Relación de materias primas e insumos a utilizar.

Following Yin‟s (2009) recommendation, my research strategy involved collecting and analyzing information from multiple sources, in my case interview transcripts, notes on observations, and archival data, aimed at corroborating the

same phenomenon. The data were collected in two phases. In the first phase, I collected recent media reports, government reports and archival material to update and expand the prior data set. These materials were then summarized, and an initial analysis was done, prior to going to the field. During the second phase I conducted semi-structured interviews with industry participants and observers. I spoke with key personnel within the organizations in the BC salmon farming industry, particularly those involved with the Framework, and visited their sites. These activities occurred from July to December 2009 following receipt of approval by the University of Western Ontario‟s Ethics Committee (Appendix C: Ethics Approval of Research Design). I will now describe each phase in more detail.

Phase 1: I collected and analyzed archival data, including company

documents, annual reports, newspaper articles, government reports and scientific research reports. I did this in order to understand the events surrounding the industry, the organizations‟ interaction with each other, and to observe industry participants‟ interpretations of the conflict, their learning, their identities and their and others‟ behaviour.

I drew newspaper articles from the entire set of articles between January

2007 and November 2009 in the Vancouver Sun, the Victoria Times Colonist, and

the Globe and Mail, in order to update the existing data set. Subject search terms included “salmon farming”, “fish farming” and “aquaculture”. There were 265 articles. Each article was thoroughly examined for information and the

perceptions of any parties relevant to my analysis7 _{(salmon farming industry}

members, environmentalists, First Nations, government, scientists etc.). Each article that was deemed to contain relevant content was summarized, arranged chronologically, and entered into the appropriate “bin” in NVivo 8 along with the more than 800 relevant articles published by the same newspapers prior to January 2007.

In 2007 more than 3 years work by two separate government-appointed groups culminated in their much anticipated final reports and recommendations. From the Province of British Columbia website I was able to obtain a copy of the

Report of the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture (2007), the output of the most recent review conducted by the Legislative assembly of British

Columbia. I obtained the British Columbia Salmon Forum Final Report and

Recommendations (“BC Salmon Forum: Final Report and Recommendations to

the Government of British Columbia,” 2009), an independent body appointed by

the Premier of British Columbia, from its website. These were combined with the government and third party reports in the existing data set and stored in the project files. Annual reports and company documents were accessed via company websites.

In this research, where only a limited number of individuals were directly involved with the phenomena, the archival data was important because it helped to augment and verify interviewees‟ retrospective memories. In addition, reporting on one‟s own behaviour can be a difficult cognitive task, as one has to

7

Parties were considered relevant to the extent that they were a normal part of the organizational field, that is they interacted regularly with other field members regarding the issue domain

understand the question, then recall relevant behaviour, and construct an answer, all the while editing it for social desirability, either consciously, or unconsciously (Schwarz & Oyserman, 2001). Additionally, particularly in situations of conflict, interviewees‟ answers can be profoundly influenced by questions, wording, format, and context, making triangulation from a variety of sources even more critical. My layered understanding and deep appreciation of the issues in the industry was especially crucial in this regard.

In addition to the pre-interview archival data collection and updating of the existing data set from organizations‟ and government websites, data were also gathered on an opportunistic basis during the interviewing and site visit phase.

Phase 2: In the second phase of data collection I combined interviewing

with observation techniques in order to understand the behaviour, activities, and practices related to conflict, identity, and learning. I began by identifying key people to be interviewed. I compiled an initial list of potential interviewees using

the Briefings Witness List from the Report of the Special Committee on

Sustainable Aquaculture (2007, p. 51). I then cross referenced this with the list of interviewees from the existing data set. I focused on individuals that had acted as witnesses on behalf of Marine Harvest, CAAR, Mainstream and other issue- related groups in the BC salmon farming industry, namely First Nations communities, other environmental groups, government, local suppliers to the industry, industry associations, and academics. A number of individuals at the key organizations such as Marine Harvest, CAAR, and the industry association were the same individuals that were interviewed in 2006 and 2007.

I first approached all potential interviewees via an e-mail which contained a short description of my research objectives, my methods, the potential benefits for the organization and individual, and the extent of their involvement should they agree to participate (see Appendix D: Note sent to Potential Participants). To cover all aspects of the proposed study I carefully maintained a balance of levels and organizational affiliations. Previous research on inter-organizational

relationships has been criticized for over reliance on single respondents (Kumar, Stern, & J. Anderson, 1993). Hence, I held interviews with a range of people directly involved with the conflict and also with interested observers. I asked interviewees to provide additional references to expand the list in a network fashion. I strove for saturation by gathering data from as wide a variety of respondents as possible and as completely as possible to ensure that I fully understood the behaviours related to the relevant issues (G. Johnson et al., 2007). I followed up with a phone call to provide more information and to set up a time to meet. In several cases the recipient of the e -mail forwarded it to a more appropriate person in their organization or recommended another individual during the follow-up phone call. See Table 4-2: Interviewees, below, for the final roster and additional details of interviewees.

Informed consent was obtained from all interviewees at the beginning of every interview or workplace observation, using a consent form according to the University of Western Ontario‟s (2002) ethical guidelines (See Appendix E: Letter of Introduction & Informed Consent Form). Also at the beginning of each

requirements, that respondents could choose not to answer any specific question, and that they could decline to participate further at any point.

While individual retrospective interviews can be influenced by memory failure and attribution biases, they have been long established as an acceptable case study research tool (Yin, 2009). In this study retrospective narratives and self reports were important for determining how individuals identify themselves and their organizations, to understand how their behaviours were affected by their individual and organizational identities, and how identities were affected by inter-organizational interaction, and for finding out where and how new

behaviours developed.

To mitigate memory distortions I encouraged interviewees to provide a descriptive account focusing on the “what, when, and who” of actions to

emphasize praxis (i.e. what they did). I de-emphasized my own or possible prior theories of “why” as I intended to extract that from the stories they told. To check for attribution bias, I compared statements to information in the media reports and reports from other respondents, and against my own knowledge of the situation.

The semi-structured interviews were designed to follow from my research questions “How does an organization learn from another organization with which it is in conflict?” and “What is the role of identity in this learning?” In order to access information about elements in my model I grouped my questions around the major constructs; individual identity, organizational identity, learning, conflict, and activities related to inter-organizational interaction (see Appendix F:

Interview Protocol 2009). In order to access both the praxis and the practices related to learning, identity and conflict, I used ethnographic interviewing

techniques and employed a mixture of what Spradley (1979) describes as grand tour and mini-tour questions, asking for more detail about how particular events raised by the respondent unfolded. Also following Spradley‟s recommendation, I asked for examples and paid particular attention to verifying the meanings

attached to words and experiences. In particular I asked for stories that illustrated a point made by the interviewee. In all situations I was mindful to ask my

questions in a way that the person could tell me the story, without telling me what I wanted to hear (C. Gersick, personal communication, 2010).

Table 4-2: Interviewees Organization Level of Interviewee Interviews 2005-2007 Interviews 2009 *same individual as in 05-07 Marine Harvest (includes predecessor companies Stolt, Nutreco, PanFish) Corporate Executive Corporate manager Executive team (Canada) Sr. Manager Manager - site 2 1 1 2 1* 1*, 1 1

CAAR Organization Leader

Member/Campaigner 3 3 1*, 1 Other environmentalists Regional Manager Area Manager 1 1

First Nation Manager 1 1*, 1

Government Provincial Federal 1 2 1* 1*

Industry Associations Executive Director 2 1*

Academic/Scientist Marine Biologists 2 1*

Organization Level of Interviewee Interviews 2005-2007 Interviews 2009 *same individual as in 05-07 Equipment Suppliers 1 1

Industry Observers Community

Members

1 1

Mainstream Corporate Executive

Corporate Manager Sr. Mgr (Canada) 1 1 1 1 Total Interviewees 28 19

With the permission of the interviewees, I recorded all the interviews, with one exception and they were all transcribed by a third party. Two interviews were conducted and recorded by telephone, and all others in person. Transcripts were shared with a number of interviewees for verification. My individual interviews lasted between 50 and 150 minutes. Direct observation took place by way of accompanying Marine Harvest personnel and external stakeholders on a 5 hour farm tour; touring a pilot closed containment site; visiting the local BC offices of all key organizations; visiting retail locations; and visiting two salmon hatcheries and several salmon rivers during the fall 2009 Pink salmon and Chinook salmon runs. I created a case data base organizing the archival data, observations and transcripts into “bins” as recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994) (See Table 4-3: High Level Data Structure).

Table 4-3: High Level Data Structure Time Period Prior to 2005 Late 2005- early 2007 2007-2008 2009-2010 Data sources Interviews Interviews Observations Observations

Documents & Newspaper Articles

All data and information has been kept strictly confidential. I have preserved confidentiality by using codes for identities in the database and interview

transcripts, and by using pseudonyms in this dissertation as recommended by Pettigrew (1990). I have respected all interviewee requests to keep background information confidential and I have given due consideration to all of the

respondent commentary that I received on my interpretation of the data. This has been particularly relevant as most of the respondents are located in the same geographic area, are aware of each other, and were understandably curious about each others‟ responses. This “external” control motivated me to maintain the highest standard of research ethics at all times. At the end of the study the results will be presented to the key respondents.