Antecedentes nacionales

The researcher intends to make a contribution to developing a theory on social enterprises with the poor as primary stakeholders or SEPPS. She locates her theory building research within the realms of social entrepreneurship and stakeholder theory. In particular, she develops a framework for understanding stakeholder engagement strategies vis-à-vis the poor among SEPPS. The researcher notes that a future study exploring theories relevant to poverty reduction, development, empowerment and participation, would further ground the theory building presented here.

The research is clearly focused on SEPPS and their stakeholder engagement strategies vis-à-vis the poor. In this context, she would only study the roles enacted by other stakeholders in so far as they help explain the hows and whys of the primary stakeholder engagement strategy. The researcher refers to the primary stakeholder engagement strategy as stakeholder engagement strategy because of the nature of SEPPS: they are social enterprises that engage the poor as primary stakeholders from a normative perspective (Donaldson and Preston, 1995). As was earlier discussed, the researcher does not intend to make a direct contribution to the discourse on business and poverty reduction in this thesis. The indirect contribution is alluded to given the expressed limitation of business theories in terms of their impact on the poor (Paton and Halme, 2007). The indirect contribution is also in reference to the potential for the thesis to provide perspectives on the interface between social entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility. Such is explored in relation to the case of Upland Marketing Foundation, Inc. The researcher however notes the potential for her to do collaborative research with business and society scholars to pursue some of the themes relevant to business and poverty reduction generated by this research.

Intended Stakeholder. Engagement

.Strategy Realized Stakeholder

64

The researcher endeavored to keep to the rigour required by multiple case study research and case-based theory building given limitations of time and resources. She made a conscious decision to delimit her research on Upland Marketing, even as going in the direction of pursuing a case on the network of NGOs that set up Upland Marketing became an interesting option. She also made a conscious decision to delimit her comparative analysis of the qualitative impact of Alter Trade’s intervention within Negros Island, rather than including Alter Trade-banana’s impact outside of Negros Island. These were calculated decisions to manage the limitations of time and resources in completing the field research in both cases. These conscious delimitations were fully considered in the analytical section of the cases and in considering what the two cases could offer during the process of cross case analysis.

The researcher endeavored to effectively manage the process of actively engaging the case subjects to provide as complete a set of data and perspectives as possible for the research. In managing the process, the researcher also endeavored to take full consideration of the ethical issues pertinent to undertaking a PhD dissertation. Many of these ethical issues arise from managing sensitive data gathered from organizations and respondents who may be vulnerable and unduly exposed to risks. The researcher took special note of not divulging data that were requested to be kept confidential. She endeavored to respect such without affecting the integrity of the within case and cross case analysis. Where the data was critical to the integrity of the case study, due care was made to protect the identity of the respondents. The case subjects were given an opportunity to review and give clearance to the case drafts for inclusion in the dissertation and publication. The case subjects were also made aware of the option of not using their real identity in the final case study chapter, if deemed necessary.

All these were fully discussed and introduced in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) during the start of the research process. The MOU was meant to address these issues and to develop a mutual understanding of the requirements of what it meant to be a case subject. A sample of this MOU is contained in Appendix 12.3.

The researcher established rapport by presenting the mutually beneficial objective of the research in contributing to the evolving body of knowledge on social entrepreneurship useful for education and training programs on social entrepreneurship and social enterprises. The Memorandum of Understanding also committed the researcher to do the following:

x Give due care in handling internal data and reports that the case subject shares,

and commit to respect the confidentiality of sensitive information and documents identified as such;

x Get the clearance of the designated officer for all research outputs emanating

from the research on the case subject to be included in the dissertation report and other publications;

x Allow the case subject use of any research findings and outputs for its internal and organizational purposes;

x Give the case subject and key informants the option to be anonymous, or their

identities confidential as may be agreed upon; and

x Utilize the findings of the case research only for education, publication and

other purposes consistent with the objectives of the research.

The researcher endeavored to observe these commitments during the 4-year research process. In this sense, the research outputs are a negotiated outcome of the dialogue between the researcher and the case subjects, subject to these provisions.

Even as she had a written, formal endorsement of the leadership of the social enterprises studied, the researcher was still dependent on the actual willingness and capacity of the key officers among the case subjects to prioritize accommodating her requests for follow-up interviews and additional data, given the other demands on their time. In this regard, the researcher points to the possibility that the richness of the analysis she generated on two of the cooperative cases (Lamac MPC and Cordova MPC) may have been affected by her inability to gather additional data and substantive feedback on the case study drafts she presented to them for validation. Notwithstanding this limitation, she still believes that the cases as written and analyzed present a partial but adequate reality of the experience of Lamac MPC and Cordova MPC, to merit inclusion in the thesis.

The researcher has obtained clearances for inclusion in the thesis and the publication of outputs from designated representatives of the six case subjects.