4.1.1 The Thailand Social Capital Evaluation Framework 4.2 Research methods
4.2.1 Qualitative versus quantitative 4.2.2 Data collection and sampling 4.3 Research timeline
4.4 Meeting challenges in the field 4.4.1 Ethical considerations 4.4.2 Role of the researcher 4.4.3 Potential sources of bias 4.4.4 Limitations of the study 4.5 Outline of case study communities 4.6 Conclusion
Chapter 2 outlined the contextual background of the research project, setting the Baan Mankong scheme within Thailand’s institutional and social structure. Chapter 3 provided a conceptual framework, outlining the theory of social capital, within which this research is grounded, and its relevance to participatory development. In this chapter, the research methodology is described, outlining the analytical framework, based on a World Bank study of social capital in Thai rural communities, and how this analytical framework was put into practice through a case-study approach to data collection in Baan Mankong communities.
4.1 Analytical Framework
This study aims to operationalise social capital within the context of participatory slum upgrading, through a qualitative methodology. As an assessment of the Baan Mankong scheme, this study examines the effectiveness of a participatory strategy in upgrading slum housing, in terms of social outcomes. The primary stakeholders in the evaluation are the slum dwellers themselves, and by extension, those who participate in slum networks, as they are the beneficiaries of the policy, and the secondary stakeholders are the state officials in institutions relevant to Baan Mankong. Upgraded slum communities are therefore the primary unit of analysis, more specifically their inhabitants. The analysis takes into account the physical and the social impacts of the upgrading process, providing an output that is both descriptive, outlining the results of upgrading, and explanatory, examining the extent to which Baan Mankong promotes horizontal ties and vertical associations.
The analysis in this thesis is grounded in the concept of social capital. The thesis is structured around the three levels of social capital outlined in Chapter 3: bonding, bridging and linking. When looking specifically at the upgrading process in the case-study communities, the analysis draws on the Thailand social capital evaluation framework, based on a World Bank report entitled “Thailand Social Capital Evaluation: a mixed methods assessment of the Social Investment Fund’s Impact on Village Social Capital” (2006). The Thailand social capital evaluation framework provides methodological steps for measuring and operationalising social capital within a community-driven development arena.
4.1.1 The Thailand Social Capital Evaluation Framework
The Thailand social capital evaluation framework was developed to assess the impact of the Thai Social Investment Fund (SIF), using a set of indicators for several dimensions of social capital reflecting the Thai context. The SIF was a government program to provide resources for local and grassroots organisations to implement their development projects, following the 1997 economic crisis. The objective was to encourage community organisations and local administration, promote self-sufficiency, and stimulate widespread participatory social development (World Bank, 2006:16). Village organisations had to prepare funding proposals for one of a “menu” of options, such as “community welfare and safety” or “community economy”, and if successful in gaining funds, implemented projects themselves.
It was during the SIF’s implementation that it became clear which dimensions of social capital were relevant for rural village projects. The analytical framework which was developed to measure this separates social capital into three categories: stocks, channels and outcomes (Figure 4.1). The stocks are characteristics that establish an environment for social relations, being solidarity and trust, groups and organisations, and networks and linkages. The channels represent flows of benefits, in the form of cooperation and collective action, and information sharing and communication. The outcomes are the areas to which social capital is applied within the communities, namely, social cohesion, and empowerment. The higher the stock of social capital, and the more channels there are through which social capital operates, the higher the likelihood of the outcomes of social cohesion and empowerment being higher.
The SIF evaluation took the form of a mixed methods evaluation, as the SIF project was a community-driven development (CDD) project with an explicit focus on collective action.
The researchers identified two effects arising from the CDD approach: a selection effect means that CDD schemes may identify and reward communities with higher levels of social capital, whilst an impact effect can help communities enhance social capital, because the project helps communities develop ways to collaborate more effectively. In order to separate and test these effects, baseline information about the starting levels of social capital within the community is needed. However, as with many CDD projects, this baseline data had not been collected before the SIF project was implemented. Thus this evaluation framework provides the technique to identify the effect of a CDD project on social capital when baseline data doesn’t exist.
Figure 4.1: The Social Capital Framework (adapted from The World Bank, 2006)
STOCK Contextual characteristics and the environment for social relations Networks and linkages Solidarity and trust OUTCOMES Ends to which social capital assets are applied CHANNELS Means through which social capital operates, the flow of benefits Groups and organisations Information sharing and communication Cooperation and collective action Empowerment Social cohesion
The research team combined quantitative matching techniques with qualitative field research to identify how and why villages that participated in the SIF differed from those that didn’t. Existing household survey data from the Thailand Socio-Economic Survey, carried out every two years, was used to match the 72 sample SIF villages to 72 comparison villages in the same province. Researchers then consulted local authorities to pair the treatment village to its most similar comparison village, and each village was scored for each social capital variable on a one to five scale. Because there were several statistically significant differences between
villages, to assess whether the observed differences were due to a selection effect by the SIF program, or whether SIF itself had an impact on social capital levels. The qualitative data was collected using semi-structured interviews with key informants in each village, comprising village leaders and villagers. These persons were asked to rate their village on the same social capital dimensions, after having been interviewed.
This approach provides a useful breakdown of indicators of social capital that have been adapted and made relevant to the Thai context. Though this social capital evaluation was carried out in rural communities, it is relevant to urban low-income communities, which have many village characteristics. The matching approach to getting around the problem of lack of baseline data is innovative. Unfortunately, in the context of slum communities, there is a lack of baseline data on social characteristics, limiting the possibilities of matching treatment communities with control communities in order to assess the impact of the upgrading program on levels of social capital.
Nevertheless, this SIF evaluation is valuable for its stock, channels and outcomes framework, which this thesis adopts, as it provides a useful tool to analyse the interactions between the different forms in which social capital can manifest itself. These indicators can be used to question community members about whether levels of social capital have been affected by the Baan Mankong scheme. Though the use of retrospective questioning poses potential problems of bias, the lack of baseline data makes it necessary if one wants to assess the effects of a participatory development scheme on community dynamics. The treatment communities can be compared to control communities which did not undergo upgrading. Because policy evaluations are usually carried out using the implementing body’s definition of success, which often refers only to physical improvements, using a bottom-up evaluation from the perspective of the participants can illustrate the social impacts of the scheme. The social capital evaluation mechanism can provide an idea of how pre-existing stocks of social capital within a community will affect the number of channels through which social capital operates. These stocks and channels will affect the outcome of the upgrading scheme.
The stocks-channels-outcomes framework is especially useful for looking at social capital factors internal to communities, and was used to shape the semi-structured interview questions for community residents. However, it does not consider external factors, such as the
decision of community members whether or not to work collectively. These external players can have an important part to play in the upgrading process and its outcomes, and are also considered throughout the analysis.