Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Research methodology <strong>and</strong> data<br />
case. The quotations listed in the spreadsheet included many descriptions<br />
of the same <strong>activities</strong>. In each of the three cases, different interviewees<br />
referred to the same activity, such as certain workshops, meetings or<br />
discussions, <strong>and</strong> some interviewees addressed a certain activity many times<br />
during their interview, which resulted in several quotations that<br />
represented the same actual activity. To give an example, practically<br />
everyone in Bureau who had been involved in the early program <strong>activities</strong><br />
mentioned the series of planning workshops, <strong>and</strong> some interviewees<br />
mentioned these workshops several times during their interview, resulting<br />
in altogether 19 quotations (i.e. rows in the spreadsheet) referring to these<br />
workshops. To support the calculation of such overlapping descriptions,<br />
one data field in the spreadsheet was reserved <strong>for</strong> describing each activity<br />
briefly. All the quotations referring to the same actual boundary activity<br />
received the same description. Thus, when all reported boundary <strong>activities</strong><br />
of a case program were coded in the same way, it was possible to calculate<br />
the number of different boundary <strong>activities</strong> manifested in the case data.<br />
When defining the number of distinct boundary <strong>activities</strong> in each case,<br />
each activity was only counted once regardless of how many times the<br />
activity had occurred during program initiation. For example, the same<br />
kind of joint ideation workshops with the same group of participants might<br />
have been organized three times during the program initiation, but they<br />
were calculated to represent just one mechanism of boundary activity. The<br />
actual number of occurrences of each activity was not analyzed, as <strong>for</strong> the<br />
majority of <strong>activities</strong> this in<strong>for</strong>mation was not available in the data <strong>and</strong> it<br />
was not viewed as a critical piece of in<strong>for</strong>mation. Rather, the analysis aimed<br />
to reveal the variety of different mechanisms of how the case programs’<br />
boundaries were managed in the cases.<br />
This analysis generated case-specific counts of different boundary<br />
<strong>activities</strong> <strong>and</strong> provided a more in-depth view of the total level of boundary<br />
activity in each case. The total number of boundary <strong>activities</strong> across the<br />
three cases was not calculated. The reason <strong>for</strong> this was that somewhat<br />
similar but not fully identical <strong>activities</strong> were used across the three cases,<br />
<strong>and</strong> it would have been very difficult to determine whether they should be<br />
treated as the same activity. For example, the key program actors had<br />
interviewed those representing the parent organization in both case Bureau<br />
<strong>and</strong> case Chain, but the interviews were used in a somewhat different way,<br />
targeted at different persons <strong>and</strong> aimed at different outcomes, which makes<br />
it difficult to determine whether they should be treated as the same activity.<br />
Figure 7 illustrates the process of coding <strong>and</strong> counting the boundary<br />
<strong>activities</strong> described above.<br />
98