4.         STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

The second most important assumption mentioned earlier about changing social systems was: "Those people affected by a change should be involved in making that change." This sounds great in the abstract but who are these people and how might they be impacted by the program you are planning? A stakeholder is any person, group or organization who has claim on (or serious interest in) the activities and well-being of the system targeted for change.

In a community, stakeholders include all full time and part-time residents, all business and absentee landlords, related governing bodies, unions, and political parties. The stakeholders of a community serving organization include present and former consumers of services, founders, employees' unions, boards (trustees), related governments, organizations providing parallel or complimentary services and suppliers of equipment and services.

The phases of a stakeholder's analysis are to identify and list the stakeholders, note their stake in the system's activities and well-being, hunch the criteria they would use to assess the system's effectiveness, and then make a guesstimate of what their evaluation would be. If the focus is more specifically on the proposed intervention or development program the last question would ask for a guesstimate of what their likely reaction to the project would be at this time.

A stakeholder analysis concludes with a review of the data focusing on:

1. Who are major stakeholders—the minor ones?

2. What is it they want from us (or what can we give them)?

3. How do they likely evaluate our operation at this time?

4. How will they react to the proposed intervention or development program.

The final step asks for an action plan to head off or respond to key stakeholders' concerns, or to identify new ways to involve them in the planning process so that their 'stake' can receive consideration.

Analyzing a System's Culture

The focus of change using the ICC method is the culture of the system targeted for change. The culture of a system has been described as its 'usual ways of doing things' and consists of norms or standards, values and beliefs, and the mythology and folklore built up over time. Culture is nebulous, hard to get a handle on, and is revealed like an onion, one layer at a time. Interveners, if they are new to the system, cannot understand the subtle meanings of the insiders descriptions of culture—they are left with the surface layers. Also, insiders may not trust interveners with a whole picture even if they could describe it themselves. Often basic 'usual ways of doing things' are taken for granted and are difficult to think of as specific data.

The newcomer can usually uncover the first layer by observing the usual ways things happen here and contrasting it with other systems. Unusual norms or idiosyncrasies of the system are much more easily identified by the newcomer than the old-timer who takes it all for granted. As the intervener gains trust and acceptance from the insiders they can work together to bring into consciousness the forgotten understandings of why things that puzzle the intervener happen the way they do.

Group norms are statements of common and acceptable ways of doing things. People who have high status and acceptance in the system usually model these norms. For anyone investigating the culture of a system these people (usually they are leaders) are worthy of systematic observation and study.

The Culture Analysis Questionnaire or Interview Guide and the Observation Guide shown above will collect a great deal of information, especially if they are used for group participation. If the questionnaire approach seems the way to go, general meetings of stakeholders can be organized. At these meetings participants complete the questionnaire as individuals, then form groups of 4-6 people to analyze and summarize the results. As in the Interest Census technique described as Selected Procedures #2 above, recorder/reporters are assigned or selected by each group to report the most significant findings to the total group. While a complete list may be made of the work group reports for careful study later, the most frequently identified significant findings are summarized for the total group. Perhaps too, the total group winds up the session by discussing why these findings are the most important and what they are really saying about the system's culture.

If the questionnaire is to be used as an interview guide, participation and ownership of the data can be optimized by using the group interview technique (interviews with 3-6 people together). Or teams of interviewers, perhaps working in pairs, can do the interviews and then get together to discuss and summarize the learnings using the format of the general meeting described for the questionnaire. And lastly, if the identified stake-holder's number is less than 100, they can be paired up with each person interviewing the other and then have the general meeting with small groups to discuss, and summarize the information.

Similar 'maximizing participation' procedures can be used with the observation guide with a large team of observers, or everyone being an observer for a week and then coming to a general meeting where they form small groups. Or pairs of observers can be formed using the Systems Improvement Research method with one insider paired with an outsider, or an old-timer paired with a newcomer.

Process Goals in Data Collection

Involving the people of the identified system in the process of collecting and analyzing data increases their commitment to the change program. But the process of interviewing people or framing questionnaires and discussing the findings with others is also a very powerful educational experience. Participants learn new ways of looking at the problem and may change some of their own attitudes and beliefs. And, best of all, since attitudes are sustained by the culture of the groups to which a person belongs, the discussions with the group can lead to modifications of its culture. The effective re-education of an individual requires shifts in the norms of closely related groups.

These insights formed the original concept of Action Research which integrated personal re-education and social change into the same process. Changes in the usual ways of doing things came about as the stakeholder in the problem worked in a cooperative action research method to study the problem and tried simultaneously some new ways of working that might alleviate it. For example, if the identified problem was the low status of women in the community or organization, their inability to be heard and taken seriously by men, we can contrast two approaches to illustrate action research. First, let's look at the usual research approach which posits that accurate information will change males' attitudes and behaviour toward women. Women in the system would be interviewed about their experiences by other women. As women, especially in the system under study, talk differently to each other, they would be more likely to reveal personal experiences and thus make the data collected more credible.

The action research approach would start working on the problem as part of the data collection process, believing that changes in attitudes and behaviour come about through experiential activities focusing on group norms. Both men and women would interview women and then compare and contrast the results. General meetings would convene to discuss the results and the differences. Small groups separating men and women would start the analysis at the general meeting and then reform with half men and women to compare notes. All would be working together to understand the role and status of women and trying to figure out what was supporting and restraining present practices. In the process, women would be talking to men about real issues, and the men would be working at understanding in new ways their input. Roles and relationships, and the norms supporting present practices, would change as action research activities put the new attitudes and ways of working into practice.

Participative Data Analysis and Reporting

There may be programs where the intervener feels it would not be practical for the stakeholders to be involved in the collection of the data necessary. Or, existing data may be motivation for the program such as a recent census showing a rapid growth trend for the community. However, as the program moves into analyzing the meaning of the new information and informing others about it, it is imperative that participation be optimized or the collaboration component of the ICC method will be lost.

The intervener or intervention team will likely do their own analysis of the information collected as an outside perspective is usually helpful. Most analysis, however, will be done by individual consumers, study groups, and community meetings called for that purpose. Stakeholders will report their findings to one another with the intervener facilitating the process. In no way will the consultant lay on an analysis of the data with a diagnosis of the problem. Rather the analysis and suggestion of related factors will be done by the program participants.

The usual data analysis procedures consist of the participants summarizing the data and then looking for themes among them. Usually it is helpful to put the data into categories or at least dusters of similar information. With my bias for the force field analysis technique, data would divide into helping and hindering factors, strengths and weaknesses pros or cons, or winners and losers dichotomies. Following this division of the data, the participants would examine the two halves looking for general characteristics which were true for one half but not the other Once these characteristic differences between the halves were identified the group would hunch about any generalizable principles which accounted for the differences. And lastly, analysis procedures would seek to establish the consistency and confirmability of the data by the triangulation method. Data from three different sources would be looked for to establish the credibility of any major theme. (These analysis procedures are described more fully in Dimock, 1987b.)                       

... Next Section - Goal setting