I have also presented p r o f i l e s of Global Faith people involved i n organizational decision-making and discussed the nature of t h e i r interactions. So far, the data have been organized along a path t r a v e l l e d from the outside to the inside, from the o f f i c i a l to the u n o f f i c i a l , and from the simple to the complex. The structuring of the data chapters around a journey t r a v e l l e d from 6 8 I am using the term "episode" to refer to "an incident or series of related events i n the course of a continuous experience" (The Oxford English Dictionary, 1989, p.337). 250 the outside i n p a r a l l e l e d the evolution i n my own thinking about context and the process of planning. Through my increased awareness of the dynamics of planning at Global Faith, I came to see "context" as "cultures" and the "process of planning" as including the "negotiation of meaning." In t h i s section, I assemble a l l the data pieces into a " c u l t u r a l puzzle" (Martin, 1992, p.37) according to a d i f f e r e n t organizing scheme: one that focuses on the content themes revolving around the f i v e tenets of NGO behavior discussed i n Chapter One. The tenets of autonomy, altruism, cooperation, p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and e f f i c i e n c y are commonly held and d e l i b e r a t e l y espoused by NGOs. Global Faith content themes r e l a t i n g to these tenets and the corresponding c u l t u r a l practices and forms are presented using Martin's (1992) matrix framework i n the f i v e tables below. These matrices are not meant as a complete set of manifestations of Global Faith cultures. There are more themes than the f i v e that have been included and more d e t a i l s concerning forms and practices could have been added to the themes that were included. It i s also important to note that application of the three perspectives - integration, d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , and fragmentation - y i e l d s subjective interpretations of Global Fa i t h cultures. These interpretations are based on what I saw and heard and did at Global Faith and on what the people of Global Faith showed me and t o l d me and assigned to me. The various c u l t u r a l contexts are " r e a l " i n the sense of being perceived as such by me and by the people of Global Faith. Furthermore, our perceptions 251 may not necessarily completely coincide. I may interpret manifestations of Global Faith cultures i n ways that they were not aware of or i n ways that they would not a l l agree with. The f i v e matrices are presented below. Then, the c u l t u r a l contexts of Global Faith are described three times: according to the integration perspective, the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n perspective, and the fragmentation perspective. Each view of Global F a i t h cultures interprets the patterns of c u l t u r a l manifestations within each of the f i v e matrices. In other words, each of the f i v e matrices i s discussed from within each of the three perspectives (resulting i n 15 sub-sections). G l o b a l F a i t h : An I n t e g r a t i o n View The defining c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an integration perspective of organizational cultures are as follows: " a l l c u l t u r a l manifestations mentioned are interpreted as consistently r e i n f o r c i n g the same themes, a l l members' of the organization are said to share i n an organization-wide consensus, and the culture i s described as a realm where a l l i s clear. Ambiguity i s excluded" (Martin, 1992, p.12). Patterns of consensus, consistency, and c l a r i t y can be found both within and across the matrices. Each matrix revolves around one of the f i v e tenets of NGO behaviour: autonomy, altrusim, cooperation, p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and e f f i c i e n c y . These are discussed i n turn below. 252 Autonomy Themes related to Global Faith's relationship with CIDA and declarations of autonomy from government (Table 7.1) are echoed i n Global Faith's practices such as i n i t i a t i n g a new sponsorship program without r e l y i n g on government funds. The i n t e r n a l l y espoused theme of "we get money from them to do what we want to do" i s consistent with the practice of continuing with core programming with the long-term partners overseas regardless of how much CIDA funding i s available. Symbolic consistency i s also evident i n Table 7.1: the uncertainty of CIDA funding i s r e f l e c t e d and reinforced through stories and rumours about "huge changes" at CIDA. Altruism The content themes grouped around the tenet of altruism (Table 7.2) are a l l linked to the cohesive C h r i s t i a n ideology 6 9 of Global Faith. This ideology serves as a type of s o c i a l cement; ensuring organization-wide consensus on values and basic assumptions. The set of basic assumptions underlying the evangelical C h r i s t i a n b e l i e f s help define for the people of Global Faith "what to pay attention to, what things mean, how to react emotionally to what i s going on, and what actions to take i n various kinds of situations" (Schein, 1992, p.22). The Statement of Faith - and the discouragement of r e l i g i o u s 6 9 Ideology here refers to a system of thought or b e l i e f rendering "an emotionally charged orientation that provides a basis for taking a position" (Weiss, 1995, p.575). 253 TABLE 7.1: MANIFESTATIONS OF GLOBAL FAITH CULTURES - AUTONOMY THEMES CONTENT THEMES PRACTICES FORMS E x t e r n a l (Internal) Formal (Informal) S t o r i e s / R i t u a l / J a r g o n / P h y s i c a l Arrangements "government funding i n i t i a t e d a "CIDA i s such an octopus - i t i s hard to i n h i b i t s the sponsorship/linkage get a handle on i t " r e a l i z a t i o n o f program which i s G l o b a l F a i t h ' s not e l i g i b l e f o r "CIDA i s n ' t only r u l e s , i t i s a l s o people" V i s i o n Statement" CIDA funding rumours: "there are huge changes at CIDA (CIDA i s GF's CIDA funding and no one knows what they are" "biggest donor") determines the amount but not the (sense of confusion nature of core or murkiness i n programming dealings w i t h CIDA) overseas (CIDA funding i s CIDA i s not uncertain) i n v o l v e d i n every p r o j e c t - "we don't ("we get money from want them funding them to do what we everything" want to do") (access funding where we can i n CIDA and keep up the r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) 254 TABLE 7.2: MANIFESTATIONS OF GLOBAL FAITH CULTURES - ALTRUISM THEMES CONTENT THEMES External (Internal] PRACTICES Formal (Informal) FORMS Stories/Ritual/Jargon/Physical Arrangements GF "seeks to be of s e r v i c e through i t s M i n i s t r y to the people of the de v e l o p i n g world" "compassion fuels overseas projects" "We are not into p r o s e l y t i z a t i o n " "We show that God's love i s r e a l " (disagreement about whether GF should "go out and be evangelists i n overseas projects") (confusion about meaning of "the neglected poor") (fundraising i s a "ministry" - to teach people how to give) Statement of Faith, V i s i o n Statement, Prayer Calendars Executive Director a former Minister Board/staff a l l evangelical C h r i s t i a n (overseas projects for "needy non-Christians ") (fundraising focused on Chri s t i a n communities) (steer away from p u b l i c i z i n g that target groups have "varying b e l i e f s " ) (religous debates are discouraged) ("not l i m i t e d by results") "A l o t of stuff happens by the Grace of God" (story re increase i n CIDA allocation) "Lord, thank-you for allowing us to plan" yearly Retreat with strong religous focus Monday morning s t a f f meeting: prayer session for "our projects and people, " reading from the Bible, mini-sermon regularly scheduled events (Banquets, Board meetings, etc.) a l l "blessed" with prayers three senior s t a f f : "the Holy T r i n i t y " "I don't want them to think God solves a l l t h e i r problems" "Whoever i s kind to the needy, honours God" "my goal i n l i f e i s to help people -working here gives me an avenue for doing that" "I am s t r i v i n g to l i v e a C h r i s t - l i k e l i f e " "I don't see how we can not try and do something to help" 255 TABLE 7.3: MANIFESTATIONS OF GLOBAL FAITH CULTURES - COOPERATION THEMES CONTENT THEMES PRACTICES FORMS External (Internal) Formal (Informal) Stories/Ritual/Jargon/Physical Arrangements overseas p r o j e c t s partnership mode "their stories are our s t o r i e s " are "people-centred" s t a f f v i s i t s abroad "partners are hands and feet of Vision" (overseas projects are necessary for Regional O f f i c e s : b e n e f i c i a r i e s are "the neglected poor" survival of the support/liaison organization: "meat "we exist for the poor and oppressed" and potatoes") projects are i n i t i a t e d by "dedicated to working alongside the poor" (overseas projects: requests from l o c a l "raison d'etre") representatives to partners: "can we be soul mates?" (relationship with partners based on trust) (relationship with partners "to maintain excitment" and to access st o r i e s to help with fundraising) ("shield" instead of control partners) ( p r i o r i t y to C h r i s t i a n groups) 2 5 6 TABLE 7.4: MANIFESTATIONS OF GLOBAL FAITH CULTURES - PARTICIPATION THEMES CONTENT THEMES PRACTICES FORMS External (Internal) Formal (Informal) Stories/Ritual/Jargon/Physical Arrangements "challenge, educate country p r o f i l e s "Canadian compassion and resources fuel and i n v o l v e North and project reports projects" Americans r e g a r d i n g are included with development i s s u e s " appeal l e t t e r s "they may forget what you said, but they w i l l never forget how you made them f e e l " GF's development "encourage education i s "to Christian values to donors: "you are the reason GF can touch provide Canadians through Pro-Tech the l i v e s of so many i n such a C h r i s t - l i k e with the resources volunteers" way" to better understand the issues "increase the banquet an "evening of i n s p i r a t i o n and surrounding poverty number of persons information regarding the ministry of GF" and development i n informed about developing Third World needs" "you need disaster i n the world i f you want countries" to raise money" (friendship ("donors are the marketing strategy only e f f i c i e n t way i n fundraising) of achieving the Vision Statement") ("donors buy into philosophic (fundraising i s an statements") industry and a ministry) (fundraising and development education are "the same thing") 257 TABLE 7.5: MANIFESTATIONS OF GLOBAL FAITH CULTURES - EFFICIENCY THEMES CONTENT THEMES PRACTICES FORMS External (Internal) Formal (Informal) Stories/Ritual/Jargon/Physical Arrangements ("Money i s the changed structure story about sabbatical year f i n a n c i a l bottom l i n e " ) to separate f i n a n c i a l control c r i s i s ("Without money, we from project story about f i r s t Retreat which was cannot exist - management organized to talk about how to improve the however noble the f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n cause") i n i t i a t e d Strategic Plan (to be able to spartan, scruffy o f f i c e environment ("paradox: we need anticipate disaster i n the f i n a n c i a l problems) o f f i c e s i n two old houses "to keep overhead world to raise low" and "to stay humble" money") cut back s a l a r i e s and delayed ("We t a l k about payments to r a i s i n g money and partners during cutting costs at the c r i s i s same time -everything we do ("fundraising i s an contradicts industry") everything") ("method acting" to ("when there i s remember why consensus, i t "you're f ight ing usually i s n ' t based for money") just on money") 258 debates - helps people at a l l lev e l s of Global Faith to agree (or avoid disagreements) about p o t e n t i a l l y d i v i s i v e denominational issues. Group i d e n t i t y i s also strengthened through the recruitment of an a l l Christian s t a f f and Board. This s e l e c t i v e recruitment means that s o c i a l i z a t i o n for roles within Global Fai t h has already been accomplished outside the organization through membership i n evangelical churches. The "preparatory s o c i a l i z a t i o n " reduces the amount of s o c i a l i z a t i o n that Global Faith i t s e l f must address and increases the l i k e l i h o o d that Global Fa i t h s t a f f w i l l stay morally committed to the organization (Etzioni, 1961). The d i s t i n c t i o n between personal v i s i o n and organizational v i s i o n i s diminished by the overarching Ch r i s t i a n ideology. As Elizabeth said: "I have a hard time separating a v i s i o n of [Global Faith] from my personal v i s i o n . I'm not saying t h i s l i g h t l y or facetiously. If [Global Faith's] v i s i o n wasn't my v i s i o n , then why would I be here?" Global Faith's V i s i o n Statement i s c a r r i e d out through informal practices such as deciding to implement an overseas program i n order to "express love to these people" even i f there were no expected "tangible r e s u l t s . " Gerald explained how the Ch r i s t i a n foundation of Global Fai t h focuses t h e i r work and holds them together: It a l l comes down to: s t i c k to your k n i t t i n g and that k n i t t i n g we s t i c k to i s what we believe we're c a l l e d to do. And secondly, we s t i c k together. The cohesive nature of the group i s fostered through the language of prayer (symbolic consistency) and commitment to a common 259 r e l i g i o u s cause of "extending Christ's compassion." Gerald commented on t h i s cohesiveness: "there i s something bred i n us a a group. We understand each other. We are not unknowns." Cooperation Patterns of c l a r i t y and consistency are also found i n Table 7.3 which focuses on themes r e l a t i n g to the tenet of cooperation The espoused theme of "people-centred projects" i s consistent with the practice of a partnership mode overseas and with the expectation that projects are i n i t i a t e d by requests from l o c a l representatives. V i s i t s and postings abroad further reinforce t h i s theme through face-to-face interactions among Global Fa i t h s t a f f members, overseas partner organizations s t a f f members, and representatives of beneficiary populations. Jargon such as "we exist for the poor and oppressed" and "we are dedicated to working alongside the poor" show a concern for people and a grass-roots approach to development. Relationships with partners are based on trust and a f e e l i n g of a f f i n i t y : partners are considered to be "soul mates." P a r t i c i p a t i o n The tenet of p a r t i c i p a t i o n refers to the involvement of Canadians i n NGO a c t i v i t i e s as volunteers, donors, or as part i c i p a n t s i n development education programs. Table 7.4 shows action consistency for t h i s theme; appeal l e t t e r s include educational material such as country p r o f i l e s or excerpts from 2 6 0 project reports. Professional-technical ("pro-tech") volunteers are placed overseas and opportunities are available for Canadian youth to p a r t i c i p a t e i n and contribute to overseas projects through summer t r i p s abroad led by Global Faith s t a f f . Jargon such as "Canadian compassion and resources fuel projects" also reinforces the theme of involving Canadians. E f f i c i e n c y F i n a l l y , Table 7.5 on the tenet of e f f i c i e n c y also contains patterns of action and symbolic consistency. The recognition that "money i s the bottom l i n e " i s r e f l e c t e d through the organizational structure of Global Faith ( f i n a n c i a l control and project management are separate) and the implementation of a Strategic Plan. The f i n a n c i a l c r i s i s story, the f i r s t Retreat story, and the spartan and low cost surroundings, show symbolic consistency with the theme of e f f i c i e n c y . G l o b a l F a i t h : A D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n View The d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n perspective takes apart the mask of "apparently seamless u n i t i e s " of the integration perspective to uncover a "series of overlapping, nested organizational subcultures. These subcultures co-exist, sometimes i n harmony, sometimes i n c o n f l i c t , and sometimes i n indifference to each other" (Martin, 1992, p.83). The workings of power, inconsistencies, and differences of opinion can be acknowledged from within t h i s perspective as essential elements of Global 261 Faith culture. Returning once again to the f i v e tables with the lens of the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n perspective, d i f f e r e n t patterns come into focus. Each matrix i s discussed i n turn below. Autonomy In Table 7.1, CIDA's role as Global Faith's "biggest donor" leads to a power imbalance i n i t s dealings with Global Faith. As Richard said, "CIDA can demand of us things and we have to do i t - but we r e a l l y can't demand anything of them....though we can influence over time what they demand from us." There i s i d e o l o g i c a l inconsistency between the theme of autonomy from government and the reliance on CIDA as the biggest donor. Altrusim Ideological inconsistencies are also v i s i b l e . i n Table 7.2 on altruism: there i s disagreement about whether Global Faith's role overseas - as a "Ministry" - should include p r o s e l y t i z a t i o n or not. The fact that r e l i g i o u s debates are discouraged and the reference to three senior s t a f f members as "the Holy T r i n i t y " reveals a p o t e n t i a l "underbelly of c o n f l i c t " (Martin, 1992, p.87) beyond the rhetoric of cohesiveness. While the integration perspective focused on the cohesive nature of Global Faith's C h r i s t i a n foundation, the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n perspective points to the exclusionary, protective nature of Global Faith as a C h r i s t i a n organization. In addition to the p o l i c y of r e c r u i t i n g only C h r i s t i a n s t a f f , there 262 i s an i m p l i c i t attitude of intolerance toward anyone who chooses to hover at the circumference. A clear i l l u s t r a t i o n of t h i s was Gerald's evident displeasure when one of the summer s t a f f members chose not to attend a Monday morning prayer meeting even though he was on the premises. Gerald commented c r i t i c a l l y on his absence and said to the rest of the s t a f f seated around the table: "Either you're i n or you're not." Furthermore, the p r i n c i p l e of pluralism espoused through statements about the non-denominational status of Global Faith can be seen as an e s s e n t i a l l y u t i l i t a r i a n construct b e n e f i t t i n g the powerful. Murphy (1991) explains t h i s aspect of pluralism: It promotes a norm of tolerance and mutual existence among a se l f - d e f i n e d majority. Its purpose i s to maintain the strength and survival of the defined group by tempering in t e r n a l c o n f l i c t s . It does not r e f l e c t a commitment to the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of those who do not share membership i n , and the values of, the majority group. Pluralism sustains and defends an i m p l i c i t common denominator, such as economic intere s t s , ideology, ethnicity, birthplace, or gender, i t r a r e l y promotes an openness to other experiences, backgrounds or b e l i e f s . The l i m i t s to pluralism are defined by the most powerful, and the commitment to pluralism r a r e l y survives divergence among, or a challenge to, the s e l f -i n t e r e s t s of those who espouse i t . (p.198) Cooperation According to the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n perspective, the Group of Eight could be seen as a type of "enhancing subculture" within Global Fa i t h made up of a hand-picked team of "true believers" (Martin, 1992, p.89), while the s t a f f excluded from t h i s e l i t e group, such as Kevin or Lisa, would belong to a counterculture of resistance. Consensus i s encouraged as a decision-making norm at 263 Global Faith, but not consistently across the organization. Consensus and cooperation are expected mainly within the Group of Eight and i n interactions with partner organizations. P a r t i c i p a t i o n The espoused theme of providing Canadians with "the resources to better understand the issues surrounding poverty and development" could be seen as inconsistent with the practice of "encouraging Ch r i s t i a n values" i n the volunteer programs. Development education and fundraising are viewed as "the same thing" and fundraising i s considered to be a "ministry." This means that development education programs are also considered to be a "ministry." D i s c i p l i n i n g the soul of the giver i s a di f f e r e n t emphasis than increasing understanding of the issues surrounding poverty. E f f i c i e n c y Contradictions are also apparent i n Table 7.5 on the theme of e f f i c i e n c y . Whereas "money i s the bottom l i n e , " consensus decisions within the Group of Eight about which overseas programs to implement are "not based just on money." The goal of cutting costs can contradict the goal of r a i s i n g money. E f f o r t put into r a i s i n g money can also contradict the a l t r u i s t i c mindset. As Gerald said: "You can do nothing without money so you're t r y i n g to address that a l l the time. The problem with addressing i t a l l the time i s you forget why you're doing i t . " 264 G l o b a l F a i t h : A Fragmentation View The shortcomings of the oppositional mode of thinking inherent i n the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n perspective are uncovered through the fragmentation perspective. Interests are not always c l e a r l y c o n f l i c t i n g i n a polarized fashion, and interactions are not necessarily based on unequal power d i s t r i b u t i o n s . With the fragmentation perspective, the manifestations of Global F a i t h cultures can be seen as multifaceted, complex, and ambiguous with "t h e i r meanings hard to decipher and necessarily open to multiple interpretations" (Martin, 1992, p.132). Autonomy In Table 7.1 on autonomy, a paradox i s apparent within the content themes. On the one hand, "government funding i n h i b i t s r e a l i z a t i o n of Global Faith's Vision Statement" and yet, on the other hand, government money enables Global Faith "to do what we want to do." In addition to t h i s ambiguity, there i s confusion and "murkiness" i n Global Faith's dealings with CIDA. The l a b e l of "octopus" further reinforces the sense of slipperiness surrounding the interpretations of CIDA regulations and r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Altrusim Table 7.2 on altruism contains examples of symbolic ambiguity within Global Faith. The story r e f e r i n g to the increase 265 i n CIDA funding due to "the Grace of God" can have multiple meanings depending on who i s t e l l i n g the story. One person could t e l l the story implying that Global Faith received an increase i n funding - and other NGOs did not - because they were more "deserving" i n the s p i r i t u a l or religous sense. Another in t e r p r e t a t i o n could be that they were "deserving" i n the eyes of CIDA because of good planning - planning that was "allowed" to happen through the "Grace of God." Cooperation Another example of ide o l o g i c a l ambiguity can be found i n Table 7.3 on cooperation. It i s not clear whether overseas projects are i n place to perpetuate and nourish the organization ("meat and potatoes") or whether the organization i s i n place because of the overseas projects ("our raison d'etre"). Relationships with partners are needed for the implementation of overseas programs. Relationships with partners are also seen as necessary for producing material to be used i n fundraising. While not contradictory, there i s confusion about which role i s more important. There i s also confusion underlying the practice of t r y i n g to "shield" partner organizations from funding agency requirements by helping them with report and proposal writing together with the practice of encouraging partners to i n i t i a t e projects. If Global Faith i s doing the paper work and the paper work i s a vehicle for i n i t i a t i n g projects, how are projects being " i n i t i a t e d by requests from l o c a l representatives?" 2 6 6 P a r t i c i p a t i o n Table 7.4 on p a r t i c i p a t i o n also contains elements of confusion. The story about donors and how "they may forget what you said, but they w i l l never forget how you made them f e e l " puts an emphasis on the emotional impact of fundraising and development education. It i s not clear how a heightened l e v e l of emotional awareness contributes to the goal of "providing Canadians with the resources to better understand the issues surrounding poverty and development." Is emotional engagement a necessary component of "understanding?" E f f i c i e n c y Another paradox appears i n Table 7.5 on e f f i c i e n c y . Money i s necessary to address the cause of "the poor and oppressed" and yet, the poor and oppressed and disaster are necessary i n order to rai s e the money. What i s "the bottom l i n e " at Global Faith: money or compassion? Both? Neither? The fragmentation perspective acknowledges that questions such as these may not have clear and simple answers. One s t a f f member summed up t h i s paradox: "[Global Faith] cannot afford to lose sight of people but money i s the bottom l i n e i n order for the organization to e x i s t . I w i l l always struggle with the interplay between the two." This section presented views of Global Faith cultures from within the three perspectives and has shown that "the idea that any organization has a single culture, understood i n the same way by a l l i t s members, seems oversimplified" (Martin, 1992, p.5). A 267 deeper understanding of organizational cultures can be obtained by crossing and going beyond each perspective's boundaries. The people of Global Faith themselves spoke and acted i n ways that can be seen as congruent with any or a l l three perspectives. For example, i n the group settings that I observed, Gerald frequently focused on what i s agreed upon within Global Faith. On other occasions, Gerald would point to a perceived paradox and pose questions that had no clear answers to the group. I also heard Gerald acknowledge inconsistencies across Global F a i t h practices and r e f e r to personality and role c o n f l i c t s . While Gerald's perceptions, interpretations, and actions - and indeed those of a l l the people of Global Faith - varied to the extent that they can not be completely "captured" by looking through the lens of a single perspective, i t i s s t i l l possible to associate the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a primary perspective with s p e c i f i c interactions and episodes of planning at Global Faith. Any given episode may be interpreted from within a l l three perspectives. However, i f the actors involved i n the episode themselves highlight or focus upon consensus or consistency, t h e i r own interpretations of the c u l t u r a l context would be congruent with the integration perspective. The perceptions of the people involved and the ways that they interpret and act upon these interpretations together constitute the c u l t u r a l context for that p a r t i c u l a r episode. The section below describes d i f f e r e n t planning episodes at Global Faith - each occuring within and acting upon a d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l context. 2 6 8 The N e g o t i a t i o n of Meaning at G l o b a l F a i t h The b r i e f look at Global Faith cultures through the lenses of the three perspectives i n the previous section sets the stage for a closer examination of the relationship between the c u l t u r a l contexts and the process of planning at Global Faith. A deep understanding of t h i s relationship can be achieved by viewing the process of planning as the negotiation of meaning. Five episodes of the negotiation of meaning at Global Faith are presented i l l u s t r a t i n g the l i n k s between the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the c u l t u r a l contexts and the relationship between the negotiating parties, the two dimensions of meaning (as text and sub-text), and the negotiation process and outcomes. Four of these episodes include Global Faith's interactions with forces outside organizational boundaries - each with t h e i r own set of demands -that control resources necessary to Global Faith's s u r v i v a l : 1. CIDA (provider of f i n a n c i a l resources - matching funds and grants); 2. g e n e r a l p u b l i c donors (providers of f i n a n c i a l resources -donations); 3. the Board of D i r e c t o r s (provider of human c a p i t a l resources - approval of policy, budgets, and project plans); 4. overseas p a r t n e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s (provider of human c a p i t a l resources - implementation of projects, and l i n k between donors and b e n e f i c i a r i e s ) . Gerald often talked about the various pressures from these four groups and used phrases l i k e "putting up with a l l the crap and manipulations" which points to his perception of the d i f f i c u l t nature of NGO work. Gerald also commented on the interdependencies within the relationships between Global F a i t h 269 and each group. 7 0 While each group provides resources that Global F a i t h needs, Global Faith also provides resources or services needed by the groups themselves. For example, CIDA needs Global F a i t h as a capable NGO that has the capacity to manage and implement overseas programs with the funds provided by CIDA. The general public donors need Global Faith as an organization that can execute t h e i r desires and make t h e i r feelings of compassion concrete. The Board of Directors needs Global Faith as an organization that can implement t h e i r p o l i c y . Overseas partner organizations need Global Faith as an organization that can provide f i n a n c i a l and technical resources. This interdependence and the po t e n t i a l for r e c i p r o c i t y means that power i s shared between Global Faith and each of the groups and that the interactions described below can be properly characterized as negotiations. The f i f t h episode focuses on Gerald's s t y l e of leadership and how i t aff e c t s negotiations both within and outside the organization. Gerald also sees the relationships among s t a f f within Global Faith as being interdependent. For example, Gerald talk s about "couplets" and overlapping roles and the fact that he has " t r i e d to foster interdependencies" among the s t a f f . The episodes presented i n t h i s chapter are organized according to the framework for understanding negotiation of meaning episodes discussed i n Chapter Two. The categories i n the 7 0 Gerald provided these comments on the interdependent nature of these relationships during the process of respondent v a l i d a t i o n . 2 7 0 framework provide the sub-section headings for each episode and are as follows: - Planning A c t i v i t y - Decision-Needing Issue - Characteristics of the Cultural Context - Negotiating Parties - Characteristics of the Relationship - Negotiation of Meaning Episode (the Story) - Meaning as Text - Meaning as Sub-Text - Charact e r i s t i c s of the Negotiation Process - Negotiation Outcome Episode Number One: N e g o t i a t i n g w i t h the Canadian I n t e r n a t i o n a l Development Agency Planning A c t i v i t y The planning a c t i v i t y related to t h i s episode i s the process of securing and maintaining government funding through the submission of a proposal and completion of f i n a l reports. Decision-Needing Issue In the process of carrying out the planning a c t i v i t y , the decision-needing issue became: How should Global Faith deal with the confusing process of submitting "adequate" reports and proposals to CIDA so that CIDA funding for Global Faith's core overseas programs would be released as soon as possible? Cha r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Cultural Context The c u l t u r a l context for th i s negotiation episode i s mainly characterized by ambiguity, confusion and paradox (fragmentation) but there i s also an undercurrent of inconsistency and p o t e n t i a l 271 c o n f l i c t ( d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ) . The ambiguity prevalent i n Global Faith's interactions with CIDA stems from p o l i c y and personnel changes at CIDA and also from the elusive, slippery nature of the CIDA bureaucracy. As Gerald pointed out during a meeting with two v i s i t i n g CIDA o f f i c i a l s : "CIDA i s not an inanimate object. It i s people and p e r s o n a l i t i e s . Each in d i v i d u a l [at CIDA] has a d i f f e r e n t view and deals with us d i f f e r e n t l y . We're not sure what the meter s t i c k i s you're measuring us by." In addition to variations across individual o f f i c e r s at CIDA, there are also d i f f e r e n t approaches taken by sub-units within CIDA. Richard described the contrast between t h e i r dealings with CIDA people i n the B i l a t e r a l Branch (regarding t h e i r agro-forestry project i n India) and the people i n the NGO D i v i s i o n (regarding the responsive One Year Program): The B i l a t e r a l Branch people leave us alone.... They've got hundreds of mil l i o n s of dol l a r s i n other programs [in India]. So, i f ours i s going well, they just leave us alone. And also, because the relationship i s one that at the beginning of the f i v e year program, you have a f a i r l y d e t a i l e d agreement and the negotiations a l l have to do with that. And once the agreement i s signed, then you just do the program and CIDA w i l l evaluate i t at the end of f i v e years. In the interim, there i s not much looking at you. In the NGO D i v i s i o n - which i s supposed to be responsive to NGOs -there i s a sort of constant analysis and looking at you. The "constant analysis" comes through i n CIDA o f f i c e r s ' reactions to Global Faith reports and proposals for new programs and i s another source of confusion i n the eyes of Global Faith s t a f f . L i s a stressed that "CIDA has never been very clear as to what they are looking for i n reporting." Dan linked the lack of 2 7 2 c l a r i t y surrounding CIDA interactions with the episode discussed i n t h i s section: I mean I think there are some things we don't understand i n dealing with CIDA. I guess probably the Three Year Program proposal i s a great example. You know, you think you prepare a good document and then you f i n d that there are s i x t y things that weren't done the right way or exactly the way they wanted. And you have to make a l l kinds of changes. And i t i s a f r u s t r a t i o n . Confusion over CIDA's reporting and proposal submission requirements matters because reports t r i g g e r payments (usually with a three to f i v e week time lag) and so t h e i r acceptance i s c r u c i a l . Proposals for one year or multi-year agreements lay down the geographic and sectoral parameters of the projects to be ca r r i e d out with Global Faith's core overseas partners. Their acceptance i s also c r i t i c a l . They provide a basis for long-term planning and a continued source of income for Global Faith and t h e i r overseas partner organizations. A Three Year Program i s considered to be preferable to a One Year Program because i t i s a longer guarantee of support and once i t i s signed, i t cannot be endangered by personnel changes within CIDA. Elizabeth explained: "It would be good for us to get a three year deal i n CIDA's system because I don't see [the current Project Manager] being around for three years. For us, going into a new rel a t i o n s h i p would be much better i f we had a blanket of the Three Year Program i n the system for protection." CIDA's "constant analysis" of NGO's l i k e Global Faith i s also related to accountability. CIDA o f f i c e r s - as "stewards of the people's money" - are answerable to t h e i r constituents, and 2 7 3 as such, are more demanding and are less l i k e l y to compromise i n negotiations (Thompson, Peterson, & Kray, 1995). Gerald described t h i s dynamic as follows: There i s confusion because CIDA doesn't know i t but they don't have any money of t h e i r own. They only have money from the general public. They don't have a cent. They've never come to r e a l i z e that they are no d i f f e r e n t from us. Right? They get a l l t h e i r money from the general public too.... However, CIDA i s also nervous so they demand a l o t and so we are accountable to them i n that regard. And they are stewards of the people's money. Negotiating Parties The parties involved i n t h i s negotiation episode are as follows: Richard, Elizabeth, and Gerald from Global Faith; and Janet, William, and Edward from CIDA. William i s the Program Manager at CIDA dealing with Global Faith. William's supervisor, Edward, was recently replaced by Janet. Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Relationship The interests shared by both groups of negotiating parties are that CIDA provide f i n a l payments for completed programs and new funding for the proposed Three Year Program to Global Faith. Dan described the interdependent nature of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between Global Faith and CIDA as follows: "CIDA i s always looking for organizations that do good programs. It i s not easy to come by. So we s a t i s f y that for them." Divergent interests between the negotiating parties include: while Global Faith wants time to s i t down and plan and to control the purpose, significance, and content of the proposed Three Year 2 7 4 Program, CIDA wants the reports and proposal completed as soon as possible. CIDA also wants to decide the worthiness of the Global Faith and i t s overseas programs. Global Faith's relationship with Janet's predecessor, Edward, was po s i t i v e and comfortable. Dan explained how Gerald's focus on relationships affects Global Faith's interactions with CIDA as well. "You know, with [Gerald's] way of dealing with people, we b u i l d up friendships with people i n CIDA and we get to know them r e a l l y well. And that pays off too because they obviously f e e l comfortable with us, i n part because of that." The c u l t i v a t i o n of f r i e n d l y relationships with CIDA o f f i c e r s helps Global Fa i t h s t a f f to f e e l more comfortable with CIDA as well. As Dan explained: I used to think that CIDA people were quite impersonal - the bureaucrats, you know. But there are good people at CIDA too. When you s i t down and meet some of them face-to-face, you f i n d that they do have interests that are very s i m i l a r to what [Global Faith's] interests are. And the same concerns for people. However, when Edward was "shifted" (transferred to another section), Global Faith had to start a l l over again with a new rel a t i o n s h i p with another CIDA o f f i c e r , Janet. Due to lack of f a m i l i a r i t y , neither party had come to the point of t r u s t i n g the other. Elizabeth described the frequent personnel changes at CIDA as a "big problem - because you work with a number of people at CIDA and then they end up moving." The Story: "Three Backflips" The story begins i n December of 1992 at Global Faith's 275 Christmas s t a f f luncheon. I overheard comments about tension around the o f f i c e and making i t through a " c r i s i s " with CIDA. I decided to ask Richard what had happened with CIDA during an interview with him a f t e r the holidays i n January 1993. Richard explained the c r i s i s : A l l h e l l broke loose. What happened was that our f i n a l report to CIDA on the 1991-92 One Year Program was overdue. We had submitted an interim report on the 1992-93 One Year Program. Based on the acceptance of that report, $150,000 from CIDA was due to come to us to continue to support the program. And I had l e f t the country and was on a t r i p . At CIDA, [William] i s our Program Manager. His boss, supervisor or the director of that section was [Edward]. [Edward] was s h i f t e d . [Janet] was put i n that p o s i t i o n . She had just come from an overseas posting i n A f r i c a with CIDA. She b a s i c a l l y took a more - she got more involved with the work of her program managers. Whereas [Edward] sort of l e t his program managers be. So [William] knew us and had been dealing with us. [Janet] looked at what [William] was doing. She didn't know [Global Faith] or a l o t of the other organizations so she started looking through [Global Faith's] f i l e s [in Ottawa]. She saw that our 1991-92 program report was overdue. She didn't l i k e the q u a l i t y of the interim report. She was confused about the 1992-93 Program. She thought i t was a Three Year Program, not a One Year Program. So, she b a s i c a l l y said: "No money i s going to [Global Faith] u n t i l they get these reports i n . They've got lousy reports. What are they doing? They obviously don't know anything about what they are doing." So when I was i n Bombay and Calcutta, I got these voice messages saying a l l h e l l had broken loose. So, when I came back, what we had to do - and that was started on even before I got back - was we had to generate f i n a l reports for a l l the projects we did i n 1991 and 1992. We had to t o t a l l y redo the 1992-93 interim report. The s t y l e of report that I sent to [William] was a s t y l e that would have been accepted by him and accepted by [Edward] i n the past. [Janet], however, didn't l i k e i t . But what she l i k e d , nobody knew. And because [Janet] was confused about the One Year/Three Year thing - because [William] had said we wanted to put together a Three Year Program and i t was supposed to happen i n November or December but he hadn't done anything on i t . So, i n the course of t h i s discussion with [Janet], [Gerald] 276 had promised [Janet] that we would have a Three Year Program submission to her before she came here. So that means concurrently, we did a f i n a l report on f i s c a l year 1991-92. We did an interim report on 1992-93. We did a Three Year Program submission for 1993-94 to 1996-97. So we a l l went nuts.... Three draft versions of the Three Year Program proposal were eventually sent to CIDA according to mutually agreed upon deadlines. According to Richard, the changes made i n each draft included: "some formatting, structure, some information - not a l o t - and a l i t t l e more d e t a i l on the budget. So that i s f i n e . If they want us to do three backflips instead of two and a half, that i s what we'll do. I don't care." Meaning as Text The subject matter of the discussion between Global Faith and CIDA was the meaning or content of the reporting requirements and the meaning or purpose of the Proposal. After hearing from Janet that t h e i r reports were not adequate, Global Faith had to determine the meaning of "adequate" - according to Janet - as i t applied to t h e i r own store of information related to the project. Richard described t h i s part of the negotiations: "The big thing i s to f i n d out - O.K., there i s a new person. What does t h i s new person need to approve something? What does [Janet] need to see so that things are acceptable to her because we have tons of information. What do they need to know? It i s very d i f f i c u l t to get from them because there are no hard and fast rules." In the meantime, Global Faith also had to explain to Janet the meaning or purpose of t h e i r f i r s t proposal ( i . e . , that i t was 277 applying for another One Year Program, not a Three Year Program as Janet had i n i t i a l l y assumed). According to Gerald, Janet thought Global Faith was already on a Three Year Program so "she was t a l k i n g about something d i f f e r e n t than what we were working on." Meaning as Sub-Text While negotiating the meaning of the reporting requirements and the Three Year Program Proposal with CIDA, Global F a i t h was also working through other meanings underlying the negotiations. Global F a i t h s t a f f were asking themselves, and each other, the following questions concerning meaning as sub-text. 1. What i s the s i g n i f i c a n c e or meaning of the p r o c e s s of n e g o t i a t i n g w i t h CIDA i n order to r e c e i v e funding? The negotiation process with CIDA was meaningful or s i g n i f i c a n t due to the tension between adjusting to CIDA demands and maintaining the i n t e g r i t y and autonomy of Global Faith. Gerald said "no matter what I t e l l you about being independent from government, inside I can never deny the fact that we get money from government. Right? So that has to be i n my thinking. What do they require of me?" One s t a f f member described the s i t u a t i o n of t r y i n g to s a t i s f y CIDA expectations - without giving up Global Faith's mandate - i n order to get funding as follows: I think the issue for an NGO i s for t h e i r mandate not to be clouded by what CIDA w i l l give money to. You see some groups that bend over backwards and do things just to get CIDA money and that r e a l l y destroys what the organization was intended to be. Now, who i s to say where [Global Faith] i s i n that continuum. We go through the hoops just l i k e anyone else to get money. 2 7 8 2. What do the r e p o r t s and pr o p o s a l s mean to us? What i s t h e i r f u n c t i o n a l value? Gerald made the f o l l o w i n g d i s t i n c t i o n between the means and t h e i r goal i n n e g o t i a t i n g w i t h CIDA: "Our goal doesn't change. That i s our programs w i t h our partners. Means to the goal changes depending on what these [CIDA o f f i c e r s ] want. They're l i k e a donor. They're l i k e my mother [a demanding and whimsical donor]." By n e g o t i a t i n g the meaning of w r i t i n g acceptable r e p o r t s and proposals to be a mean, not a goal i n i t s e l f , G lobal F a i t h s t a f f were w i l l i n g to commit to CIDA's requirements. They could do the "three b a c k f l i p s " f o r CIDA and s t i l l maintain that they were not g i v i n g anything up. Dan's comments on the f r u s t r a t i n g process of r e v i s i n g the d r a f t s of the Three Year Program proposal a l s o i l l u s t r a t e t h i s means/end d i s t i n c t i o n i n Global F a i t h t h i n k i n g : And I suppose you could throw your hands up and say "Forget i t ! We're not going to bother w i t h i t . " But, again, i f you b e l i e v e that the program i s worthwhile funding, then you do what you are asked to do - i f you don't compromise y o u r s e l f . 3. What do the r e p o r t s and pr o p o s a l s mean to CIDA? What i s t h e i r f u n c t i o n a l value? Richard posed t h i s question out loud to himself and provided the f o l l o w i n g answer: I t h i n k r e a l i s t i c a l l y speaking, CIDA i s wanting to push o r g a n i z a t i o n s who have the c a p a c i t y i n t o three year programs because they [CIDA o f f i c e r s ] don't have the c a p a c i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y to deal w i t h a l l the o r g a n i z a t i o n s on p r o j e c t funding and one year program funding. I t i s so much work and they [CIDA] don't have the people and the government i s t r y i n g to downsize. 4. What are Janet's i n t e n t i o n s ? Is she well-meaning w i t h r e s p e c t to G l o b a l F a i t h ? 279 Richard interpreted Janet's intentions as follows: "[Janet] did show that she i s i n charge and maybe that i s what she was t r y i n g to do too." Gerald's interpretation of what happened with CIDA and i n p a r t i c u l a r , with Janet, i s : "she doesn't trust her predecessors. They said we're good, so she thinks we're bad." Chara c t e r i s t i c s of the Negotiation Process Stance. Because of a lack of f a m i l i a r i t y between Janet and Global Faith, Janet was i n c l i n e d toward a competitive o r i e n t a t i o n during the negotiations with Global Faith about t h e i r reports and proposals. Global Faith, on the other hand, chose a non-confrontational stance. Richard said: "Once she came here, we apologized and bent over backwards and said we'll do whatever she wants and then she was happy." Both Richard and Gerald agree that a non-confrontational attitude i s the most productive i n negotiations with CIDA. Richard said: "We have never f e l t that i t i s that useful to be shouting and screaming at CIDA [like other NGOs]. They phone up Ministers. They phone up MPs. They phone up people and get pressure to bear on these people. That just antagonizes people." Gerald commented on t h e i r stance: "[Global Faith] i s more passive and we s t i l l do what we want - as opposed to other NGOs that deal with CIDA i n an attack mode." Goals. I n i t i a l l y , the goal positions of the Global Fa i t h and CIDA negotiating parties appeared to be divergent, but the area of disagreement - the substance and style of CIDA reports and 2 8 0 proposals - a c t u a l l y had d i f f e r e n t meanings to the two p a r t i e s . While there appeared to be a disagreement, i t was based i n misconceptions and confusion, not i n a fundamental opposition i n goals. Janet appeared to be target-oriented i n her goal. She d i s l i k e d the status quo of incomplete reports and inadequate or confusing proposals. While i t may have been clear i n her own mind how the reports and proposals could be improved, i t was not immediately apparent to the s t a f f of Global Faith what was required. In one sense, the nature of Global Faith's goal i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n was also target-oriented: to receive CIDA funding. In another sense, however, Global Faith's goal may be seen as departure-oriented. They wanted to get away from the present c r i s i s s i t u a t i o n but because of the uncertainty inherent i n a new relationship, they had to wait for Janet to t e l l them what was required before they could accomplish t h i s . Because of asymetrical information, Janet was i n an advantageous p o s i t i o n as the target-oriented actor compared to Global Faith's departure-oriented approach. While Global Faith was also t r y i n g to reduce the r i s k of depending on CIDA funding by d i v e r s i f y i n g t h e i r support base, 7 1 t h e i r target was s t i l l to maximize CIDA money i n order to continue with core programming with t h e i r partners. We wouldn't purposefully t r y and have programs that don't have CIDA money. The reason being that we don't want to minimize the money we have. We want to maximize i t . So, we wouldn't say: 'Well, we'll take less money so we can prove 7 1 For example, the new community linkage program discussed i n Chapter Four, and also below i n Episode Number Four, i s not e l i g i b l e for CIDA funding. Financial support for t h i s program i s based completely on general public donations. 281 that we're independent.' I think we've got to just say: 'We'll take what there i s and do what we want to do.' S t r a t e g i e s . To accomplish the goal of maximizing CIDA funding, Gerald advises Richard and Elizabeth to put CIDA proposals i n draft form, "so we have room to manoeuvre and so they can't refuse us." Gerald admitted that "our drafts of the Three Year Program Document are b a s i c a l l y just rearrangements and embellishments. There are no changes r e a l l y . " Elizabeth emphasized that when negotiating with CIDA, strategies can change depending on the preferences of the i n d i v i d u a l at CIDA. There i s no set strategy because you are dealing with people. What works with one person doesn't work with another person i n government.... It shouldn't be p e r s o n a l i t i e s but i n many respects, i t i s p e r s o n a l i t i e s . But when you are working with p e r s o n a l i t i e s , you have to work with what w i l l work. And maybe what i s a hang-up for you i s not a hang-up for somebody else. And you f i n d the common ground that you can work with....It i s as much i n t u i t i o n as anything else. You're adapting - but with a goal. Because you always have your own goal i n mind, right? Richard stressed the importance of acquiring information about in d i v i d u a l CIDA o f f i c e r ' s preferences and p r i o r i t i e s and mentioned Elizabeth's r e l a t i v e s k i l l i n t h i s area: They may have a p o l i c y but i f I know the person who i s s i t t i n g on the Bangladesh desk and we get along well and we ta l k and there i s an area of programming needs they have and we can meet that, we may be able to do something regardless of a l l the big p o l i c y differences that set that up. So that i s where [Elizabeth] comes i n . That i s [Elizabeth]. I mean [Elizabeth] i s on the phone - she has her ear to the • ground - "What the heck i s going on i n CIDA? Where? With whom?" And you just f i n d your way through the maze. Elizabeth has a reputation for successful negotiations with CIDA. Elizabeth t o l d me: "There i s r a r e l y something that we have 2 8 2 gone a f t e r with CIDA that we have not got." One of Elizabeth's strategies i s to mirror CIDA's vagueness and avoid commitment to a p o s i t i o n u n t i l she knows f u l l y what CIDA wants. Gerald describes how she operates below: [Richard] i s very much a straight l i n e person. So, [Richard] gives CIDA a l l the facts. And [Elizabeth] doesn't give anybody facts . So, when that i s happening, [Elizabeth] i s better at dealing with CIDA because CIDA doesn't give us any f a c t s . That i s the best way because then you don't make any commitments ....[Elizabeth] would go around the horn f i f t y times and get to know what you think and give you that as an answer....She ignores what you're saying and goes on with her squiggly l i n e - not a straight l i n e - and f i r s t thing you know, she i s back for another angle. And she has got great determination i n that regard. Richard's strategy i n negotiating with CIDA i s also based on a f l e x i b l e approach: I think i f we believe that we are going to change CIDA, we are deluded.... That doesn't make me negative about CIDA, i t just says we have to be r e a l l y entrepreneurial i n a way. We have to be w i l l i n g to completely change. We'll put together a project proposal i n whatever way, i n whatever format, with whatever i t takes, that CIDA wants. Another strategy a r t i c u l a t e d by Elizabeth i s related to a willingness to be f l e x i b l e on the means, but not on the goal i t s e l f . "You search out where the best opportunities are to get funding from the government but you don't compromise what you want to do as an organization overseas because you s t i l l have your own objectives i n mind." P r u i t t (1983) describes t h i s strategy as "firm f l e x i b i l i t y : " One must be firm with respect to one's ends ( i . e . , one's i n t e r e s t s ) , giving them up only i f they are c l e a r l y unobtainable. Otherwise, the solution w i l l be one-sided i n favor of the other party rather than represent a true integration of the two parties' needs. Yet one must also be f l e x i b l e with respect to the means to these ends, continually seeking new alternatives u n t i l a mutually 283 acceptable one can be found, (p.43) Global Faith was f l e x i b l e i n meeting CIDA requirements with respect to the means (drafts and reports) of t h e i r goal, but they were firm with respect to the ends or the goal i t s e l f (to maintain core programming). Negotiation Outcome As a r e s u l t of negotiating meaning with CIDA and dealing with meaning i n t h e i r negotiations with CIDA, Global F a i t h was commited to a course of action whereby they completed the reports and submitted an acceptable proposal for a Three Year Program. Richard described the outcome of the negotiation process as follows: I mean i t was a pain, but very helpful for us. Very good for us to do i t . Great excercise. Very important. It i s something that we would have had to do somewhere along the l i n e . It forced us to do i t . It forced us to think about "What do we want to do for three years?" Let's put t h i s together i n a format that we can l i v e with that meets CIDA's needs. It was done on time so that t e l l s them that we are competent and professional. We can get the job done that they wanted. Additional outcomes of t h i s negotiation episode included Global Faith's lack of compromise on organizational goals and increased understanding of t h e i r new relationship with Janet. Richard said: "What t h i s l a s t two months' relationship with CIDA has shown us i s that again, they are changing and the individuals that we happen to be dealing with at CIDA at t h i s point i n time have a few s p e c i f i c things that they are r e a l l y concerned about." 284 Episode Number Two: N e g o t i a t i n g w i t h General P u b l i c Donors Planning A c t i v i t y The planning a c t i v i t y related to t h i s episode i s the process of securing and maintaining general public donations through fundraising. Decision-Needing Issue In the process of carrying out the planning a c t i v i t y , the decision-needing issue became: How should Global Faith deal with c o n f l i c t i n g expectations and demands from CIDA and from the general public donors regarding p r o s e l y t i z a t i o n overseas? How can Global Faith s a t i s f y both groups and s t i l l do what they want to do themselves? Cha r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Cultural Context The c u l t u r a l context of t h i s negotiation episode i s mainly characterized by c o n f l i c t and inconsistency ( d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ) , and to a lesser extent, by ambiguity and confusion (fragmentation). Gerald compared negotiating with CIDA to negotiating with a donor. There are indeed some s i m i l a r i t i e s between CIDA and general public donors. Global Faith i s dependent on funding from each "as a matter of s u r v i v a l " and funding i s conditional upon s a t i s f y i n g demands and meeting expectations. The more substantial donors, especially, w i l l give money to Global Fai t h with c e r t a i n conditions. The result, according to Gerald, i s s i m i l a r to the tension between i n t e g r i t y and dependency that 285 Global F a i t h experiences with CIDA: "You are caught t r y i n g to be yourself and t r y i n g to get the money." The d i f f i c u l t y facing organizations who must attempt to s a t i s f y competing demands i s l a i d out c l e a r l y by P f e f f e r and Salancik (1978/1990): The fact of competing demands, even i f c o r r e c t l y perceived, makes the management of organizations d i f f i c u l t . It i s c l e a r l y easier to s a t i s f y a single c r i t e r i o n , or a mutually compatible set of c r i t e r i a , than to attempt to meet the c o n f l i c t i n g demands of a variety of p a r t i c i p a n t s . Compliance to demands i s not a s a t i s f a c t o r y answer, since compliance with some demands must mean noncompliance with others, (p.150) Negotiating Parties The p a r t i e s involved i n t h i s negotiation episode are as follows: Stan, Richard, and Gerald from Global Faith; and many indi v i d u a l s from the general public, mostly from the Evangelical C h r i s t i a n community. Char a c t e r i s t i c s of the Relationship The interests shared by both groups of negotiating parties are that Global Faith continue to "extend Christ's compassion to the neglected poor." As Gerald said: "When a donor comes to give money to t h i s organization - to one degree or another - they w i l l agree with what we are philosophically." Divergent interests between the negotiating parties are related to Global Faith's adherence to CIDA regulations r e s t r i c t i n g p r o s e l y t i z a t i o n overseas i n government funded programs. Many of the donors f e e l they have a personal r e l a t i o n s h i p 286 with Gerald and they trust him. Gerald once read aloud to me a l e t t e r from an e l d e r l y donor i n the Maritimes who sent along with the l e t t e r a present of some handmade cross-shaped book marks for Gerald, his wife and children. Gerald commented: "I don't doubt that she thinks that we're personal buddies so there i s a p r o f i l e issue....And so i n that way, I am an integral part of the l i n k with the donors." Gerald's former career as a Minister may also help to shape donor expectations of evangelizing overseas. The Story: "A Struggle for Integrity" While the pressure from donors and CIDA i s s i m i l a r - both provide funding necessary to the survival of Global Fa i t h - the actual content of the demands made by each are d i f f e r e n t and even c o n f l i c t i n g . The Ch r i s t i a n orientation of Global Faith i s an issue at the centre of clashing expectations held by CIDA and general public donors. 7 2 Gerald recognizes the d i f f i c u l t y of dealing with d i f f e r e n t audiences and describes the s i t u a t i o n as "a struggle for i n t e g r i t y . " Global Faith's donors are mostly evangelical Christians. Gerald believes that the donors' Chr i s t i a n orientation increases t h e i r expectations as to what w i l l happen as a re s u l t of donating to Global Faith: "My experience with Christians i s that they may need more of an exchange than other people perhaps." Many donors 7 2 The pressure from donors i s not necessarily a l l directed towards p r o s e l y t i z i n g overseas. For example, one person donated several d r i l l i n g r i g s to Global Faith. As a re s u l t , they "were forced into implementing" a w e l l - d r i l l i n g program i n Ethiopia. 2 8 7 consider international development as a means to the end of r e l i g i o u s conversion or r e l i g i o u s education and they are expecting that Global Faith's projects are for Christians only or for converted Christians. Gerald explained to me: "I am not ashamed of our motivation. Our goal i s not p r o s e l y t i z a t i o n . " While Gerald does not want to hide t h e i r C h r i s t i a n orientation, he also does not agree with money being used to give children overseas a "Christian education." When faced with the donors who are expecting that t h e i r donations would go toward a C h r i s t i a n education, Gerald described his dilemma as follows: "You are tr y i n g to deal with a l l of that and at the same time, t r y i n g to do what you believe." I asked Stan, Director of Communications and Fund Development, about donor expectations regarding p r o s e l y t i z i n g overseas during an interview: Some might think that [we are proselytizing] although we have not said that and we have written them and t o l d them that i t i s not happening except - we have t o l d them that we leave that up to our partners overseas. Our partners can do the p r o s e l y t i z i n g . That i s what they are good at. If they are churches, they w i l l have people that are good at that, but we are not good at that and our mandate i s n ' t that. And we have t o l d people that but some of them w i l l s t i l l think that they are giving money for p r o s e l y t i z i n g . But they do that i n spite of what we t e l l them....And they may see i t as friendship evangelism too. We're helping the churches to care for people and they know that i s important and they want to do that. They're compassionate people. But i n t h e i r own mind, they also r e a l i z e that the church i s putting out the good word. So they would say: "That i s a s s i s t i n g . It i s giving c r e d i b i i t y to a church so when they do put out the gospel, people w i l l respond because they w i l l see that t h i s i s a h o l i s t i c ministry. Which i s f i n e . " That i s fine by me too. These donors' expectations clash with CIDA's r e s t r i c t i o n s on 2 8 8 evangelizing. CIDA's only concern with the r e l i g i o u s foundation of an NGO i s with regard to t h e i r overseas a c t i v i t i e s . Government funding i s not provided for p r o s e l y t i z a t i o n . Realizing t h i s , Gerald made a point of assuring a v i s i t i n g CIDA o f f i c i a l : "We're not p r o s e l y t i z e r s . The people we work with overseas are a wide cross-section of people. Our motivation i s d i f f e r e n t from what we do. We don't want to confuse what you believe with what you do. We don't want to apologize for who we are but we don't want hidden agendas either." Yet, on the other hand, Gerald admitted to me during an interview that "there i s a misconception i n the minds of many donors that a l l of [Global Faith's] projects are for poor Christians. I don't fight t h i s misconception." This story i s about the fact that without a c t u a l l y l y i n g , Global Faith i s able to confirm the expectations of each party through the negotiation of meaning. Meaning as Text The subject matter of the discussions between Global Faith and various donors from the general public i s the meaning or purpose of Global Faith's overseas programs. Meaning as Sub-Text While negotiating the meaning of overseas programs with the general public donors, Global Faith was also working through other meanings underlying the negotiations. Global Faith s t a f f were asking themselves, and each other, the following questions 2 8 9 concerning meaning as sub-text. 1. What i s the s i g n i f i c a n c e o r meaning of the pro c e s s of n e g o t i a t i n g w i t h g e n e r a l p u b l i c donors i n order to r e c e i v e donations? Ian posed the question of how Global Faith was serving the people "here" (as opposed to overseas) through the ministry of fundraising. His answer i s as follows: "We are t r y i n g to teach them how to part with some of t h e i r money and star t loving enough to even s a c r i f i c e a b i t and help others that need i t because they haven't faced up to what love i s a l l about either. We have a very important message here." This means that the act of giving i t s e l f i s considered to be more important than the intentions behind the decision to give. Therefore, i t may not matter i f donors' intentions behind giving do not l i n e up with Global Faith's intentions i n t h e i r projects. 2. What do the donations mean to us? What i s t h e i r f u n c t i o n a l v alue? Richard commented on the need to minimize Global Faith's dependence on government funding and that Global Faith "being able to raise money i n Canada from Canadians to have resources that are independent i s c r i t i c a l . " 3. What do G l o b a l F a i t h ' s f u n d r a i s i n g e f f o r t s mean to the g e n e r a l p u b l i c donors? How are they i n t e r p r e t e d ? In describing Global Faith's interactions with the donors, Gerald recognized the poten t i a l for mulitple interpretations of Global Fa i t h statements: "It i s not what you say, i t i s what the donors hear that matters. What we l i k e or don't l i k e i s n ' t c r u c i a l . It 290 i s what the donors think." What the donors think i s apparent through feedback to Global Faith s t a f f . For instance, Stan read aloud a l e t t e r from a donor praying for them and p r a i s i n g t h e i r work to the entire group of Global Faith s t a f f assembled at the annual Retreat. Stan's view of Global Faith's fundraising i n t h i s case was: "She i s freed up because we touched her l i f e . She i s freed up to touch others and she w i l l do i t through [Global F a i t h ] . " Kevin's interpretation of what donors are concerned about when they are making a donation to Global F a i t h i s as follows: "We have a very conservative donor base. People don't care about the environment or CIDA's gender and development p o l i c i e s - they think a woman's place i s i n the home. They just want to f e e l good when they give t h e i r $10." 4. What are i n d i v i d u a l donor's i n t e n t i o n s ? Are they w e l l -meaning w i t h r e s p e c t to G l o b a l F a i t h ? Donors are considered to be well-meaning and tr u s t i n g . Richard emphasized: "We're dependent on our survival i n a way on public goodwill. People are not going to support a charitable organization unless they have some degree of trust i n i t . " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Negotiation Process Stance. Because of an ex i s t i n g l e v e l of trust and the friendship marketing approach i n Global Faith fundraising, both parties had a cooperative orientation during negotiations over the meaning or intent of Global Faith's overseas programs with regard to pr o s e l y t i z i n g . 291 Goals. Both parties had status-quo goal positions: Global Fai t h wanted to continue receiving donations and the donors wanted to continue bel i e v i n g that they were helping to support p r o s e l y t i z a t i o n e f f o r t s overseas. S t r a t e g i e s . Global Faith's strategy involves a deliberate framing, highlighting, or downplaying of the information communicated to donors and CIDA. It i s l i k e a form of "impression management"73 where Global Faith i s i n a process of constructing d i f f e r e n t 'selves' depending on the expectations of the audience and the demands of the context. Pam, the Director of Marketing, elaborated on t h i s strategy: "It i s common sense. We don't t a l k about things i n the Gospel Church that might offend them [the donors]. We can be i n t e l l i g e n t and selective and tal k about other things that won't offend them." This highl i g h t i n g of information ccurs i n the written reports produced by Global Faith as well. For example, the Three Year Program proposal submitted to CIDA did not make a single reference to Global Faith's Christian orientation and did not include the agency's v i s i o n of "extending Christ's compassion to the neglected poor." In fact, the goals and objectives given i n the CIDA proposal represented a selective re-writing of the mission statement, philosophy and ove r a l l goals given i n Global 7 3 The term "impression management" i s borrowed from Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) who use i t to describe an ethnographer's e f f o r t s to gain and maintain access to a research s i t e . 292 Faith's in-house Strategic Plan. There was no mention of "God-given p o t e n t i a l " or "Christian p r i n c i p l e s " or "Christ's example" or "God's intention" i n the CIDA proposal - a l l examples of phrases that are found i n the Strategic Plan document and i n the l i t e r a t u r e sent to donors. Asafa explained how the audience dictates the focus of the report: You are dealing with the need for producing d i f f e r e n t reports which highlight d i f f e r e n t aspects of the program. Enabling the church or strengthening the church may be an issue to one group, whereas helping the poor may be an issue to another group or achieving c e r t a i n things may be an issue to another group.... None of them are a l i e . I mean a l l of those things have been achieved but what you highlight i s the issue....1 mean we have never made i t a secret that we have worked with churches with CIDA because when we apply for funding, we talk about the partner, right? So i t i s not a secret that we work with churches. It i s not a secret that we are a C h r i s t i a n organization. But i t i s not something that i s relevant to them, so we don't necessarily bother reporting that. Global Faith's attention-shaping strategies i n the face of external control seem to l i n e up with Pfeffer's and Salancik's (1978/1990) predictions from the resource dependence perspective: Organizations attempt to avoid influence and constraint by r e s t r i c t i n g the flow of information about them and t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s , denying legitimacy of demands made upon them, d i v e r s i f y i n g t h e i r dependencies, and manipulating information to increase t h e i r own legitimacy, (p.15) Another strategy used by Global Faith i n coping with c o n f l i c t i n g demands from CIDA and the donors - also discussed by P f e f f e r and Salancik (1978/1990) - i s s t r u c t u r a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n which involves establishing d i f f e r e n t groups or subunits within the organization to deal with various c o a l i t i o n s i n the environment. This i s the case at Global Faith where d i f f e r e n t people have contact with d i f f e r e n t audiences. Richard explained 293 f that he interacts with CIDA and not the donors so he does not I worry about donor expectations: I won't deal with the public very much. [Stan] and the P r o v i n c i a l Directors do that. So we can a l l blame everybody else - "I didn't say that! [Stan] said that. [Stan] you're f u l l of i t . " And [Stan] can say: "Oh, [Richard], he screwed up. I mean he i s dealing with CIDA. He didn't t e l l the truth about what we are doing." I mean i t i s not that bad. But i t i s d i f f e r e n t people dealing with d i f f e r e n t groups of people. Kevin also commented on the structural d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n at Global Faith: In t h i s s t r a t i f i e d corporation, we [in the Overseas Programs Department] don't have to deal with what comes out i n public. We deal with CIDA, the government donor. For a l l other donors, there i s the donor re l a t i o n s group. They get information from us and they package i t as they need to....Hopefully, what comes out at the other end bears some resemblance to, l e t ' s say - i s not i n opposition to - what a c t u a l l y i s happening. Negotiation Outcome As a r e s u l t of negotiating meaning with the general public donors and dealing with meaning i n t h e i r negotiations, Global F a i t h was able to continue receiving general public support, predominantly from the Evangelical Christian community. Both CIDA and general public donors were s a t i s f i e d and f e l t that t h e i r demands had been met. Episode Number Three: N e g o t i a t i n g w i t h the Board of D i r e c t o r s Planning A c t i v i t y The planning a c t i v i t y related to t h i s episode i s the process of a r t i c u l a t i n g and implementing Global Faith's v i s i o n statement. 2 9 4 Decision-Needing Issue In the process of carrying out the planning a c t i v i t y , the decision-needing issue became: How should Global F a i t h deal with c o n f l i c t i n g interpretations held by s t a f f and the Board of Directors over how to define and carry out Global Faith's v i s i o n statement? Should Global Faith i n i t i a t e new programs i n Eastern Europe as suggested by the Board of Directors? Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Cultural Context The c u l t u r a l context for th i s episode i s characterized mainly by c o n f l i c t and inconsistency (differentiation) and to a lesser degree, by confusion and paradox (fragmentation). Gerald makes a cle a r d i s t i n c t i o n between Global Faith i t s e l f and the Board of Directors. "The problem i s our s t a f f does not work for the Board...the v i s i o n comes from the s t a f f and the volunteers, not from the Board." The episode described i n t h i s section focuses on the v i s i o n of Global Faith and i s a clear i l l u s t r a t i o n of t h i s perceived disjuncture. Before presenting the actual episode, i t i s f i r s t necessary to provide some background information as to how the v i s i o n statement evolved and how i t i s interpreted d i f f e r e n t l y by Global Faith s t a f f and by the Board. The c u l t u r a l context for t h i s episode includes outcomes of previous negotiations between the s t a f f and the Board of Directors regarding the v i s i o n statement. The v i s i o n statement, "[Global Faith], a development agency 2 9 5 extending Christ's compassion to the neglected poor, 1 , 7 4 was a r t i c u l a t e d i n 1989. Gerald remembered the d i f f i c u l t y the s t a f f and the Board had i n agreeing on the v i s i o n : "When we were t r y i n g to come up with a v i s i o n statement, we fought and argued over i t . The Board fought and argued over i t . " Pam described the long and involved process of tryin g to f i n a l i z e the v i s i o n statement: It was probably the hardest thing to ac t u a l l y e s t a b l i s h i n a l l the pages and pages from the Strategic Plan - t h i s v i s i o n statement which was one l i n e . It was amazing.... We had input from everybody....We had a l o t of input from volunteers that had been with us and had been l o y a l for a long time. And Provincial Directors. And friends of [Gerald] that give to [Global F a i t h ] . And [Gerald]. And the Board. Ian also described the process and stressed the amount of work that went into developing a statement that everyone was happy with. What we went through to come up with t h i s . Pages and pages and pages of st u f f and fax messages back and fo r t h to everybody that was i n the organization a l l over the world and ideas coming back and so on. And i t f i n a l l y kept b o i l i n g down and b o i l i n g down....We f i n a l l y ended up with i t and I think i t i s be a u t i f u l . . . . I t took an incredible amount of work to come up with t h i s . The f r e s h l y drafted v i s i o n statement then went into the Strategic Plan which s t i l l had to be presented at a Board meeting for t h e i r approval. The new v i s i o n statement turned out to be the area of "most interest and most defense" during that meeting. Pam remembered the meeting and the tension surrounding the v i s i o n statement. It was funny. I was at the meeting when [Gerald] presented the Strategic Plan to the Board. And i t was funny i n that 7 4 See the section "From Praying to Planning" i n Chapter Five for more information on the v i s i o n statement. 296 they needed to s i g n o f f - which meant that they agreed w i t h a l l the o b j e c t i v e s , a l l the money goals, w i t h e v e r y t h i n g -but that whole evening meeting, we couldn't get o f f the v i s i o n statement. P a r t l y because [Gerald] was so defensive about i t and p a r t l y because the Board wanted semantics. They were concerned about semantics and a c t u a l words and what they meant. I t was j u s t i n c r e d i b l e . . . . I t had so much input even before i t went to the Board that we f e l t - [Gerald] and I - we f e l t so attacked because you can always change i t and nobody i s ever happy. But to us, by the end i t was almost watered down. I t i s l i k e : "What do you want i t to be? We'll do whatever you want. Just t e l l us. We don't care anymore." Wel l , not q u i t e , but t h a t . i s the point we were g e t t i n g t o . The e q u i v o c a l i t y of the v i s i o n statement, i n p a r t i c u l a r the phrase "neglected poor," allowed both the Board and the s t a f f to be s a t i s f i e d w i t h the f i n a l wording. This same ambiguity, however, l e d to even greater c o n f l i c t and confusion over how to implement the v i s i o n statement at a l a t e r date. N e g o t i a t i n g P a r t i e s The p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s n e g o t i a t i o n episode are as f o l l o w s : Gerald together w i t h the r e s t of the Group of Ei g h t , and the Board of D i r e c t o r s . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the R e l a t i o n s h i p The i n t e r e s t s shared by both groups of n e g o t i a t i n g p a r t i e s are t hat Global F a i t h continue to implement the v i s i o n statement. Divergent i n t e r e s t s between the n e g o t i a t i n g p a r t i e s are r e l a t e d to s t a f f commitments to the "cause" which i s expressed through adherence to d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the v i s i o n statement. As one s t a f f member, pointed out: "the s t a f f are not at Global F a i t h because of the Board. They're at Global F a i t h because of 297 the v i s i o n , the cause, and t h e i r commitment." The rel a t i o n s h i p between Gerald and the Board of Directors i s complex and at times, problematic. Gerald reports d i r e c t l y to the Board and admits that he i s often "defensive" i n his dealings with the Board. While the Board i s not involved i n day-to-day operations - they have agreed to stay arms-length away from administration - they do have considerable power. It i s up to the Board to make p o l i c y and to approve the Strategic Plan (which includes the v i s i o n , mission statement, and budgets) and also to approve overseas projects over $200,000 (or projects using more than $25,000 of general public money). The Story: V i s i o n Test This episode, which became known around Global Faith's Head Offi c e as "the Eastern Europe debate" or "the Eastern Europe thing," i s about negotiating with the Board over how to implement the v i s i o n statement, or as Dan said: "We're into a pretty serious discussion about the pros and cons of going to Eastern Europe." The discussions unfolded over the course of a year during the time that I was conducting my research at Global Faith. It a l l started at a Board meeting i n the Spring of 1992, when one of the Board members asked Gerald to consider i n i t i a t i n g some programming i n Eastern Europe, an area where Global Fa i t h had no previous experience and no established partnerships with l o c a l organizations. The Board member's request surfaced again at 298 a Group of Eight meeting i n July during a discussion about how to handle the upcoming Board meeting scheduled for the F a l l . Gerald asked Richard and Elizabeth to work together on a "statement" for the Board on why Global Faith should not become involved i n Eastern Europe. Richard consented and agreed with Gerald on the importance of being prepared for the Board meeting: "It w i l l be good to have our ducks i n l i n e . " Richard and Elizabeth then wrote up a statement t i t l e d "Sarajevo or Somalia?" and Richard presented i t to the Board at the formal dinner gathering the night before the Board meeting. The next day, at the Board meeting, Gerald mentioned that Global Faith was shipping medical supplies to a church i n the Ukraine, hoping that t h i s information, along with Richard's written statement, would put an end to Board pressure. One Board member said: "Maybe we can exploit the fact that we are i n the Ukraine. People i n Eastern Canada may give more." Gerald re p l i e d : "The d i f f i c u l t y with that i s i t would encourage those people to want us to do more work there. We'd be trapped." The Board member said: "Good point. O.K. Could you s t i l l have your people mention what you're doing when you're speaking i n the parts of the country with Ukrainian descent?" I d i d not hear much more about the Eastern Europe debate again u n t i l March 1993. Gerald had just been to a meeting of the Board Executive and he was t e l l i n g the assembled Group of Eight that one p a r t i c u l a r Board member was putting pressure on again about s t a r t i n g up programming i n Eastern Europe. Gerald suggested to the Group of Eight: "If there was consensus among ourselves, i t would be good to put a paper together and to say there i s consensus amongst the s t a f f . Also, we need to s i t down before the next Board meeting and talk about these issues." The next step i n the Eastern Europe debate was another pooling of ideas through the preparation of a draft document based on some of the comments made during that Group of Eight meeting. Then, i n A p r i l , at another Group of Eight meeting, Gerald asked the group for feedback on the draft document. There was consensus that the document expressed what they wanted to say and that i t explained what Global Faith was about. Gerald's comments on the process of pooling t h e i r ideas into a document for the Board were as follows: It i s good because i t has helped us to focus. I didn't have to load any guns. I only asked people to think and there was consensus around the table. It i s in t e r e s t i n g that we are more involved i n th i s and yet, we are dealing with t h i s more obj e c t i v e l y than the Board. Gerald was concerned that the Board might interpret the document as a p o l i c y statement which would be inappropriate because i t i s up to the Board, not the s t a f f , to set p o l i c y at Global Faith. Elizabeth reassured Gerald: "We're tryi n g to stay within our p o l i c y . If the Board wants to change i t , that i s t h e i r option. But they need to be aware of the implications of that." Asafa followed up on Elizabeth's comments with an even more confrontational stance toward the Board: "As [Elizabeth] said, the people at [Global Faith] have gathered together because they believe these things about [Global F a i t h ] . The issue of Eastern 300 Europe changes who [Global Faith] i s and what [Global Faith] i s a l l about. Perhaps i t w i l l change the l e v e l of commitment the people here have to [Global Faith] .." Gerald answered: "That i s what the Board i s a f r a i d of - i t i s a subtle threat of: 'you change i t and y o u ' l l lose our commitment.' We are within the [Global Faith] mandate which i s bigger than the Board and they are asking us to go against i t . " The Eastern Europe story continued through the Spring of 1993. At another Group of Eight meeting i n late A p r i l , 1993, Gerald reported back to the group on the recent Board meeting. Gerald said that the Board member that had been pushing for Eastern Europe assured the Chair of the Board before the meeting that he and Gerald had "c a l l e d a ceasefire." During the meeting, the Board member said "I wouldn't want to put forward a motion and have i t be defeated." Gerald considered t h i s as a signal that "the message was coming through" and that t h i s Board member was now "consensus oriented." Gerald and the s t a f f were pleased. Meaning as Text The subject matter of the discussions between s t a f f and the Board of Directors i s the meaning or significance of Global Faith's v i s i o n statement. Meaning as Sub-Text While negotiating the meaning of the v i s i o n statement with the Board of Directors, Global Faith was also working through 301 other meanings underlying the negotiations. Global Fa i t h s t a f f were asking themselves, and each other, the following questions concerning meaning as sub-text. 1. What i s the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the long and d i f f i c u l t p r o c e s s of a r t i c u l a t i n g the v i s i o n statement? Pam commented that Gerald and a l l the s t a f f s t i l l f e e l very defensive about the v i s i o n statement: "don't mess with our v i s i o n statement because i t i s our motivator." Pam summed up the sign i f i c a n c e of a r t i c u l a t i n g the v i s i o n statement: "The v i s i o n r e a l l y i s embedded i n us and i t means something to us....The closer personal visions are to the organizational v i s i o n , the better.... Everyone has t h e i r own snapshot provided by t h e i r own background and baggage that they bring to i t . That i s why the v i s i o n statement can be a l l things to a l l people." 2. What does the v i s i o n statement mean to us? What i s the symbolic v a l u e of the v i s i o n statement? Gerald explained that the phrase "neglected poor" a c t u a l l y means something d i f f e r e n t to the Board than i t does to him and the rest of the s t a f f . The hidden meaning of neglected poor - there are two meanings to that phrase. I o r i g i n a l l y wanted us to write "the non-Christian poor." Right? But that was too offensive to our Board. They took me as having gone too l i b e r a l when I said that. So, neglected poor to me would mean " r u r a l " but i t would also mean those people that many C h r i s t i a n organizations don't touch. Like the r u r a l Hindus or the r u r a l Muslims. So a f a i r percent of our investment i s going to those people because they are people that C h r i s t i a n organizations generally don't go near....They are neglected from a Ch r i s t i a n perspective. Nobody i s going to touch them with a ten foot pole because they don't have the same r e l i g i o u s base. They don't have a church. They're "yucky." 3 0 2 Right? There i s nothing pleasant about that from a Western Ch r i s t i a n perspective.... So, "neglected" i s a softer word [than "non-Christian"] but i t means - sometimes i t means the same thing. Pam also pointed out the hidden meaning or ambiguity i n the phrase "neglected poor:" "Neglected poor" means something very s i g n i f i c a n t to us....For somebody who just reads i t , i t may not mean anything d i f f e r e n t [from other organizations' v i s i o n statements]. But for us, i t does - because we know. We read between the l i n e s because we know what went into i t . So for us, I know that "neglected poor" means the poor that others don't get to. That CIDA may not care about. Or anybody else. This i s for people that can't get help elsewhere .and r e a l l y need i t . So that to us i s s i g n i f i c a n t . 3. What does the v i s i o n statement mean to the Board? What i s the symbolic v a l u e of the v i s i o n statement? Pam's int e r p r e t a t i o n of the Board's concerns about the v i s i o n statement i s as follows: To the Board...the big issue was whether the poor that we help are Ch r i s t i a n poor or whether they can be "pagan" poor....The Board didn't l i k e i t [the o r i g i n a l phrase of "non-Christian poor"] because they said: 'Well, you're being biased. Two Christians are being biased against Christians!" Actually, probably they thought that we were being biased against Christians because we wanted to go to the secular poor. Not because we preferred them but because they usually don't get the funding that the Christian ones do. Because you don't get any flack from Canadian donors i f you are going to a b a s i c a l l y Christian country. But i f you are going to a Hindu country [to do development work], you probably would. And therefore, those people aren't as apt to get funding. "Neglected poor" may mean di f f e r e n t things f o r di f f e r e n t people. But i f i t defines and motivates them, then i t i s worth i t . Gerald's int e r p r e t a t i o n of the Board's posture was that "either there i s abysmal ignorance of some of the Board members as to why we exist or else there i s tremendous understanding of why we exist and they are tryi n g to change that." According to Gerald, 303 one Board member i n p a r t i c u l a r , was interested i n becoming involved i n Eastern Europe because of the large number of evangelical Christians already active there and because of the p o t e n t i a l for converting the "beneficiaries." Gerald said: "He [the Board member] i s so close to evangelical c i r c l e s and they're a l l running over there. People are a l l t r i p p i n g over each other to become evangelical Christians. He has forgotten that t h i s i s not a goal of [Global Faith] i n and of i t s e l f . . . . H e thinks that a l l need anywhere i n the world should be included i n our mandate." Pam added to t h i s : "Thinking back to the Strategic Plan, i t does seem to reinforce his thinking that we're biased against working with Christians. It gets us back to the 'neglected poor' issues." 4. What would the meaning or consequence of g oing to E a s t e r n Europe to i n i t i a t e new programs be f o r G l o b a l F a i t h ? Elizabeth explained: "If we were to move into Eastern Europe, i t would require a philosophical change for [Global F a i t h ] . In Eastern Europe, we wouldn't be dealing with water resources, we would be creating small businesses. We wouldn't be dealing with basic needs which i s our raison d'etre. It i s not what we were set up to do." Richard pointed out a p o t e n t i a l l y negative trade-o f f : "It i s important not to deny that there are issues i n Eastern Europe that need addressing. But I don't believe that we can a f f o r d to take from Third World programming to resource Eastern Europe....If i t involves trading resources, then i t r e f l e c t s a moral f a i l u r e on our part." 3 0 4 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Negotiation Process Stance: Gerald admitted to the rest of the Group of Eight that his r e l a t i o n s h i p with the Board member that was pushing the hardest for Eastern Eurpoe was tense and even competitive. Gerald said: "I tend to react against him." The "threats" made by Gerald and the s t a f f - that they would lose t h e i r commitment to the organization i f the Board used t h e i r power to i n s i s t on programming i n Eastern Europe - show that the tone of the negotiations with the Board were d i s t r i b u t i v e , not integrative (Elgstrom & R i i s , 1992). Goals. The Board was target-oriented; they wanted Global F a i t h to sta r t up programming i n Eastern Europe. Gerald together with the rest of the Group of Eight were status quo-oriented; they did not want to change or add to t h e i r current geographic areas of programming. S t r a t e g i e s . Gerald's main strategy throughout the negotiations was to form a "united front" against the Board by involving the Group of Eight as a type of internal c o a l i t i o n i n the negotiation process, 7 5 Thompson, Peterson, & Kray (1995) suggest that when 7 5 During the process of respondent v a l i d a t i o n , Gerald added the following comments to t h i s description of negotiating with the Board of Directors: "The [Global Faith] s t a f f wanted me to assure them that we would not give on the Eastern Europe issue. The Board had every right to ask me to examine the option to see whether i t was possible. Some of the s t a f f people f e l t that I was not strong enough i n relaying the s t a f f ' s p o s i t i o n on the issue back to the Board." 305 " c o a l i t i o n members... pool t h e i r ideas about t h e i r i nterests and reach consensus about what they want....this w i l l probably enhance feelings of s o l i d a r i t y and cohesion" (p.11). While Gerald was r e s i s t i n g Board pressure and f i g h t i n g to keep the status quo, he was also framing the s i t u a t i o n i n a way that tightened group i d e n t i t y within Global Faith. The c o a l i t i o n of the Group of Eight gathered strength over the course of the entire Eastern Europe debate. Because the negotiations occured over an extended period of time, there was an intermittent sharing of information. According to Polzer, Mannix, and Neale (1995), t h i s "allows c o a l i t i o n s to originate and s t a b i l i z e both at and away from the table" (p.136). Negotiation Outcome The f i n a l outcome of the "Vision Test" negotiation episode was the decision to not go to Eastern Europe to i n i t i a t e new programs. Another outcome was increased s t a f f commitment to the v i s i o n statement. This surfaced at the two-day Director's Retreat 7 6 at the end of A p r i l 1993. The focus of the Retreat was "v i s i o n " - what i t was and how to keep i t strong. Inevitably, Gerald brought up the topic of the "Eastern Europe debate" and linked i t to a discussion of both organizational v i s i o n and personal v i s i o n . Gerald's comments below reveal how he interpreted the meaning surrounding the negotiations about the 7 6 This retreat was for the Group of Eight and one other senior s t a f f member only. The Board of Directors were not included. I attended as a participant observer. 306 implementation of the v i s i o n statement: The s t a f f and volunteers aren't with us because of the Board. They're at [Global Faith] because of the v i s i o n of people, cause and commitment. The Board may think they're i n charge, but they're not. This came out i n the Eastern Europe debate. In a f o r - p r o f i t firm, the Board would have had t h e i r way with Eastern Europe....It i s c r u c i a l that we as in d i v i d u a l s examine what our personal v i s i o n i s . . . . Hopefully, the Group of Eight can s i t around and t a l k and a l l know that we are coming back to the same place and we put up with a l l the other stuff....We can only get into trouble i f one or two people forget t h e i r v i s i o n and see t h i s as a nine to f i v e job or i f the Board does i t to us....It comes back to the importance of having the v i s i o n statement coincide with what you believe. Staff members agreed with Gerald that the Eastern Europe issue was a "watershed" for Global Faith. One person pointed out: "Although you're ticked with [the Board member], maybe you have him to thank for people thinking c l e a r l y and taking to arms and defending the v i s i o n . " And another commented: "The Eastern Europe thing became a way to c l a r i f y the cause and to move forward rather than t r y i n g to j u s t i f y what we're doing today or i n the past." Episode Number Four: N e g o t i a t i n g w i t h Overseas P a r t n e r O r g a n i z a t i o n s Planning A c t i v i t y The planning a c t i v i t y related to t h i s episode i s the process of collaborating with overseas partner organizations i n decisions about which programs to o f f e r overseas. Decision-Needing Issue In the process of carrying out the planning a c t i v i t y , the 3 0 7 decision-needing issue became: How should Global Faith deal with the expectations held by overseas partner organizations for a new overseas program based on the sponsorship model? Should Global Fai t h change t h e i r informal t r a d i t i o n of avoiding the sponsorship model i n order to o f f e r the new program? Char a c t e r i s t i c s of the Cultural Context In contrast with the Board, overseas partner organizations are not viewed as a test or a threat to the v i s i o n statement of Global Faith. Rather, they are considered to be the means to i t s implementation. Summary notes from the Director's V i s i o n Retreat prepared for the Group of Eight by Pam, Director of Marketing, included t h i s quote: "The partners are the hands and feet of [Global Faith's] v i s i o n statement. The partners are the c r i t i c a l l i n k between [Global Faith], [Global Faith's] v i s i o n , and the poor." Global Faith's partners are selected on the basis of a p r i o r i t y framework77 which puts Christian NGOs, evangelical churches, and NGOs with Christian leadership as the f i r s t three choices. Within those categories, partner selection i s compared to a search for a soul mate and i s based on a f e e l i n g of a f f i n i t y between individuals from each organization. Richard explained: A l o t of how we decide on our ongoing partnerships are very personal decisions. It i s l i k e when [Gerald] travels, does he get along with the Director of the organization? If [Gerald] gets along with [the Director], that a l l f i l t e r s 7 7 See the section on overseas partners i n Chapter Five for more d e t a i l s . 3 0 8 through and then you can plan to do whatever you are going to do. This supports Greenhalgh's and Chapman's (1995) claim that the nature of the relationship i s a strong predictor of how the negotiation process w i l l develop. Even with the emphasis on a f f i n i t y and mutual understanding, Global Fa i t h may s t i l l have d i f f i c u l t i e s i n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e i r partner organizations' views. We know when we get overseas, [our partners] don't even t e l l us what the universe looks l i k e from there. [They don't want to t e l l us because] i t might offend us....And that i s going on a l l the time. And an analogy that i s used i n another way i s sidewalk and subway. We think we're walking down the same street but we're on the sidewalk and they're on the subway. So we don't see the same sight. And that i s part of the d i f f i c u l t y as well. The c u l t u r a l context for the episode described below i s mainly characterized by consensus and cohesion (integration) and to a l e s s e r extent, by ambiguity and confusion (fragmentation). Negotiating Parties The parties involved i n t h i s negotiation episode are as follows: Gerald together with the s t a f f of Global Faith, and the Directors of two of Global Faith's main overseas partner organizations. Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Relationship Trust i s a defining feature of Global Faith's relationships with t h e i r main partners. It i s viewed as a necessary condition for j o i n t decision-making over the long-term. As Kevin said: "I 309 think as an organization, our goal i s to get to the point where we have b u i l t up a trust relationship with a partner strong enough to do j o i n t long-term planning." Gerald's description of a good partnership also includes trust as a necessary condition: "Well, the primary c h a r a c t e r i s t i c [of a good rela t i o n s h i p with an overseas partner] i s t r u s t . Out of trus t , out of business." In addition to trust, Gerald emphasized that the nature of the relationship i s " i s dependent on what the percentages are i n the partnership. If you are equal partners, you're going to have equal input into what you're going to do." The Story: S e l l i n g Sponsorship Ideas for new Global Faith programs generally come from the partners. Gerald said: "We want the area guys to i n i t i a t e new programs - though we have a d i f f i c u l t time getting them to do that. They are a f r a i d to make decisions. We keep t a l k i n g with the partners and keep expanding from there. We want our partners to s e l l i t to us and we buy into i t . " The episode described i n t h i s section i s about Global Faith "buying into" a new overseas program that two of t h e i r main partners were t r y i n g to " s e l l " to them. It i s a community linkage program 7 8 that i s e s s e n t i a l l y sponsorship under a di f f e r e n t name. Gerald described the evolution of t h i s program: "The 7 8 See the "Meat and Potatoes" section i n Chapter Four f o r a more det a i l e d description of thi s program. 310 Director of [Global Faith's partner organization i n India] wanted us to do [a sponsorship program]. His agenda i s for that. They thought that would be a good way of sustaining our involvement i n that area. So we fought through and argued that for a couple of years." Global Faith "argued" and re s i s t e d the idea at f i r s t because of a negative view of c h i l d sponsorship i n international development programs. Gerald especially, i s c r i t i c a l of the sponsorship model. Some s t a f f at Global Faith p a r t i c i p a t e i n the c h i l d sponsorship programs of other organizations and do not agree t o t a l l y with Gerald's c r i t i c i s m of t h i s approach. Stan, i n p a r t i c u l a r , i s an advocate for using the term "sponsorship" i n fundraising. Gerald w i l l not permit t h i s and does not even l i k e to hear the word "sponsorship" used around the o f f i c e . The s t a f f c a l l i t the "s word." Stan provided his int e r p r e t a t i o n of the negotiation process leading up to the decision to o f f e r the new program: We talked about i n t e n s i f y i n g the donor's benefit - you know the donors' closeness to the work. And then we talked about c h i l d sponsorship. In fact, we have had people ask me -donors ask us - i f we would do some c h i l d sponsorship so they could sponsor. They wanted to sponsor and they wanted to sponsor through [Global Faith]. But that didn't r e a l l y move us too much.... Child sponsorship i n i t s e l f doesn't r e f l e c t what the organization i s doing. It fosters a patronizing attitude towards people. So we've been looking for some way to duplicate that r e l i a b l e flow of income from people who f e e l that close connection with t h e i r recipient -with the recipient of t h e i r compassion.... So, the donors started asking here and also at the same time, people overseas were asking: "Would you do some kind of sponsorship? We would l i k e to work with you on that kind of l e v e l . " Both i n Ethiopia and i n India. Some of our largest partners were asking us to do i t . So that was 311 another pressure. As a group, that decision was probably-affected by the fact that we had had encouragement from [overseas partner organizations]. The group i s also affected by [Gerald's] advocacy. He advocated i t so that has to have some ef f e c t on the group. Gerald's description of how the negotiations with the partner organizations developed i s as follows: When [the Director of the partner organization i n India] said to us "You need to do t h i s business of helping fa m i l i e s " [through the new linkage program], we know that he knows exactly at that point what i s going on. Right? It i s not l i k e we have to run over there and hide behind some baloney about what we are doing. It i s clear what we are doing. We're tr y i n g to f i n d a way to get people to give every month to a thing. And he wants that and we want that. So we s i t down and I ride along i n his car and he says: "Here i s what you should be doing." Right? With our partner group i n Ethiopia, we have a thing that i s s i m i l a r but not i d e n t i c a l . Meaning as Text The subject matter of the discussions between Global Faith and overseas partner organizations i s the meaning or symbolism of i n i t i a t i n g a new program based on the sponsorship model. Meaning as Sub-Text While negotiating the meaning of the new program with overseas partner organization, Global Faith was also working through other meanings underlying the negotiations. Global Faith s t a f f were asking themselves, and each other, the following questions concerning meaning as sub-text. 1. What i s the meaning or s i g n i f i c a n c e of the pro c e s s of c o l l a b o r a t i n g w i t h overseas p a r t n e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s ? Richard emphasized that t h e i r partners may not i n i t i a l l y or even 312 automatically trust Global Faith to collaborate: Organizationally, we have to earn the right to be trusted. We have to show over time that we're not going to dominate. There are things that interest us. There are things that inter e s t them. Their agenda i s most important because i t i s t h e i r country. They have to l i v e with the p o l i t i c a l , s o c i a l and economic implications of the work that they do. Kevin also stressed the importance of getting "to the point of trust where what they want to do i s based on t h e i r needs and not your p r i o r i t i e s . " Stan explained that Global Faith s t a f f thought: "Well, i f the partners want i t , that i s where the request should come from - from overseas. It has been i n i t i a t e d from the right place. Let's do what we can to make that happen." 2. What does the new program mean to us? What i s the symbolic v a l u e of a program based on a sponsorship model? Gerald explained that the biggest concern about a new program based on a sponsorship model from Global Faith's point of view was "probably consensus that we don't l i k e sponsorship and c h i l d sponsorship. That would probably be our largest problem with i t . If we don't l i k e that, why are we doing this? What are we doing here? So, f i r s t we have to r a t i o n a l i z e i t for ourselves." Gerald, especially, i s against sponsorship. He points to the high overhead and tracking costs, and the inequities created within communities as a result of sponsoring only c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l s . Gerald recognizes that general public donors i n Canada l i k e contributing to sponsorship programs because of the "good f e e l i n g " they get but he i n s i s t s that the exchange i s not equal. Donors get more out of sponsorship programs than the "b e n e f i c i a r i e s . " Stan i s more i n favor of a sponsorship model and 313 he pointed to the symbolic value of the new program i n terms of fundraising: "It builds a point of contact for the donor and I think a better contact. It gives them more motivation to become educated. To become conversant with what i s going on. To read the reports on the community. Why? Because they have linked with a family there." 3. What does the new program mean to our overseas p a r t n e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s ? What i s the f u n c t i o n a l v a l u e of a program based on a s p o n s o r s h i p model? Gerald explained that "our partners have been a f t e r us for years to come up with something to guarantee income from us so that they can work to support the communities." Stan also interpreted the functional value of the new program from the partners' point of view to be the fact that " i t builds a steady income for the people overseas to complete the projects i n the communities." Char a c t e r i s t i c s of the Negotiation Process Stance. Both parties had a cooperative stance throughout the negotiations. Goals. Early i n the negotiations with t h e i r main partners over the new community linkage program, Global Faith had a status quo orient a t i o n . They did not want to become involved i n a program based on the sponsorship model. "Sponsorship" was jokingly considered to be a forbidden word. However, due to the nature of Global Faith's relationship with t h e i r partner and the a b i l i t y of 314 Global Fa i t h s t a f f to recognize the functional as well as the symbolic meaning of the new program, Global Faith was able to adjust t h e i r goals to be target-oriented and i n l i n e with those of t h e i r partner. S t r a t e g i e s . According to Kevin, dialogue leading to mutual understanding, delegation of decision-making to partners, and recognition of Global Faith's own c r i t e r i a and p r i o r i t i e s are the key strategies used by Global Faith for maintaining trust r elationships with t h e i r partners. This implies dialogue i n terms of what they're currently doing and what they want to do. It implies discussion on development philosophy. It implies some l e v e l of your partner understanding [Global Faith] - understanding what i t i s and what i t wants to do long-term. It implies that the donor - us at [Global Faith] allows some decision-making by the re c i p i e n t [i.e . , overseas partner organization] i n terms of what they can do with that money. Now, i t i s very d i f f i c u l t to get to that point because we have c r i t e r i a . We have p r i o r i t i e s i n what we want to do. Gerald's descriptions of Global Faith's strategies for negotiating with partner organizations include an emphasis on mutual understanding and dialogue: "you know each other and that doesn't mean organizationally as much as i t means i n d i v i d u a l l y . And, at the end of the day, when things aren't working well, you talk i t over. If you're r e a l l y partners, you don't walk away." Dialogue i s e s p e c i a l l y important because "self-presentational concerns" often prevent partners from openly divulging information about t h e i r own preferences and goals (Thompson, Peterson, & Kray, 1995). An integrative agreement with the overseas partner 315 organizations was made possible through a strategy c a l l e d "bridging" i n negotiation theory. P r u i t t (1983) describes the bridging strategy below: In bridging, neither party achieves i t s i n i t i a l demands but a new option i s devised that s a t i s f i e s the most important int e r e s t s underlying these demands.... Bridging t y p i c a l l y involves a reformulation of the issue(s) based on an analysis of the underlying interests on both sides.... People who seek to develop solutions by bridging need information about the nature of the two parties' interests and t h e i r p r i o r i t i e s among these i n t e r e s t s . . . . More often, higher-p r i o r i t y interests are served while lower-priority i n t e r e s t s are discarded, (pp.40-41) Because of the long-term relationships with partner organizations b u i l t on p r i n c i p l e s of mutual trust and dialogue, both pa r t i e s were aware of each other's interests and the p r i o r i t i e s among those i n t e r e s t s . This awareness of each other's h i e r a r c h i c a l "interest trees" allowed them to t r a v e l down the trees f a r enough to locate interests that could be e a s i l y reconciled with the int e r e s t s of the other party (Pruitt, 1983). Negotiation Outcome An integrative agreement was reached and the new community linkage program was f i n a l l y i n i t i a t e d i n the f a l l of 1992. Brochures were designed and distributed, photographs of families to "sponsor" were processed, and donors were informed of the new way to support Global Faith's work overseas. Episode Number F i v e : N e g o t i a t i n g w i t h i n G l o b a l F a i t h Planning A c t i v i t y The planning a c t i v i t y related to t h i s episode i s the process 316 of coordinating and managing the people involved i n planning at Global Faith. Decision-Needing Issue In the process of carrying out the planning a c t i v i t y , the decision-needing issue became: How should Global Faith s t a f f be motivated i n t h e i r work? How can Global Faith s t a f f maintain t h e i r commitment to the "cause?" Characte r i s t i c s of the Cultural Context References to the family setting of Global Faith and the common emphasis on agreement and harmony suggest a c u l t u r a l context characterized mainly by consensus and consistency (integration) and to a lesser extent, potential c o n f l i c t and contradictions ( d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n ) . Negotiating Parties The parties involved i n thi s negotiation episode are as follows: Gerald, and the rest of the s t a f f of Global Faith. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Relationship The s t a f f of Global Faith consider themselves to be drawn together l i k e a family - with feelings of fellowship and also with the pot e n t i a l for discord. When you are a close-knit family, the issues that divide you or that could cause c o n f l i c t can be very, very strong issues and they can be very, very d i v i s i v e . And I think i n a strong, close-knit, small, working family, [Gerald] i s very 317 much able to keep a balanced relationship with everybody. Pam also commented on Gerald's central role and the family s e t t i n g at Global Faith. I would see [Gerald] as somebody that p u l l s us together i n discussions and everything....A l o t of meetings and checks and balances. He does have a personal s t y l e . I would say that [Global Faith] i s run more l i k e a family s e t t i n g i n that you know, you have your squabbles. Not so much now as -I think i t used to be worse. But i t i s more l i k e a family i n that you don't always get along. In addition to the potential for c o n f l i c t , there i s also the element of mutual dependence i n relationships at Global Faith. Gerald t o l d the Group of Eight: We a l l l i v e i n the same r e a l i t y . I believe I've been asked to do a job which makes me the same as everyone else i n the room. The issue i s tryi n g together to get i t done. I can't ignore what I have been asked to do, but I can't do i t without you. Mutual dependence together with the potential for c o n f l i c t are the ingredients of a relationship engaged i n negotiation. The Story: Leadership at the Hub The four episodes discussed i n the preceding sections show how Global Faith negotiates across organizational boundaries. This section looks at negotiations within Global Faith and focuses on Gerald's role as a leader. Gerald occupies a central position at Global Faith. He has unlimited access to information which, according to Ian, i s necessary because of his role as negotiator among the s t a f f . Everything reports back to [Gerald]. He i s on top of everything. And the order i s that every single piece of paper that goes out, every memo that i s written - whether i t i s to somebody overseas or a l e t t e r going out or 318 interdepartmental or whatever - a copy of everything goes to [Gerald]. He glances through the whole thing so that he always has a t o t a l picture of what i s going on. Now, that i s v i t a l l y important because you could r e l a t e i t to a p o l i t i c a l s i t u a t i o n that you see i n government and they are constantly being badgered by the single inte r e s t groups. Each one has the most important problem i n the world and they want you to finance i t . And somehow, somebody has got to have the ov e r a l l picture i n order to place an evaluation on these things and know when to say no. And [Gerald] r e a l l y i s that person. He has that t o t a l picture. And we have a l l had sessions where we were r e a l l y badgering him to get something done or to get something produced and he i s the one that w i l l have to say no. Which he does. And he s t i l l keeps us tal k i n g . We're s t i l l friends. Gerald's role as a leader c a l l s to mind the image of the hub of a wagon wheel. Gerald i s at the center, i n t e r a c t i n g with each spoke or in d i v i d u a l s t a f f member i n a "balanced" way so that the rim i s supported and the wheel (i . e . , the organization) remains i n t a c t . The s t a f f at Global Faith view Gerald, the Executive Director, as having a central vantage point on the workings of the agency: "he i s the only one who sees the whole picture" and "everything that goes i n or out has to go through [Gerald] somehow." Gerald deals both b i l a t e r a l l y with the departmental Directors and m u l t i l a t e r a l l y with the Group of Eight and the various other committees. His control of the spokes ( i . e . , promoting consensus decision-making among the Directors) helps support the rim (i. e . , continued survival of the organization). As Gerald said: "When a group of people s i t around, one of the decisions I have to make i s the decision regarding whether there i s consensus i n the room or not" because without consensus, "you end up destroying each other and you destroy the program." 319 This episode i l l u s t r a t e s how Gerald's actions as a leader serve to maintain the wagon wheel configuration of Global Faith, which i n turn a f f e c t s how Global Faith negotiates across organizational boundaries. How does Gerald a c t u a l l y operate i n a meeting with the Group of Eight? The following excerpt from my fieldnotes gives an in d i c a t i o n of Gerald's style of i n t e r a c t i o n and leadership i n a group s i t u a t i o n . [Gerald] ran the meeting much the same way that I have seen him do before. He directed the conversation, asked the questions, c l a r i f i e d responses, made jokes, and then closed the meeting by going around the room and asking each one by one i f they were "happy" and i f everything was a l l taken care of. He kept asking, one person at a time, u n t i l the group tide brought i n acquiescence. Everyone nodded. His s t y l e both bothered me and impressed me. He didn't s i t back and l e t everyone work i t a l l out without him - he kept a watchful and careful hand on the gear s h i f t . The conversation went where he directed i t . Spontaneity came i n through the jokes and they were mostly i n i t i a t e d by him. It was not an environment that would foster c r e a t i v i t y or r i s k taking. I was impressed, on the other hand, by his seemingly sincere inte r e s t i n everyone's l e v e l of agreement. He gave everyone a chance to say how they were doing. Thinking about t h i s now: i t seems almost patronizing; as i f people won't say what they were thinking unless he asked them. Maybe they wouldn't. They might be sort of i n awe of him - given his career as a pastor and the fact that many of them met him through the church. Gerald also defines the experience of the s t a f f at Global Faith through control of the issues brought up i n conversations and during meetings. Gerald's rationale for t h i s i s as follows: We do know that i f we lose sight of the fact that we ex i s t to share compassion with the neglected poor, a l l we are doing i s r a i s i n g money to sustain ourselves. Even that, I guess, leads to a bigger problem and that i s the larger you get, the more d i f f i c u l t i t i s to remember why you do what you do because you end up being i n meetings a l l day. You end up discussing t h i s . You end up discussing CIDA. You end up 3 2 0 discussing an appeal l e t t e r . You end up discussing how much money came i n from that appeal l e t t e r . And those things are a l l closer to home. It's a l o t more d i f f i c u l t to discuss what i s happening i n Ethiopia when most of the people don't have a clue. If you took the people here, three quarters of them deal with everything but the d i r e c t dealing with Third World issues. Therefore, three quarters of the conversations, i f we're not careful, w i l l end up being about everything but the Third World. Gerald frames the conversations at Global Faith by modeling a type of "method acting" (his term) for the group. Ian commented on Gerald's approach: [Gerald's] compassion i s there and i t i s very r e a l . You could even see i t t h i s morning [during the Prayer Meeting] when he was reading that a r t i c l e about the incredible hardship i n Somalia. Just wondering about people and the things that w i l l occupy us. And I think he did that d e l i b e r a t e l y because he knows that a l l of us are reasonably normal people and we get our own agendas and we get interested i n other things besides the ministry of [Global F a i t h ] . You can get so used to hearing about hunger and starvation. It can become academic. It can become s t u f f that we just t a l k about. And i t can become cold and i t must not. This framing or defining the experiences of others corresponds to Smircich & Morgan's (1982) view of leadership as the management of meaning: Leadership as a phenomenon i s i d e n t i f i a b l e within i t s wider context as a form of action that seeks to shape i t s context. Leadership works by influencing the rel a t i o n s h i p between figure and ground, and hence the meaning and d e f i n i t i o n of the context as a whole. The actions and utterances of leaders guide the attention of those involved i n a s i t u a t i o n i n ways that are consciously or unconsciously designed to shape the meaning of the s i t u a t i o n . The actions and utterances draw attention to p a r t i c u l a r aspects of the o v e r a l l flow of experience, transforming what may be complex and ambiguous into something more discrete and vested with a s p e c i f i c pattern of meaning, (p.261) These descriptions of Gerald's influence over Global Fai t h s t a f f members c a l l to mind Etzioni's (1961) description of "charisma" which i s "the a b i l i t y of an actor to exercise d i f f u s e 321 and intense influence over the normative orientations of other actors.... charisma, l i k e authority, i s a r e l a t i o n a l property" (p.203). E t z i o n i ' s (1961) view of charisma helps to explain the high l e v e l of commitment and moral involvement of Global Faith s t a f f : One generic function of charisma for organizations i s well known: i t serves as a major source of legitimation. In addition, i t influences the need-dispositions of the p a r t i c i p a n t s i n such a manner that t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the organization, i n p a r t i c u l a r i t s symbolic a c t i v i t i e s (e.g., r i t u a l s ) , w i l l increase t h e i r g r a t i f i c a t i o n and hence t h e i r p o s i t i v e orientation. It therefore builds up commitment.... the more normative power i s r e l i e d upon, the greater the need for moral involvement, and the greater the need for charisma, (p.210) Meaning as Text The subject matter of the discussions between Gerald and the rest of the Global Faith s t a f f i s the meaning or s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e i r work at Global Faith. Meaning as Sub-Text While negotiating the meaning of working at Global Faith, Gerald and the s t a f f were also working through other meanings underlying the negotiations. Gerald and the s t a f f were asking themselves, and each other, the following questions concerning meaning as sub-text. 1. What i s the meaning or s i g n i f i c a n c e of Gerald's r e l a t i o n s h i p s and i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s t a f f members at G l o b a l F a i t h , a c c o r d i n g to the s t a f f members? Asafa a t t r i b u t e s Gerald's a b i l i t y to get people to buy into his 322 ideas to the custom-made influence that he exerts on each in d i v i d u a l s t a f f member. One of the issues that I struggle with i s that I think of how much i s my view independent of [Gerald's] view because he does have tremendous influence on people, on thinking. His influence i s not a d i c t a t o r i a l influence. It i s almost as i f i t i s an influence which comes by providing a person whatever type of influence they need. It i s a very f l e x i b l e type of influence....It i s sort of custom-made influence, custom-made for each person. Dan's int e r p r e t a t i o n of why Gerald i s succesful i n getting s t a f f to "buy i n " i s as follows: For me, i t i s because of his past record. His experience and wise decision-making i n the past t e l l i n g me that t h i s probably i s a good idea and I should give i t a t r y . And I don't think that I have ever questioned seriously anything he has suggested that way....[The other Directors] probably have t h e i r own reasons [for buying i n ] . Some do i t just t o t a l l y out of lo y a l t y . I t r y to think of i t i n a l o g i c a l way. I probably do i t out of l o y a l t y too though. If he has something to say, to me i t i s very important that I l i s t e n to i t . And I see a l o t of wisdom i n what he says. I think most of our strategy and ideas come through him as opposed to s i t t i n g down and brainstorming and coming up with i t as a group....And i t i s c e r t a i n l y not that people don't have ideas. We c e r t a i n l y do and that comes out when we do the Strategic Planning thing. But the r e a l l y important st u f f -l i k e i f you want to figure out how we are going.to deal with a CIDA I n s t i t u t i o n a l Evaluation, well, [Gerald] w i l l have excellent ideas on how to do that. Pam emphasized the importance of l o y a l t y i n the relationships between Gerald and the s t a f f : There i s c e r t a i n l y a l o y a l t y to people i n the organization. There i s l o y a l t y to [Gerald] for sure, and I would see that i n a l l the Directors [Group of Eight] and most of the other s t a f f as well. There i s real l o y a l t y to [Gerald] and to the organization - [Gerald] being [Global Faith] as well. And I see a strong l o y a l t y from [Gerald] to the people, the s t a f f And he doesn't l i k e seeing c o n f l i c t and that sort of thing. 3 2 3 2. What i s the meaning or s i g n i f i c a n c e of Gerald's r e l a t i o n s h i p s and i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s t a f f members a t G l o b a l F a i t h , a c c o r d i n g to Gerald? Gerald's view of management i s that i t " i s always related to r e l a t i o n s h i p s . These are the people you are walking through l i f e with....I can't ignore what I have been asked to do, but I can't do i t without you. I appreciate a l l of you." 3. What i s the meaning of a job somewhere e l s e compared to working at G l o b a l F a i t h ? According to Gerald, working at Global Faith i s not "just a job" - i t i s more of a c a l l i n g . In many other organizations, you would be there from nine to f i v e , right? That i s your job. You're i n a union and you go home. That i s your career path. You know, you quit t h i s one and then you go to that one and then you go to that one. I don't think that i s the way to operate. I think there has to be enough of a commitment to the poor that you see t h i s [working at Global Faith] as a vehicle to see that f u l f i l l e d . And therefore, you are [Global Faith] and [Global Faith] i s you. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Negotiation Process S t r a t e g i e s . What are Gerald's main strategies as a leader? I asked Gerald what he thought the most important lessons would be for other NGOs that might want to follow the same course as Global Faith. Gerald's f i r s t lesson for other organizations would be to focus on strengthening the perimeter or the boundary of the organization through a careful process of recruitment. The f i r s t thing would be to choose the people who work within the organization very carefully....Are the people you work with soulmates? Now, as organizations l i k e ours become more and more professional, they are losing more and more of that....They don't want to know about the soul of the 3 2 4 people. They don't have any interest i n i t . So how do you know whether you have a sense of cause anymore? I think those are the most important. The other thing i s : are you w i l l i n g to s t i c k together? Or are you ready to go i n there and leave i n two years and wander off i n some other area? Is there some synergy? And I would also warn people against going a f t e r highly trained, highly s k i l l e d professional whatevers. Because they w i l l never stay. They are never committed to the cause. They are committed to what they think they can do well. And what you can do well i s secondary to the cause. Gerald then emphasized the importance of role assignment and l e t t i n g s t a f f f i n d t h e i r own l e v e l within the organizational structure. The second thing would be to throw out the organizational structure....It would come back into i t s own. You look at [Global F a i t h ] . People f i n d t h e i r own l e v e l . Right? And t h e i r jobs help them f i n d t h e i r own l e v e l . Very few of the s t a f f at Global Faith a c t u a l l y came to the organization with experience i n international development. Gerald has been able to see the "potential" i n people and has used t h i s assessment i n decisions to send people overseas without p r i o r experience (l i k e Kevin or Dan, for example). Asafa commented on th i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Gerald's leadership: When you look at a l l the positions at [Global Faith] and a l l the roles that people play at [Global F a i t h ] , none of us started those or got to those positions because when we started we were the best q u a l i f i e d people for those positions. [Gerald] never looked at that paper q u a l i f i c a t i o n s that people have...that i s not the c r i t i c a l and key issue. I imagine he would ask the question: "Is t h i s guy a team player?" I think that would be a c r i t i c a l question for him. And, "Is t h i s guy trainable or teachable?" And, "what are the person's motivations?" So he would r e a l l y focus on the people. Gerald explained that giving s t a f f (especially the support staff) the opportunity to spend time overseas i s "the only way you get them to buy into what we're doing." 325 Another c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of Gerald's leadership at Global Faith i s his a b i l i t y to promote a consensus norm of decision-making within the Group of Eight. Gerald explains how he i s able to accomplish t h i s : My s t y l e probably s i t s well with a l l of these d i f f e r e n t people, the eight people - there are seven others, I guess, right? So I seem to be able to relate and that i s where the b i l a t e r a l things work. But i t also works m u l t i l a t e r a l l y . Because we can s i t together and there i s generally speaking, consensus. I do not have that p a r t i c u l a r s t y l e where I w i l l go and bring people on side before every meeting and manoeuvre and manipulate b i l a t e r a l l y , before the m u l t i l a t e r a l meeting takes place. I would rather see what they f e e l and then be able to walk out of there and know that there wasn't consensus and we didn't make a decision. Maybe that i s another thing that I do. Maybe I not only make decisions but I make sure we don't make decisions. Like i f there i s not consensus, I make sure we don't ever reach a decision. So that we can walk away and come back. Another way to look at the promotion of consensus i s as the valuing of conformity. Pf e f f e r (1982) points out that "groups tend to enforce conformity on t h e i r members. In return for belonging, a person i s expected to comply with the behavioral and a t t i t u d i n a l norms of the group, p a r t i c u l a r l y when such norms are considered to be c r i t i c a l " (p.103). The Ch r i s t i a n foundation of Global Fa i t h together with Gerald's s t y l e of leadership helped to ensure " a t t i t u d i n a l homogenization" (Pfeffer, 1982) within the Group of Eight. Negotiation Outcome According to Gerald, the outcome of negotiations between Gerald and the s t a f f of Global Faith concerning the meaning of t h e i r work at Global Faith i s an "exchange" and "an incredible, 326 i n c r e d i b l e impact." We know that we can probably never do anything i n l i f e that i s completely a l t r u i s t i c . I doubt that I can.... Whatever I do, I always get an exchange. I always get something back. So I say I'm doing something for God and that type of pompous malarky. But the fact of the matter i s I don't know how God feels about i t , but I f e e l good about i t . So, when we have a l l these various people, i f we can j o i n t l y f e e l that way about each other and then reach out from there, we have an incredible, incredible impact. According to Pam, an outcome of negotiations with Gerald concerning the meaning of work at Global Faith i s increased commitment and low s t a f f turnover. I think [Gerald] has a style of managing that he i s very proud of and w i l l t e l l anybody about. When he compares himself to other non-profits that have a huge turnover of people, he sees his style of managing or d i r e c t i n g as something that goes deeper because i t i s a commitment to the poor and that i s why people stay so long. And that to him i s a huge asset and a very p o s i t i v e thing for him whereas a l o t of non-profits have a huge turn-around of s t a f f . I think that helps i n the s t a b i l i t y of [Global F a i t h ] . Comparison and A n a l y s i s The f i v e episodes i l l u s t r a t i n g the negotiation of meaning at Global Faith were presented above using the framework developed i n Chapter Two. This section applies the same framework for comparing and analyzing the f i v e episodes. P l a n n i n g A c t i v i t i e s The planning a c t i v i t i e s that involved the negotiation of meaning were: 1. securing and maintaining government funding through the submission of a proposal and completion of f i n a l reports, 2. securing and maintaining general public donations through fundraising, 327 3. a r t i c u l a t i n g and implementing the v i s i o n statement, 4. collaborating with overseas partner organizations i n decisions about which programs to o f f e r overseas, and 5. coordinating and managing the people involved i n planning within the organization. What i s noteworthy here i s the fact that a l l of these planning a c t i v i t i e s had to be ca r r i e d out with the p a r t i c i p a t i o n and contributions of many individuals. Planning at Global F a i t h c l e a r l y involves a give-and-take among people, many of whom would not consider themselves to be involved i n planning decisions. The pervasive and s o c i a l l y i n teractive nature of planning a c t i v i t i e s means that planning i n organizations i s an embedded process making i t d i f f i c u l t to separate from other aspects of organizational decision-making. D e c i s i o n - N e e d i n g Issues The decision-needing issues that led to the negotiations were: 1. How should Global Faith deal with the confusing process of submitting "adequate" reports and proposals to CIDA so that CIDA funding for Global Faith's core overseas programs would be released as soon as possible? 2. How should Global Faith deal with c o n f l i c t i n g expectations and demands from CIDA and from the general public donors regarding p r o s e l y t i z a t i o n overseas? How can Global F a i t h s a t i s f y both groups and s t i l l do what they want to do themselves? 3. How should Global Faith deal with c o n f l i c t i n g interpretations held by s t a f f and the Board of Directors over how to define and carry out Global Faith's v i s i o n statement? Should Global Faith i n i t i a t e new programs i n Eastern Europe as suggested by the Board of Directors? 328 4. How should Global Faith deal with the expectations held by overseas partner organizations for a new overseas program based on the sponsorship model? Should Global Fai t h change t h e i r informal t r a d i t i o n of avoiding the sponsorship model i n order to o f f e r the new program? 5. How should Global Faith s t a f f be motivated i n t h e i r work? How can Global Faith s t a f f maintain t h e i r commitment to the "cause?" The need for decisions around these issues and the interdependent nature of the relationships among decision-makers together provided the impetus for the negotiations. As can be seen from the above l i s t , not a l l the issues had to do with s p e c i f i c programs but t h e i r resolution ultimately affected the o f f e r i n g of programs. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the C u l t u r a l Contexts The main c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the c u l t u r a l context for each negotiation episode were: 1. ambiguity, confusion and paradox (fragmentation) 2. c o n f l i c t and inconsistency (differentiation) 3. c o n f l i c t and inconsistency (differentiation) 4. consensus, cohesion, and consistency (integration) 5. consensus, cohesion, and consistency (integration) The c u l t u r a l contexts provide the meanings that people use to make sense of what should be done to resolve the c o n f l i c t or c l a r i f y the confusion or promote cohesion. The c u l t u r a l contexts are also the product of what was done. Varying interpretations of the c u l t u r a l context are related to previous negotiation experiences and outcomes. Past outcomes become present c u l t u r a l 329 contexts; present outcomes contribute to the c u l t u r a l contexts of future negotiations. N e g o t i a t i n g P a r t i e s The negotiating parties involved i n each of the negotiation episodes were: 1. Richard, Elizabeth, and Gerald from Global Faith, and Janet, William, and Edward from CIDA; 2. Stan, Richard, and Gerald from Global Faith, and many individuals, mostly from the Evangelical C h r i s t i a n community; 3. Gerald, together with the rest of the Group of Eight, and the Board of Directors; 4. Gerald, together with the s t a f f of Global Faith, and the Directors of two of the main overseas partner organizations; and 5. Gerald, and the rest of the s t a f f at Global Faith. This l i s t shows that with the exception of the f i f t h episode, the negotiations at Global Faith most often occur between and among groups of people as opposed to being contained to just two ind i v i d u a l s . This adds another layer of complexity to the negotiation process that i s e s p e c i a l l y apparent at the sub-text l e v e l . C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the R e l a t i o n s h i p Trust - or lack of trust - i s often a defining feature of relationships between negotiating parties at Global Faith. F a m i l i a r i t y and the degree of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the other party also a f f e c t s the stance taken during the negotiation process. At 330 Global Faith, the case was that the greater the f a m i l i a r i t y , trust, and degree of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the other party, the more l i k e l y i t was that the negotiating parties chose a cooperative or non-confrontational stance. This supports Greenhalgh and Chapman's (1995) claim that the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a strong predictor of how the negotiation process w i l l develop. N e g o t i a t i o n of Meaning Episode (The Story) In an e f f o r t to evoke the essence of each episode, the following story names were assigned: 1. Three Backflips 2. A Struggle for Integrity 3. V i s i o n Test 4. S e l l i n g Sponsorship 5. Leadership at the Hub Now that the d e t a i l s of the events and circumstances surrounding each of the episodes have been presented, i t i s possible to see the interconnectedness of a l l the s t o r i e s . For example, negotiations with CIDA provided the focus of the Three Backflips story but CIDA's expectations were also a concern i n the Struggle for Integrity story. Donors' preferences provided the focus of the Struggle for Integrity story but they were also considered i n V i s i o n Test and i n S e l l i n g Sponsorship. Overseas partner organizations' p r i o r i t i e s provided the focus of the S e l l i n g Sponsorship story, but they were also a factor i n V i s i o n Test. Gerald's expectations and preferences were considered i n a l l of the s t o r i e s . 331 Meaning as Text The subject matters of the discussions during the negotiations were: 1. the meaning or content of CIDA's reporting requirements and the meaning or purpose of the Global Faith's proposal, 2. the meaning or purpose of Global Faith's overseas programs, 3. the meaning or significance of Global Faith's v i s i o n statement, 4. the meaning or symbolism of i n i t i a t i n g a new program based on the sponsorship model, and 5. the meaning or significance of working at Global Faith. This shows that d i f f e r e n t aspects of meaning - content, purpose, significance, and symbolism - of various phenomena, a c t i v i t i e s , decisions, or states of existence at Global Faith are a l l negotiable. The fact that so much i s open to negotiation does not mean that nothing matters. On the contrary, the negotiations are about what matters. Meaning as Sub-Text While negotiating meaning (i.e. , while t r y i n g to c l a r i f y or resolve unclear or c o n f l i c t i n g issues), the parties involved were also working through other meanings underlying the negotiations. Questions about sub-text meanings were: 1.1 What i s the meaning or significance of the process of negotiating with CIDA i n order to receive funding? 1.2 What do the reports and proposals mean to us? What i s t h e i r functional value? 1.3 What do the reports and proposals mean to CIDA? What i s t h e i r functional value? 1.4 What are the CIDA o f f i c e r ' s intentions? Is she well-meaning with respect to Global Faith? 332 2.1 What i s the meaning or significance of the process of negotiating with general public donors i n order to receive donations? 2.2 What do the donations mean to us? What i s t h e i r functional value? 2.3 What do Global Faith's fundraising e f f o r t s mean to the general public donors? How are they interpreted? 2.4 What are the ind i v i d u a l donor's intentions? Are they well-meaning with respect to Global Faith? 3.1 What i s the meaning or significance of the long and d i f f i c u l t process of a r t i c u l a t i n g the v i s i o n statement? 3.2 What does the v i s i o n statement mean to us? What i s the symbolic value of the v i s i o n statement? 3.3 What does the v i s i o n statement mean to the Board of Directors? What i s the symbolic value of the v i s i o n statement? 3.4 What would the meaning or consequence of going to Eastern Europe to i n i t i a t e new programs be for Global Faith? 4.1 What i s the meaning or significance of the process of collaborating with overseas partner organizations? 4.2 What does the new program mean to us? What i s the symbolic value of a program based on a sponsorship model? 4.3 What does the new program mean to our overseas partner organizations? What i s the functional value or a program based on a sponsorship model? 5.1 What i s the meaning or significance of Gerald's relationships and interactions with i n d i v i d u a l s t a f f members at Global Faith, according to the s t a f f members? 5.2 What i s the meaning or significance of Gerald's relationships and interactions with i n d i v i d u a l s t a f f members at Global Faith, according to Gerald? 5.3 What i s the meaning of a job somewhere else compared to working at Global Faith? This l i s t of questions about the meanings underlying the negotiations shows that multiple and varying interpretations of relationships and related planning a c t i v i t i e s are not only possible but are factored i n to negotiations themselves. Understanding at the sub-text l e v e l of negotiating meaning at Global Faith i s related to the choice of strategy used during the negotiations. 333 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the N e g o t i a t i o n Process The following strategies were used i n the negotiation episodes: 1.1 acquire information about CIDA o f f i c e r s ' preferences and p r i o r i t i e s ; 1.2 "f i n d the common ground that you can work with;" 1.3 mirror CIDA's vagueness and keep proposals i n draft form u n t i l CIDA's po s i t i o n i s known; 1.4 firm f l e x i b i l i t y (firm with respect to Global Faith's ends and f l e x i b l e with respect to the means to these ends). 2.1 attention-shaping (framing, highlighting, or downplaying of the information communicated to CIDA and the donors); 2.2 s t r u c t u r a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n (different subunits deal with various c o a l i t i o n s ) . 3.1 form a united front through inte r n a l c o a l i t i o n b u i l d ing; 3.2 intermittment sharing of information within c o a l i t i o n . 4.1 dialogue with respect to goals and philosophies; 4.2 bridging (reformulation of the issue based on analysis of the sub-text). 5.1 recruitment of "soulmates,-" 5.2 l e t s t a f f " f i n d t h e i r own l e v e l ; " 5.3 o f f e r i n g of rewards (time overseas) to encourage s t a f f to "buy i n ; " 5.4 promote consensus norm of decision-making ("attitudinal homogenization"). This l i s t reveals a wide var i e t y of the strategies used i n negotiation of meaning episodes at Global Faith. It seems that the choice of strategy i s s p e c i f i c to each episode rather than to a type of c u l t u r a l context. N e g o t i a t i o n Outcomes The following outcomes were the results of the negotiation episodes: 1.1 completion of reports and submission of an acceptable proposal; 1.2 plan made for the next three years ("it forced us to 334 think"); 1.3 increased understanding of a new relat i o n s h i p with a CIDA o f f i c e r . 2.1 plan made to continue receiving general public donor support through fundraising aimed at the Evangelical C h r i s t i a n community; 2.2 donors' expectations were met; 2.3 CIDA's expectations were met. 3.1 plan made to not go to Eastern Europe to i n i t i a t e new programs; 3.2 increased s t a f f commitment to the v i s i o n statement and c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the "cause;" 4.1 plan made through an integrative agreement with overseas partner organizations to o f f e r the new program; 4.2 overseas partner organizations and donors both s a t i s f i e d . 5.1 exchange f u l f i l l e d between Gerald and the s t a f f and an "incredible impact" from " j o i n t l y f e e l i n g that way about each other;" 5.2 s t a f f plan to stay longer at Global Faith due to increased feelings of involvement and commitment. Each episode included an outcome which was a plan for the guidance of future action - which makes sense because the product of planning i s a plan. However, i t appears that there are other products of the planning process as well; such as increased s t a f f commitment and increased understanding of new relationships with stakeholders. The next chapter concludes t h i s ethnography of planning at Global Faith. I summarize the study and the re s u l t s , and consider the contributions to knowledge, implications, and l i m i t a t i o n s of the research. 335 CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND LIMITATIONS Cultural analysis i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y incomplete. And, worse than that, the more deeply i t goes the less complete i t i s . It i s a strange science whose most t e l l i n g assertions are i t s most tremulously based, i n which to get somewhere with the matter at hand i s to i n t e n s i f y the suspicion, both your own and that of others, that you are not quite getting i t r i g h t . (Geertz, 1973, p.29) In t h i s concluding chapter, I summarize the study and discuss the contributions to knowledge, implications, and l i m i t a t i o n s of the research. In closing, I o f f e r suggestions for future research and end with some remarks dealing with the importance of learning i n the process of planning. Summary of the Study This section r e v i s i t s the problem statement, research purpose, methods, and conceptual framework through a condensed synopsis of the most relevant points. Problem Statement and Research Purpose The research problem that t h i s study addresses i s two-fold. F i r s t , the persistance of poverty gives r i s e to a r e a l world concern for improving the effectiveness of international development e f f o r t s . To address the l i n k between the a l l e v i a t i o n of poverty, adult education, and a grass-roots approach, t h i s study focused on planning within an organization that o f f e r s adult education programs overseas, s p e c i f i c a l l y an NGO. Planning within NGOs i s complex - both i n terms of the problems faced, and 336 i n terms of the strategies needed to deal with them. An understanding of the dynamics of planning i n such an NGO w i l l help i n a r t i c u l a t i n g more e f f e c t i v e approaches to planning practice i n international development. As Herbert-Copley (1987) points out, i f NGOs "are to ret a i n and improve t h e i r relevance to the problems of international development, a move to new roles and new strategies i s ess e n t i a l " (p.27). The second aspect of the research problem i s that the rel a t i o n s h i p between the planning process and the planning context seems not to have been f u l l y explored i n the l i t e r a t u r e on adult education program planning. There i s a need for a more complete set of a n a l y t i c a l tools that captures the complexities of planning and sheds l i g h t on the relationship between the planning context and the planning process. The purpose of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n i s to address the main th e o r e t i c a l question raised by the problem statement: How do NGOs p l a n so as to m a i n t a i n themselves and be e f f e c t i v e g i v e n the p r e s s u r e s on them? Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework developed i n Chapter Two builds on the negotiation approach to planning. The framework provides a set of related perspectives that serves as an orienting strategy for the analysis of the ethnographic findings presented i n Chapters Four - Seven. The f i r s t part of the conceptual framework l i n k s two strands of research: leadership theory and the s o c i a l 337 contextualist perspective i n negotiation theory. Through t h i s juxtaposition, I was able to examine the process of planning i n a new l i g h t - as the negotiation of meaning. The second part of the framework shos how a deeper understanding of the context of planning i s accomplished by conceptualizing context as culture and by applying a s u b j e c t i v i s t , multi-perspective approach to analyzing cultures i n organizations. Martin's (1992) framework for analyzing cultures i n organizations - which incorporates the integration perspective, the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n perspective, and the fragmentation perspective - was used to see Global F a i t h culture i n three d i f f e r e n t ways. These same ways of viewing culture at Global F a i t h were matched with the varying interpretations held by Global F a i t h s t a f f members i n order to characterize the c u l t u r a l contexts for s p e c i f i c episodes of planning involving the negotiation of meaning. Methods I chose to use ethnography as the methodology for t h i s research i n order to uncover the s o c i a l meanings that guide the behavior of planners. This sustained involvement i n a single s e t t i n g allowed me to t e l l the story of planning within Global Fai t h through the words, ideas, and habits of the people who p a r t i c i p a t e i n planning and decision-making there. I forged my interpretations of what went on at Global Faith out of how Global Fai t h people themselves viewed t h e i r work, t h e i r l i v e s and t h e i r 3 3 8 world. Fieldwork - including participant observation, 25 interviews, and document analysis - was conducted at Global Faith over the course of seventeen months (January 1992 - May 1993). Through ethnographic fieldwork, I was able produce an account of planning that, as Forester (1989) suggests, does "do j u s t i c e to the r e a l , messy settings i n which planning takes place" (p.10) and that embraces "the everyday experiences of planners and makes sense of t h e i r perceptions of the complexities, uncertainties, and ambiguities of d a i l y practice" (p.11). The s e t t i n g of Global Faith provided an i n t r i g u i n g and meaningful empirical base that helped to shed l i g h t on the relationship between the process of planning and the c u l t u r a l contexts of an organization (Adler & Adler, 1995). Summary of R e s u l t s This section considers the findings i n r e l a t i o n to the research questions posed i n Chapter One. This research was o r i g i n a l l y designed to address four questions. The f i r s t three questions were open-ended descriptive questions dealing with: 1. the G l o b a l F a i t h context (e.g., administrative structure, resources, and relationships with funding bodies); 2. the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s (e.g., pattern of decisions and nature of i n t e r a c t i o n s ) ; and 3. p l a n n e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n s (e.g., intentions, interpretations, and st r a t e g i e s ) . These ind i v i d u a l questions were pulled together into a fourth question which served as the main question guiding entry into the research: 339 4. What i s the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between G l o b a l F a i t h ' s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l context, the process of p l a n n i n g , p l a n n e r s ' p e r s p e c t i v e s , and the shape of nonformal a d u l t e d u c a t i o n programs o f f e r e d ? Because i t was very d i f f i c u l t to i s o l a t e the planning of i n d i v i d u a l nonformal adult education programs from the broader work of a r t i c u l a t i n g organizational goals, mobilizing government resources, r a i s i n g money from the general public, maintaining relationships with overseas partner organizations, and motivating s t a f f at Global Faith, I decided to broaden my focus beyond program planning to include organizational a c t i v i t i e s and decisions related to planning i n a more general sense. I also came to see the process of planning at Global Faith as involving negotiation. Furthermore, I decided that a more useful way to view "organizational context" i n t h i s study was as "culture" which helped to draw attention to the subjective, i n t e r p r e t i v e nature of organizational l i f e . The o r i g i n a l four questions did not f u l l y capture what I ended up investigating i n t h i s study and therefore, a f i f t h question was added: 5. How does p l a n n i n g as n e g o t i a t i o n occur w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c u l t u r e of an NGO? This ethnography of planning at Global Faith provides the following answers to t h i s question: Planning at Global Faith involves the negotiation of meaning. People involved i n planning at Global Faith both negotiate meaning and deal with meaning i n negotiations. The two dimensions of meaning are refered to here as text and sub-text . 3 4 0 The negotiation of meaning at Global Faith occurs within multiple, subjectively perceived organizational cultures. The occurence of the negotiation of meaning at Global Faith can be analyzed as episodes whereby the l i n k s between the planning a c t i v i t y , decision-needing issue, c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the c u l t u r a l context, relationship between the negotiating parties, meaning as text and sub-text, the negotiation process, and outcomes can be revealed and understood. There i s a recursive relationship between planning processes involving the negotiation of meaning and Global F a i t h cultures whereby the cultures are both precursors and products of the negotiation of meaning episodes. By including the negotiation of meaning i n planning a c t i v i t i e s , Global Faith i s able to deal e f f e c t i v e l y with confusing requirements, c o n f l i c t i n g expectations, and diverse demands that they face i n t h e i r interactions with CIDA, general public donors, the Board of Directors, and overseas partner organizations. By including the negotiation of meaning i n planning a c t i v i t i e s , Global Faith i s also able to motivate s t a f f so that they remain at Global Faith and so that they remain committed to the cause of Global Faith. C o n t r i b u t i o n s to Knowledge There are two main contributions to knowledge made by t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n : 1) the development of a conceptual framework for understanding planning as a process that involves the negotiation of meaning; and 2) the application of t h i s framework - together with Martin's (1992) matrix framework for understanding organizational cultures - to a p a r t i c u l a r NGO setting. The care f u l , in-depth examination of the dynamics of planning within Global F a i t h made i t possible to address the following question: How do NGOs plan so as to maintain themselves and be e f f e c t i v e given the pressures on them? The answer offered by t h i s 341 ethnography of planning at Global Faith i s that by including the negotiation of meaning i n planning, NGOs are able to maintain themselves and deal with pressures e f f e c t i v e l y . I m p l i c a t i o n s This d i s s e r t a t i o n has shown how an NGO manages to survive and t h r i v e through the negotiation of meaning. What are the implications of t h i s new knowledge? This section f i r s t considers the t h e o r e t i c a l implications of seeing planning as the negotiation of meaning and of seeing the planning context as multiple cultures. Then, some implications for practice are discussed. T h e o r e t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s Implications of Seeing Planning as the Negotiation of Meaning The concept of planning as the negotiation of meaning i m p l i c i t l y l i n k s the planning process and the c u l t u r a l contexts of planning i n a recursive relationship. Cultures give meaning to ind i v i d u a l behavior and organizational a c t i v i t i e s . When viewed as the negotiation of meaning, the planning process becomes both a source and a consequence of cultures i n organizations. Planning as the negotiation of meaning i s a process "through which organization members both create and sustain t h e i r view of the world and image of themselves i n the world" (Smircich, 1983, p.56). This recursive relationship between the planning process and the c u l t u r a l contexts i s r e f l e c t e d i n the findings of t h i s 342 research whereby the c u l t u r a l contexts, negotiation processes and outcomes are linked. This two-way adaptation between process and context occurs both within and across the negotiation of meaning episodes. The negotiation of meaning affects immediate decisions as well as expectations for future interactions. Considering the findings of t h i s study, i t i s clear that t y p i c a l p r e s c r i p t i v e models of program planning i n adult education are not able to account for much of what a c t u a l l y happens i n practice. T r a d i t i o n a l program planning theory tends to focus on the technical aspects of planning and has for the most part f a i l e d to grasp the importance of the inte r p r e t i v e and symbolic side of planning a c t i v i t i e s . For example, the "generic planning model" (Sork & Buskey, 1986, p.89) discussed i n Chapter Two focuses on naming objective tasks that should be completed while planning an adult education program as opposed to an emphasis on the multiple interpretations and necessary interactions that take place around the completion of each task. For instance, "formulation of budget and administrative plan" i s l i s t e d as a recommended task. This study shows the v a r i e t y of ways that such a task can be interpreted ( i . e . , as symbolically valuable or f u n c t i o n a l l y valuable) and c a r r i e d out, and the importance of the inter-dependencies among the people involved i n such a task (see, for example, "Three Backflips" and "A Struggle for Integrity" i n Chapter Seven). Another implication of seeing planning as the negotiation of meaning i s the potential for advancing the adult education 3 4 3 l i t e r a t u r e on the negotiation approach to planning spearheaded by the work of Cervero and Wilson (1994, 1996). Geertz (1973) points out that "a study i s an advance i f i t i s more i n c i s i v e - whatever that may mean - than those that preceded i t ; but i t less stands on t h e i r shoulders than, challenged and challenging, runs by t h e i r side" (p. 25) . The ethnographic approach ,of t h i s research allowed me to "plunge more deeply" (p.25) into the study of planning as negotiation. Furthermore, by drawing on the r i c h body of concepts, data, and experience i n negotiations theory, I am able to o f f e r a more complete set of a n a l y t i c a l tools that capture the complexities of negotiations. This study adds to our stock of terms and has expanded our ways of t a l k i n g about planning i n adult education. I agree with the following basic premises supporting Cervero and Wilson's (1996) work: "programs are planned by r e a l people i n complex organizations.... planning i s always conducted within a complex set of personal, organizational, and s o c i a l relationships among people who may have similar, d i f f e r e n t , or c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s " ( p . l ) . I also agree with t h e i r view "that the program planning l i t e r a t u r e has neglected s i g n i f i c a n t aspects of pra c t i c e . . . . planning practice requires far more than the technical s k i l l s stressed i n the l i t e r a t u r e " (Wilson & Cervero, 1996a, p.5). While there i s considerable overlap i n our perspectives on planning, we d i f f e r i n our understanding of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a c t i v i t y of planning and i n our interpretation of the planning 344 context. Whereas Cervero and Wilson (1994, 1996) propose the negotiation of interests as the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c planning a c t i v i t y and organizational power relationships as the context of planning, I am suggesting that planning can be understood as the negotiation of meaning within the context of multiple, subject i v e l y perceived cultures. Our views are not incompatible; they d i f f e r mainly i n emphasis and i n scope. Implications of Seeing Context as Multiple Cultures A view of the planning context as multiple cultures underscores the importance of subjective interpretations i n planning practice and research. It can also help s e n s i t i z e researchers and p r a c t i t i o n e r s a l i k e to look beyond and behind a single perspective on culture. The findings showed that negotiations within d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l contexts can lead to s i m i l a r outcomes. For example, increased s t a f f commitment was the outcome for the "Vision Test" episode (cultural context characterized by c o n f l i c t ) and for the "Leadership at the Hub" episode (characterized by consensus and cohesion). This implies that the nature of the outcomes are also related to the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the negotiating parties, the meanings underlying the negotiations at the sub-text l e v e l , goals, stance and choice of negotiating strategies. In other words, c u l t u r a l contexts provide the meanings that make sense of what should be done to resolve the c o n f l i c t , c l a r i f y the ambiguity, or encourage harmony, but they do not provide a formula to be r i g i d l y or 345 consistently applied i n d i f f e r e n t situations. Another implication of seeing the context as multiple cultures i s an increased awareness of po s i t i v e as well as negative outcomes of c o n f l i c t and ambiguity. C o n f l i c t and contradictions can be d i v i s i v e or they can be managed constructively, leading to an expanded understanding of the sig n i f i c a n c e of organizational a c t i v i t i e s , increased feelings of group i d e n t i t y , and the mobilization of needed resources. Ambiguity and confusion over interpretations of the organizational environment can be d e b i l i t a t i n g or they can be managed e f f e c t i v e l y to bring about c l a r i t y concerning organizational p r i o r i t i e s and goals. I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r P r a c t i c e Accepting the view that planning can be understood as a process that includes the negotiation of meaning occuring within multiple cultures also has implications for planning p r a c t i c e . The findings revealed the importance of l i s t e n i n g c a r e f u l l y to what other people are saying and meaning, of seeking and providing information about p r i o r i t i e s and interests, and of being open to and seriously considering a var i e t y of interpretations and perspectives (including those of the "opponent"). If planners use t h i s knowledge to prepare for the planning process, they w i l l be more e f f e c t i v e planners. The knowledge contributed by t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n can be useful for pr a c t i t i o n e r s when applied to "process planning" (Boothroyd, 1986). In other words, by applying the frameworks for understanding negotiation of meaning episodes and for understanding organizational cultures (Figure 2.1 and Figure 2.2) to t h e i r own practice situations, planners w i l l approach t h e i r practice with a greater awareness and understanding of both the processes and contexts of planning. The following set of questions i s offered as a way to organize the "process planning" and can focus on past experiences or on future p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Working through these questions, as an ind i v i d u a l or i n a group, w i l l lead to more e f f e c t i v e planning practice. The f i r s t series of questions helps to es t a b l i s h whether t h i s planning a c t i v i t y involves negotiation: 1. What i s the planning a c t i v i t y under consideration? 2. What issue needs to be addressed as a re s u l t of t h i s planning a c t i v i t y ? How w i l l we know when the issue has been addressed? 3. What other people or groups must be involved i n the process of addressing t h i s issue? 4. What i s the nature of the relationships with the other people involved? Is there shared power? Does the rel a t i o n s h i p involve interdependency and the pot e n t i a l for rec i p r o c i t y ? Is there a p o s s i b i l i t y of future interactions? The next series of questions helps to characterize the c u l t u r a l context for the negotiation episode: 5. What general content themes are relevant to the planning a c t i v i t y ? 6. What formal and informal practices are relevant to the planning a c t i v i t y ? 7. What st o r i e s , r i t u a l s , jargon, and physical arrangements are relevant to the planning a c t i v i t y ? 347 8. What i s the relationship across the themes, practices and forms? Is there consistency, consensus, and c l a r i t y ? Is there c o n f l i c t and inconsistency? Is there ambiguity, confusion, and paradox? The f i n a l series of questions helps to plan the negotiation process: 9. What i s the series of connected events and interactions re l a t e d to the negotiation? 10. What meaning of what i s being discussed? What i s the subject matter of the negotiation? 11. What are the underlying questions surrounding the negotiation that are being considered? 12. What stance i s being taken by each of the negotiating parties? What are the negotiating parties' goals? What strategies are used throughout the negotiation? 13. What was the outcome of past negotiation episodes? L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study Limitations of t h i s study relate to the choice of the conceptual framework and to the methodology used to carry out the research. It i s important to ask: "What does a c u l t u r a l perspective l e t us do that other conceptual frameworks do not? What does the c u l t u r a l approach leave out? What are the hazards of adopting a c u l t u r a l perspective to the study of organizations?" (Jelinek, Smircich & Hirsch, 1983, p.337). The int e r p r e t i v e c u l t u r a l perspective taken i n t h i s study does not account for the influence of broader s o c i a l structures and p o l i t i c a l forces i n the environment. A multi-perspective approach to analyzing culture can encompass a vari e t y o f ways of thinking about cultures i n organizations, but the three categories of 348 integration, d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , and fragmentation, are "ideal types" and as such ine v i t a b l y d i s t o r t and simplify complex interpretations (Martin, 1992). This study i s not intended as an evaluative assessment of Global Faith's performance nor as a c r i t i c a l ethnography with an e x p l i c i t l y p o l i t i c a l agenda. As Peshkin (1988) said: "I am neither evaluator nor reformer. I come neither to judge whether they teach well or poorly, nor to make them better than they are" (p.20). The purpose of t h i s ethnography i s c u l t u r a l description and analysis i n order to better understand the dynamics of planning at Global Faith. My findings are descriptive and diagnostic, not evaluative nor predictive. They show what could happen, but not what should happen, nor what would necessarily happen under s p e c i f i c conditions. While t h i s study makes no attempt to transfer the findings to other cases, adequate d e t a i l and primary data have been included to allow others to make comparisons and t r a n s f e r a b i l i t y judgments. Other l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s study relate to data c o l l e c t i o n . Would my rapport with the people of Global Faith and access to data have been d i f f e r e n t i f I were an evangelical Christian? Or, did my outsider status as "barely Christian" help to increase my l e v e l of "ethnographic awareness?" Also, t h i s study presented f i v e negotiation episodes a l l of which had pos i t i v e outcomes for Global Faith. Of less v i s i b i l i t y here are those cases where Global Faith was not able to negotiate an advantageous outcome -because I was not aware of any. While I did not set out to 349 i d e n t i f y only those planning cases that were considered "successful," the stories and episodes that I had privy to during my research at Global Faith a l l had p o s i t i v e outcomes. Because Global Fa i t h was able to deal e f f e c t i v e l y with the pressures facing them, negative outcomes were not a common occurence. The c r i s e s that I witnessed or heard about (e.g., the Three Backflips story and the f i n a n c i a l c r i s i s of the sabbatical year) eventually led to p o s i t i v e outcomes. A d i f f e r e n t approach would be needed to highlight the less frequent instances of negative outcomes, such as a structured, h i s t o r i c a l look at s p e c i f i c cases deemed to be unsuccesful through a type of "postmortem audit" (Sork, 1986). F i n a l l y , because the planning concerning the actual content of Global Fa i t h programs takes place mostly overseas, I was not able to determine whether and how the negotiation of meaning takes place around issues related to curriculum design and i n s t r u c t i o n a l processes. Suggestions f o r F u r t h e r Research The l i m i t a t i o n s of t h i s research, and the tentative conclusions to be drawn from i t , suggest some directions for further research. While I did look at the "intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics that often af f e c t planning practice and... examine i n the depth necessary the external relationships that planners form with other agencies i n developing programs" as Cervero and Wilson (1994, p.12) suggested, I was not able to explore the external relationships from both sides. Additional 350 work might be productively focused here: carry out ethnographic studies of planning as the negotiation of meaning within the settings of CIDA and overseas partner organizations, supplemented with interviews with members of Boards of Directors and general public donors. Some additional analytic points of view that seem p a r t i c u l a r l y productive include the investigation of d i f f e r e n t types of ambiguity (e.g., ambiguity of understanding versus ambiguity of intention as discussed i n March & Olsen, 1976) and d i f f e r e n t types of confict (e.g., latent c o n f l i c t and f a l s e c o n f l i c t as discussed i n Brown, 1983). Concluding Remarks This understanding of the everyday behaviour of the people involved i n planning at Global Faith has provided new ways to think about the mechanisms and contexts of planning behaviours. The findings have shown that the ultimate content of a plan may not be as important as the learning that goes on during the planning process. In t h i s f i n a l section, I would l i k e to close with Gerald's thoughts on the importance of t h i s learning. The following quote i s an excerpt from our l a s t interview. Gerald i s t a l k i n g about a huge, ancient tree on Vancouver Island and he i s comparing t h i s tree to "any issue or who we are." The thing that always strikes me when I see that tree i s I stand up next to i t and I see how large i t i s . I have to walk around to the other side because what I see on one side of the tree i s not what I see on t h i s side of the tree. Therefore, the analogy that I am using i s that I can never see the whole tree from where I stand. And people need to learn to walk around the tree. 351 REFERENCES Adams, D. (1988). Extending the educational planning discourse: Conceptual and paradigmatic explorations. Comparative Education Review, Vol. 32, pp.400-415. Adler, P.A. and Adler, P. (1987). Membership roles i n f i e l d research. Qualitative Research Methods, Vol.6. Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications. Adler, P.A. and Adler, P. (1995). The demography of ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol.24, No.1, pp.3-29. Alexander, D.J., J r . (1987). Rural development: Educational needs and resources. Studies i n the Education of Adults, Vol.19, No.2, pp.137-144. Ammerman, N.T. (1987). Bible believers: Fundamentalists i n the modern world. London: Rutgers University Press. Atkinson, P. (1992). Understanding ethnographic texts. Q u a l i t i a t i v e Research Methods, Vol.25. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Ayers, W. (1989). The good preschool teacher. New York: Teachers College Press. Bacharach, S.B. and Lawler, E.J. (1980). Power and p o l i t i c s i n organizations: The s o c i a l psychology of c o n f l i c t , c o a l i t i o n s , and bargaining. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Bazerman, M.H. and Lewicki, R.J. (Eds.) (1983). Negotiating i n organizations. Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications. Bernard, H.R. (1994). Research methods i n anthropology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Berstecher, D. (Ed.) (1985). Education and r u r a l development: Issues for planning and research. Paris: UNESCO. Bhola, H.S. (1989). World trends and issues i n adult education. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers i n association with UNESCO. Blunt, A. (1988). Education, learning and development: Evolving concepts. Convergence, Vol.21, No.l, pp.37-53. Boone, E.J. (1985). Developing programs i n adult education. Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: Prentice-Hall. 352 I Boothroyd, P. (1986). Enhancing l o c a l planning s k i l l s for Native s e l f - r e l i a n c e : The UBC experience. The Canadian Journal of Native Studies, Vol.6, No.l, pp.13-42. Bordia, A. (1984). Organization of adult education for r u r a l s o c i e t i e s . Convergence, Vol.17, No.3, pp.23-29. Borg, W.R. and G a l l , M.R. (1989). Educational research: An introduction. New York: Longman Inc. Boyle, P.G. (1981). Planning better programs. New York: McGraw H i l l . Bratman, M.E. (1987). Intentions, plans and p r a c t i c a l reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Brodhead, T. and Herbert-Copley, B.H. (1988). Bridges of hope: Canadian voluntary agencies and the Third World. Ottawa: The North South Insti t u t e . Brookfield, S.D. (1986). Understanding and f a c i l i t a t i n g adult learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Brown, L.D. (1983). Managing c o n f l i c t at organizational interfaces. London: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. Bryman, A. and Burgess, R.G. (Eds.) (1994). Analyzing q u a l i t a t i v e data. London: Routledge. Burnham, B.R. (1984). Program planning as technology i n three adult education units. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Administrative, Adult, and Higher Education, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Casey, M.A. (1989). Program planning processes used by Minnesota Extension Service Agriculture Agents, Dissertation Abstracts International, Vol.50, p.2748A. Cassara, B.B. (Ed.) (1995). Adult education through world collaboration. Malabar, F l o r i d a : Kreiger Publishing Co. CCIC Poli c y Team, (1995a). Canada's voluntary sector i n international development. Ottawa: Canadian Council for International Co-operation. CCIC Poli c y Team, (1995b). Implementing sustainable human development: Issues and lessons. Background Paper #2. Ottawa: Canadian Council for International Co-operation. Cervero, R.M. and Wilson, A.L. (Eds.) (1996). What r e a l l y matters i n adult education program planning: Lessons i n negotiating power and inte r e s t s . San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers. 353 Cervero, R.M. and Wilson, A.L. (1994). Planning responsibly for adult education: A guide to negotiating power and i n t e r e s t s . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. CIDA (1992). Canadian International Development Agency annual report 1990-91. Coles, E.T. (1969). Adult education i n developing countries. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Coombs, P.H. (1968). The world c r i s i s i n education: A systems analysis. London: Oxford University Press. Coombs, P.H. (1985). The world c r i s i s i n education: The view from the eighties. New York: Oxford University Press. De Vries, J. (1978). A g r i c u l t u r a l extension and development. In B.L. H a l l and J.R. Kidd (Eds.) Adult learning: A design for action. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Dejene, A. (1980). Non-formal education as a strategy i n development: Comparative analysis of r u r a l development proi e c t s . Lanham: University Press of America. Dominick, J.E. (1990). How program planners make decisions i n practice, Proceedings of the 31st annual Adult Education Research Conference, May 18-20, 1990. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia. Drabek, A.G. (1987). Development alternatives: The challenge for NGOs - An overview of the issues. World Development, Vol.15, Supplement, pp.ix-xv. Duke, C. (1983) . Adult education and poverty: What are the connections? Convergence, Vol.16, No.l, pp.76-83. Ebert, R.J. and Wall, J.A. (1983). Voluntary adoption of negotiation processes. In Negotiating i n Organizations, Bazerman, M.H. and Lewicki, R.J. (Eds.). Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications. Elgstrom, O. and R i i s , U. (1992). Framed negotiations and negotiated frames. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol.36, No.2, pp.99-120. E t z i o n i , A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations: On power, involvement and t h e i r correlates. New York: The Free Press. Ewert, D.M. (1989). Adult education and international development. In S.B. Merriam and P.M. Cunningham (Eds.) Handbook of adult and continuing education. San Francisco: 354 Jossey-Bass Publishers. Fagerlind, I. and Saha, L.J. (1989). Education & national development: A comparative perspective (2nd E d i t i o n ) . Oxford: Pergamon Press. Fine, G.A. (1993). Ten l i e s of ethnography: Moral dilemmas of f i e l d research. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol.22, No.3, pp.267-294. Fri e r e , P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Forester, J. (1983). C r i t i c a l theory and organizational analysis. In G. Morgan (Ed.) Beyond method: Strategies for s o c i a l research. Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications. Forester, J. (1989). Planning i n the face of power. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press. Forester, J. (1993). C r i t i c a l theory, public policy, and planning pr a c t i c e . Albany: State University of New York Press. Freidmann, J. (1973). Retracking America: A theory of transactive planning. Garden City, New York: Anchor Press. Freidmann, J. (1987). Planning i n the public domain. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Frost, P.J., Moore, L.F., Louis, M.R., Lundberg, C.C., and Martin, J. (Eds.) (1991). Reframing organizational culture. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Geertz, C. (1973). Interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Geertz, C. (1975). On the nature of anthropological understanding. American S c i e n t i s t , Vol.63, January-February, pp.47-53. Gilmore, T.N. (1982). Leadership and boundary management. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol.18, No.3, pp.343-356 . Goldberg, N. (1988). Writing down the bones. Boston: Shambala. Greenhalgh, L. and Chapman, D. (1995). Joint decision making: The i n s e p a r a b i l i t y of relationships and negotiation. In R.M. Kramer and D.M. Messick (Eds.) Negotiating as a s o c i a l process, pp.166-185. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Greenhalgh, L. and Neslin, S.A. (1983). Determining outcomes of 355 negotiations: An empirical assessment. In M.H. Bazerman and R.J. Lewicki (Eds.) Negotiating i n organizations. . pp.114-134. Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications. Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1983). Ethnography: P r i n c i p l e s i n p ractice. London: Routledge. Heath, S.B. (1993). The madness(es) of reading and writing ethnography. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, Vol.24, No.3, pp.256-268. Herbert-Copley, B. (1987). Canadian NGOs: Past trends, future challenges. World Development, Vol.15, Supplement, pp.21-28. Houle, C. (1972). The design of education. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. (1990) . Poverty: World development indicators. World Development Report 1990. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Jelinek, M., Smircich, L. and Hirsch, P. (1983). Introduction: A code of many colors. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.28, pp.331-338. Kassam, Y. (1986) . Adult education, development and international aid: Some issues and trends. Convergence, Vol.19, No.3, pp.1-12. Kerstiens, T. (1982). Are non-governmental organizations 'in'? Convergence, Vol.XV, No.4, pp.61-65. Kleinman, S. and Copp, M.A. (1993). Emotions and fieldwork. Qualitative Research Methods, Vol.28. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Kochan, T.A. and Verma, A. (1983). Negotiations i n organizations: blending i n d u s t r i a l relations and organizational behavior approaches. In M.H. Bazerman and R.J. Lewicki (Eds.) Negotiating i n organizations. Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications. Kowalski, T.J. (1988). The organization and planning of adult education. Albany: State University of New York Press. Kramer, R.M. and Messick, D.M. (Eds.). (1995). Negotiation as a s o c i a l process. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor i n qu a l i t a t i v e research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, Vol.45, No.3, pp.214-222. 356 LeCompte, M.D. (1987). Bias i n the biography: Bias and s u b j e c t i v i t y i n ethnographic research. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol.18, pp.43-52. LeCompte, M.D. & Goetz, J.P. (1982). Problems of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y i n ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, Vol.52, No.l, pp.31-60. Lewis, C.H. (1996). Insights from the inside: P r a c t i t i o n e r perspectives on planning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Educational Studies, University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Lincoln, Y.S. (1995). Emerging c r i t e r i a for q u a l i t y i n q u a l i t a t i v e and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, Vol.1. No.3, pp.275-289. Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.A. (1985). N a t u r a l i s t i c inquiry. Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications. March, J.G. (1978). Bounded r a t i o n a l i t y , ambiguity, and the engineering of choice. B e l l Journal of Economics, Vol.9, pp.587-610. March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1976). Organizational choice under ambiguity. In J.G. March and J.P. Olsen (Eds.) Ambiguity and choice i n organizations, pp.10-23. Bergen: Universitesforlaget. Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. (1989). Designing q u a l i t a t i v e research. Beverly H i l l s : Sage. Martin, J. (1992). Cultures i n organizations: Three perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. McGiveny, M. and Murray, F. (1991). Adult education i n development: Methods and approaches from changing s o c i e t i e s . Wales: B r i t i s h Council National Institute of Adult Continuing Education. Merriam, S.B., Beder, H. and Ewert, M. (1983). The use of ethnography, case study, and grounded theory i n adult education research. Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Annual Adult Education Research Conference. pp.261-266. Meyerson, D.E. (1991). "Normal" ambiguity? A glimpse of an occupational culture. In P.J. Frost, L.F. Moore, M.R. Louis, C.C. Lunberg, and J. Martin, J. (Eds.) Reframing organizational culture, pp.131-144. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: 357 A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications. M i l l s , D.P., Cervero, R.M., Langone, C.A., and Wilson, A.L. (1995) . The impact of interests, power relationships, and organizational structure on program planning p r a c t i c e : A case study. Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 46 , No.l, pp.l-16 . Morgan, G. (1986) . Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morgan, G. (1989). Creative organization theory: A resourcebook. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Murphy, B.K. (1991). Canadian NGOs and the p o l i t i c s of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . In J. Swift and B. Tomlinson (Eds.) C o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t : Canada and the Third World. Toronto: Between The Lines. Muntemba, S. (1982). What projects are successful i n improving the employment conditions of ru r a l women? Convergence, Vol.XV, No.4, pp.69-71. Northey, M. and Tepperman, L. (1986). Making sense i n the s o c i a l sciences: A student's guide to research, writing, and s t y l e . Don M i l l s : Oxford University Press. P a r a j u l i , P. (1986). Grassroots movements, development discourse and popular education. Convergence, Vol.19, No.2, pp.29-40. Pennington, F. and Green, J. (1976). Comparative analysis of program development processes i n six professions. Adult Education, Vol.27, No.l, pp.13-23. Peshkin, A. (1986). God's choice: The t o t a l world of a fundamentalist Christian school. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Peshkin, A. (1988a). In search of s u b j e c t i v i t y - One's own. Educational Researcher, October, pp.17-21. Peshkin, A. (1988b). Understanding complexity: A g i f t of qu a l i t a t i v e inquiry. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol.19, pp.416-424. Pfeffer, J. (1982). Organizations and organization theory. Boston: Pitman. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (1978/1990). The design and management of externally controlled organizations. In D.S. Pugh (Ed.) Organization theory: Selected readings, pp.146-358 177. London: Penguin Books. Polzer, J.T., Mannix, E.A., and Neale, M.A. (1995). Multiparty-negotiation i n i t s s o c i a l context. In R.M. Kramer and D.M. Messick (Eds.) Negotiating as a s o c i a l process, pp.123-142. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. P r u i t t , D.G. (1983). Achieving integrative agreements. In M.H. Bazerman and R.J. Lewicki (Eds.) Negotiating i n organizations. Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications. Punch, M. (1986). The p o l i t i c s and ethics of fieldwork. Qualitative Research Methods, Vol.3. Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications. Rose, S.D. (1988). Keeping them out of the hands of Satan: Evangelical schooling i n America. New York: Routledge. Sanday, P.R. (1979). The ethnographic paradigm(s). Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.24, No.4, pp.527-538. Sandmann, L.R. (1993). Why programs aren't implemented as planned. Journal of Extension, Vol.13, pp.18-21. Schein, E.H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Schwartzman, H.B. (1983). The ethnographic evaluation of human services programs: Guidelines and an i l l u s t r a t i o n . Anthropological Quarterly, Vol.56, pp.179-189. Schwartzman, H.B. (1993). Ethnography i n organizations. Qualitative Research Methods Series 27. Newbury Park, C a l i f o r n i a : Sage Publications. Seddon, T. (1995). Defining the r e a l : Context and beyond. Qualitative Studies i n Education, Vol.8, No.4, pp.393-405. Simkins, T. (1977). Non-formal education and development: Some c r i t i c a l issues. Manchester Monograph 8. Manchester: Department of Adult Education, University of Manchester. Simon, H.A. (1955) . A behavioral model of r a t i o n a l choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.69, pp.99-118. Smircich, L. (1983). Organizations as shared meanings. In L.R. Pondy, P.J. Frost, G. Morgan, and T.C. Danbridge (Eds.) Organizational symbolism, pp.55-65. Greenwich, CT: J a i Press Inc. Smircich, L. and Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management of meaning. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol.18, 359 No.3, pp.257-273. Sork, T.J. (1986). The postmortem audit: A research methodology for building inductively-derived planning theory. Proceedings of the Twenty-seventh annual Adult Education Research Conference. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University. Sork, T.J. (1996). Negotiating power and interests i n planning: A c r i t i c a l perspective. In R.M. Cervero and A.L. Wilson (Eds.) What r e a l l y matters i n adult education: Lessons i n negotiating power and interests, pp.81-90. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Sork, T.J. and Buskey, J.H. (1986). A descriptive and evaluative analysis of program planning l i t e r a t u r e , 1950-1983. Adult Education Quarterly, Vol.3 6, No.2, pp.86-96. Sork, T.J. and C a f f a r e l l a , R. (1989). Planning programs for adults. In S. Merriam and P. Cunningham (Eds.) Handbook of adult and continuing education, pp.233-245. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Spradley, J.P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Spradley, J.P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types & software tools . New York: The Falmer Press. Thompson, L., Peterson, E., and Kray, L. (1995). Social context i n negotiation: An information processing perspective. In R.M. Kramer and D.M. Messick (Eds.) Negotiating as a s o c i a l process, pp.5-36. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Verhagen, K. (1987). Self-help promotion: A challenge to the NGO community. Amsterdam: Cebemo, Royal Tropical I n s t i t u t e . Wade, J.E. (1984). Role boundaries and paying back: 'Switching hats' i n participant observation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol.15, pp.211-224. Weiss, C.H. (1995). The four "I's" of school reform: How intere s t s , ideology, information, and i n s t i t u t i o n a f f e c t teachers and p r i n c i p a l s . Harvard Educational Review, Vol.65, No.4, pp.571-592. Wilson, A.L. and Cervero, R.M. (1996a). Paying attention to the people work when planning educational programs for adults. In R.M. Cervero and A.L. Wilson (Eds.) What r e a l l y matters i n adult education program planning: Lessons i n negotiating 360 power and interests, pp.5-13. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Wilson, A.L. and Cervero, R.M. (1996b). Learning from p r a c t i c e : learning to see what matters i n program planning. In R.M. Cervero and A.L. Wilson (Eds.) What r e a l l y matters i n adult education program planning: Lessons i n negotiating power and intere s t s , pp.91-100. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Wissemann, A.F. (1991). Processes used by selected I l l i n o i s Extension Agents (Advisors) to provide high g u a l i t y programs. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of I l l i n o i s , Urbana-Champaign. Wolcott, H.F. (1985). On ethnographic intent. Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol.21, No.3, pp.187-203. Wolcott, H.F. (1990). Making a study "more ethnographic." Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol.19, No.1, pp.44-72. Yin, R.K. (1989). Case study research: Design and methods. Vol.5, Applied Social Research Methods Series. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Young, E. (1991). On the naming of the rose: Interests and multiple meanings as elements of organizational culture. In P.J. Frost, L.F. Moore, M.R. Louis, C.C. Lunberg, and J. - Martin (Eds.) Reframing organizational culture, pp.90-103. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. , (1989) . The Oxford English Dictionary, Second E d i t i o n . Oxford: Clarendon Press. 361 APPENDIX PROTOCOL DOCUMENTS Agency Permission Letter Agency Consent Form Interview Permission Letter Interview Consent Form Observation Permission Letter Observation Consent Form 362 T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A Adult Education Department of Administrative, Adult and Higher Education 5760 Toronto Road Vancouver, B.C. Canada V 6 T 1L2 Telephone (604) 228-5881 AGENCY CONSENT FORM I have read and understand the purpose and procedures of the di s s e r t a t i o n research on adult education program planning and agree to allow the researcher to observe relevant and appropriate planning meetings, analyze documents, and to i n v i t e i n d i v i d u a l s t a f f members to par t i c i p a t e i n an interview. I understand that: - the interviews w i l l l a s t approximately one hour; - neither the individual's nor the organization's name w i l l be revealed to anyone other than the researcher; - i n d i v i d u a l s and the organization have the right to refuse to pa r t i c i p a t e or to withdraw from p a r t i c i p a t i o n at any time without prejudice; - and, by signing t h i s form, I acknowledge receipt of a copy of th i s form and the l e t t e r describing the project. name signature date T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A A d u l t E d u c a t i o n Depar tment of Admin is t ra t i ve , A d u l t and H i g h e r Educat ion 5760 T o r o n t o R o a d V a n c o u v e r , B .C . Canada V 6 T 1L2 T e l e p h o n e (604) 228-5881 INTERVIEW CONSENT FORM I have read and understand the purpose and procedures of the di s s e r t a t i o n research on adult education program planning and agree to p a r t i c i p a t e i n an interview. I understand that: - the interview w i l l l a s t approximately one hour; - neither my name nor the organization's name w i l l be revealed to anyone other than the researcher; - I have the right to refuse to par t i c i p a t e or to withdraw from p a r t i c i p a t i o n at any time without prejudice; - and, by signing t h i s form, I acknowledge receipt of a copy of th i s form and the l e t t e r describing the project. name signature date T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F B R I T I S H C O L U M B I A Adult Education Department of Administrative, Adult and Higher Education 5760 Toronto Road Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1L2 Tel: (604) 822-5881 Fax: (604) 822-6679 OBSERVATION CONSENT FORM I have read and understand the purpose and procedures of the di s s e r t a t i o n research on adult education program planning and agree that the researcher can observe me while I work. I understand that: - neither my name nor the organization's name w i l l be revealed to anyone other than the researcher; - I have the right to refuse to partic i p a t e or to withdraw from p a r t i c i p a t i o n at any time without prejudice; - and, by signing t h i s form, I acknowledge receipt of a copy of th i s form and the l e t t e r describing the project. name signature date
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Education
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.
Graduate
The negotiation of meaning: an ethnography of planning in a non-governmental organization
Text