CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN SIT Y ER UN IV AR Y R N L IB DA IBA CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN SOCIAL RESEARCH ITY RS Edited by NIV E JEGEDE, Ayodele Samuel and ISRIIJYGO -UABANIHE, Uche C. A LIB R N AD A IB IBADAN UNIVERSITY PRESS 2020 Ibadan University Press, Publishing House, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria © 2020 JEGEDE, Ayodele Samuel and ISIUGO-ABANIHE, Uche C. First Published 2020 SIT Y R All Rights Reserved IVE No part of this publication may be reproducNed, transmitted, transcribed stored in a retrieval system, or translate dU into any language or computer language, in any form or by any meaYns, electronic, mechanical, ma^etic chemical, photocopy recording, Rmanual or otherwise, without theprior permission of the publisBher.I R A " N L IS A IBA BN:D 978 - 978 - 8529 - 3 3 - 0 CONTENTS Pages Preface xi Notes on Contributors xiii SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTORY 1 1. Introduction to Social Research 1 Jegede, A.S. andIsiugo-Abanihe, U.C. 2. Theoretical Basis of Social Research 15 Olutayo, A.O. and Akanle, O. 3. Emerging Realities of Sociological Realities in Africa 31 Oluwadare, C.T. ITYS SECTION TWO: CHOOSING RESEARCH TOPIC R 43 4. Critical Review of Literature in Social Research E 45 Nwokocha, E.E. NIV 5. Generating Statement of the Problem in So cUial Research 57 Onwuzuruigbo, I. RY 6. Generating Research ObBjectives A in Social Research 73 Jegede, A.E., Idowu, AI.E. aRnd George, TO. 7. Study JustificaNtion iLn Social Research 93AkanDle, OAlayinka and Shittu, O.S.8. IBScoApe and Limitation of Study in Social Research 105Akanle Olayinka, Ademunson, A.O. and Shittu, O.O. SECTION THREE: RESEARCH DESIGN 115 9. Research Design in Social Research 117 Orimadegun, Adebola E., Muoghalu, C.O. and Jegede, Ayodele S. 10. Study Population in Social Research 141 Busari Dauda 11. Sampling in Social Science Research 155 Kilonzo Susan, M. and Maseno Magah Kitche 12. Issues in Study Location for Social Research 175 Steve Tonah SECTION FOUR: FIELD PREPARATION 193 13. Community Entry and Exit Behaviour in Social Research 195 Oluwabamide, A.J., Olorunlana, A. and Adegoke, O.O. 14. Community Engagement in Research Participation 223 George Tayo Ola, Chiazor Idowu, A., Fynnba C. Nana Derby, Iruonagbe Charles Tunde and Dallo Jacqueline 15. Participatory Approach in Community Engagement 243 Oshiname O. Frederick, Fasasi Lukman T., Matthew Ayegboyin and Abolaji Azeez SECTION FIVE: QUANTITATIVE COLLECTION 261 TECHNIQUES 16. Quantitative Data Collection in Survey Research 263 Isiugo-Abanihe, U.C. and Wusu Onipede ITY 17. Variable Measurement in Social Sciences Research S 285 Ibrahim El-Hakim, Jacob Mobolaji and Akanni AkEinyeRmi 18. Reliability and Validity IV 299 Ajani Oludele Albert and Akinyem i UJoshNua Odunayo 19. Data Collection TechniAques in Y Social Research 311 Nwabueze NdukaeRze and O Ryefara Lekan John 20. Conductin gL InIteBrviews in Social Research 323AmiNnu Kafayat, Fatoye Helen and Jegede Ayodele SamuelSECDTIAON SIX: QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION 351TECHNIQUES IB2A1. Focus Group Discussion 353Aderinto, A.A., Ojedokun, U.A., Tade, O. and Onayemi, O. 22. In-depth Interview 365 Ojedokun, U.A., Tade, O., Aderinto, A.A. and Onayemi, O. 23. Key Informant Interview 375 Tade, O., Onayemi, O., Ojedokun, U.A. and Aderinto, A.A. 24. Ethnography - The Craft of Fieldwork in Anthropology 389 Ajala Aderemi Suleiman and Crooks Mikhel 25. Archival Technique in Social Research 405 Bello Kabiru 26. Case Study Technique in Social Research 419 Omolawal Samuel Ayodeji 27. Observation Technique in Social Research 425 Owumi, B.E., Aluko-Arowolo Sunday, O., Lawal, S.A. andAjani, O.A. 28. Role Play in Social Research 441 Salami K. Kabiru 29. Gap Analysis in Social Research 459 Adeleye, OmokhoaA. SECTION SEVEN: GENERIC TOPICS IN SOCIAL 473 RESEARCH 30. The Delphi Technique 475 Y Ushie Boniface and Jegede Ayodele SIT 31. Transect Walk in Social Research R 487 Olutayo Akinpelu O. and Odok Godwin Etta IVE 32. Indigenous Research Methodologies N 497 Adejuwon Grace, A. and Olapegba P. OY. U 33. Unobstrusive Methods in Social ReRsearch 507 Okunola Rashidi AkanjiB andR Iku Aomola Adediran Daniel 34. Stakeholders and InLstitIutional Analysis in Social Research 521 Salami, K.K.N and Taiwo Patricia, A. SECTIOAN EDIG AHT: GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION 539 SYSTEM 35. IBGeospatial Analysis for Research in Humanities and 541 Social Sciences Fabiyi Oluseyi Olubunmi 36. Geographical Information System in Social Research 563 Areola Abiodun Ayooluwa SECTION NINE: QUANTITATIVE DATA MANAGEMENT 591 AND ANALYSIS 37. Issues in Data Management in Social Sciences 593 Jimoh Amzat and Ganiyat Amzat 38. Quantitative Data Analysis in Social Research 605 Fayehun Olufunke and Olubusoye, O.E. SECTION TEN: QUALITATIVE DATA MANAGEMENT 621 AND ANALYSIS 39. Qualitative Data Management and Analysis 623 Jegede, Ayodele S., Fasasi, Lukman T. and Ogundairo, Janet A. 40. The Use of Qualitative Data Analysis Software 657 Ntoimo Lorretta Favour Chizomam 41. Narrative Methods: How to Work with Narratives 669 Popoola Margareta 42. Emic and Etic Perspectives in Social Research 685 Modo Innocent V O. SECTION ELEVEN: ETHICAL ISSUES IN SOCIAL Y695 RESEARCH IT 43. Ethical Issues in Social Research S 697 Aluko-Arowolo, S.O., Adedeji, I.A. and LaVwalE, S. RA. 44. Design and Implementation of InformeNd CIonsent in 717 Research Management U Jegede Ayodele S., Aminu KYafa yat, Adebayo O. Adejumo and OduwAoleR Ebunoluwa O. 45. Intellectual PIroBperRty and Research Integrity in Research: 745An Examination of the Intersection between Copyright Infringem eLA nt and Plagiarism in Nigeria D Ak Nintola Simisola O. IBA46. Data Sharing and Its Ethics in Social Science Research 763Oduwole Ebunoluwa Olufemi, Akintola Simisola O., Adedeji Isaac Akinkunmi and Yakubu Aminu SECTION TWELVE: EMERGING ISSUES IN SOCIAL 111 RESEARCH 47. Gender Issues and Social Research 779 Odebiyi Adetanwa I. and Akingbade Retta E. 48. Monitoring and Evaluation Research 795 Isiugo-Abanihe, U.C. andNwokocha, E.E. 49. The Research and Policy Interface: Diagnoses and Prognoses 813 Akanle Olayinka, Adesina, J.O. and Adejare Gbenga S. 50. Writing Social Research Report 829 Okafor Emeka E., Imhonopi David, Urim Ugochukwu M. and Obor Deborah O. 51. Scientific Communication 851 Akanle Olayinka and Adedeji Oluwaseun Adewusi Index 885 Y RS IT IVE Y U N RA R LIB DA N IBA t Stakeholders and Institutional Analysis in ______________________ Social Research Salami K. Kabiru and Taiwo Patricia A. Introduction Stakeholder analysis and Institutional analysis are two main tools for examining the strengths and weaknesses of stakeholders and prospective institutions that have relative importance to a particular project, and for determining which interests are geared towards achieving expected mandate, missions and public value for a project. Both stakeholders and institutions in the analyses of organizational development and policy- related issues have attracted scholarly attention in the discourse of Y innovativeness and evaluation of organizations in society. It is notewortIhTy that Stakeholder and Institutional analyses currently rank very hSigh in scale of the research agenda for the Social sciences; however, awRareness is still required on the challenges that confront the atteVmpEt to advance knowledge and practice of these imminent approaches Iin methodological innovation. This chapter discusses the concepts, and Nhighlights the process of analyses Of Stakeholders and institutionsY. T hUR ese are examined in two distinct subsections in this chapter. A Stakeholder Analysis R Project development and IimBplementation at any level involve active engagement of social ca pLital resources. These resources could be sourced from the relativAe iNmportant stakeholders in order to achieve expected mandate,A fulDfil their missions and create public value in the project. This requIirBes a clear thinking and a practical demonstration of overall coordination of the project. In essence, adoption of systems or strategy in sourcing the material resources, human resources and social capital resources necessary to achieve the goals of the project is an important practice in ensuring successful implementation of any project. Likewise, for achieving a successful implementation, the input of stakeholders of a project is important from the beginning of the project. The word ‘Stakeholder7, according to Bryson (2004), has assumed a prominent place in public and non-profit management theory and practice in the last 20 years, and more importantly in the decade that ended the last millennium. Who are the stakeholders in a project? Stakeholders are individuals, groups and/or organizations that have an interest (a stake) and the potential to influence the activities and the goals of an organization, project or policy direction (Brugha and Varvasovszky 2000). It refers to persons, groups or organizations that must somehow be taken into consideration by leaders, and managers and other frontline staff of an organisation (Bryson 2004). In recent times, research uptake and focus on 522 Salami K. Kabiru and Taiwo Patricia A. the subject pertaining to stakeholder analysis have impacted on the rise in the use of the concept and its application in the real life practice (Bryson 2004). The need to discuss the analysis of relevant stakeholders in project lifespan is underscored by Bryson (2004); that while the term has gained the interest of academic community, there is still much to understand on how to be systematic in identifying and analysing stakeholders. By gathering data and analysing the data on stakeholders, one can have a clear insight of likely opportunities for influencing decision making process in a particular situation. Stakeholders are all those who have vested interest in the natural resources of a project area and/or who potentially will be affected by project activities. They have something to gain or lose if conditions change or stay the same (Golder, WWF-US and Gawler 2005). Stakeholders are all those people needed to be considered in actualising project targets and whose involvement and influence are central to the success of the project. In a review, Bryson (2004) highlighted Ythe following definitions of stakeholders: IT • “All parties who will be affected by or wiRll Saffect [the organization’s] strategy” (Nutt and Backoff 1992E: 439). • “Any person, group or organization that caInV place a claim on the organization’s attention, resources, oUr ouNtput, or is affected by that output” (Bryson 1995: 27). • “People or small groups with Ythe power to respond to, negotiate with, and change the stArateRgic future of the organization” (Eden and Ackermann 1998R: 117). • “Those individuIaBls or groups who depend on the organization to fulfil thNeir oLwn goals and on whom, in turn, the organization depeAnds” (Johnson and Scholes 2002: 206).•A “DAny group or individual who can affect or is affected by the IB achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman 1984). What is Stakeholder Analysis? Stakeholder analysis is an approach, a tool or set of tools for generating knowledge about actors - individuals, groups and organizations — so as to understand their behaviour, intentions, interrelations, agenda and interest; it is also for assessing the influence and resources that they bring to bear on decision-making or implementation processes (Brugha and Varvasovszky 2000; Varvasovszky and Brugha 2000). It is a policy analysis tool. It has its roots in the political and policy sciences, and in management theory where it has evolved into a systematic tool with a clearly defined steps and applications for scanning the current and future organizational environment (Brugha and Varvasovszky 2000). Stakeholder analysis is often adopted as a tool for policy analysis by a researcher whose interest is to conduct a comprehensive analysis in order to produce new knowledge about policy-making processes (Varvasovszky and Brugha 2000). This requires a strong retrospective dimension. Stakeholders and Institutional Analysis in Social Research 523 Stakeholder analysis ensures understanding the importance and influence of the project’s stakeholders; hence, the analysis helps the project team to focus on project direction and success. In a project’s lifespan, the interaction, including conversations and their dynamic processes, among team members during the stakeholder analysis, is just as important and insightful as the outcomes of the process. As it is a useful tool for managing stakeholders and identifying opportunities to mobilize their support for a particular goal, the information from the analysis can provide insight on how policies have developed. It can also be used to assess the feasibility of future policy directions; to facilitate the implementation of projects, specific decisions or organizational objectives; and to develop strategies for managing important stakeholders (Varvasovszky and Brugha 2000). Its goal is to develop a strategic view of the human and institutional landscape, and the relationships between the different stakeholders and the issues they care about most (Golder, WTWYF- US and Gawler 2005). SI With the growing popularity, acceptability and use oRf stakeholder analysis, appropriate tools for identifying the contributionEs of stakeholders in any project are now available. This is a refleIctVion of the growing appreciation of how the features of stakeholders N- individuals, groups, and organizations influence decision-maYkin gU processes (Brugha and Varvasovszky 2000). Most tools adopted in analyzing the strength of stakeholders are project-specific, whRile many other Stakeholder Analysis Tools (SATs) are focusedB onR ‘the A target population’ of the project, not on the people resources required to implement the project. In spite of the variations in the availLabIle tools, a-one-size-fit-all tool (Varvasovszky and Brugha 2000) mNay e merge. AnalyDsis Aof the strength of stakeholders involves identification of the staBtus Aof each stakeholder in the project from the beginning of the project liIfe. It is important to know that some stakeholders are influential, while others are important. By explanation, ‘Influential stakeholders’ are those stakeholders who have power over the organization or management of the project, while ‘Important stakeholders’ are those who have power over project implementation or outcome adoption. The Relevance of Stakeholder Analysis The analysis of stakeholders can help to illuminate and provide insight into the interactions between a project and its participating stakeholders. Kennon, Howden and Hartley (2009) noted that successful implementation of a project can ultimately rely on the capacity of the manager to cultivate the support of, and process the expectations of key people. The successful management of stakeholders can have a substantial and immediate impact in a project; hence, satisfied stakeholders can make great contribution to the progress and significance of a project, hence leading to project success. These scholars also describe stakeholder analysis as a dominant tool to help in profiling the team in order to detect 524 Salami K. Kabiru and Taiwo Patricia A. and prioritize the stakeholders who can have an impact on the success of the project. In addition, it was also observed that stakeholder analysis can examine the nature and typology of influence that individual members have and how they could be engaged (or disengaged) in order to achieve successful outcomes. One very important opportunity a team would derive from a stakeholder analysis at the time of planning and developing a project is the opportunity to have an insightful interaction about their project and stakeholders. This may enhance the whole team members to develop a clearer understanding of the range of project stakeholders, thus helping to develop a more focused project strategy. Varvasovszky and Brugha (2000) explained that organisations focusing on health management, make use of stakeholder analysis as a tool for achieving specific operational targets, or advantages in their dealings with other organisations, by identifying potential allies and bTuildYing alliances or removing threats. Likewise, in projectR mSana Igement, stakeholder analysis is engaged to increase the probabilities of project success through formation of the project’s design, its prEeparation along the line and eventual implementation of project; orI Vas part of the project evaluation, during or after project comple tUion.N Varvasovszky and Brugha (2000) noted that depending on the aiYm of the analysis and the resources that are available, it is possible to conduct the analysis within a short space of time especially where a rapid apRpraisal is possible. This is possible anck relevant in the planninIgB staRge o Af a small local project with involvement of a small size stakeh oLlders, where not too large, perhaps a brief assessment is enough to iNdentify interests, and in a situation where only one or two well-framedA questions exist. The project work plan which include time- frame Dof the project lifecycle, and which may be influenced by the dBeadAlines of the project, available resources and frequency, determines the Iscope of the analysis. The Importance of Stakeholder Analysis Stakeholders’ analysis has shown series of benefits to its users as a method of identifying human resources and social capital in the development and implementation of a project. The success of all projects would depend on ability to identify stakeholders who can collaboratively geared their contribution and work towards achieving the target of the project to reduce or reverse threats to key conservation targets. According to Golder, WWF- US and Gawler (2005), it has potential to help make a project or programme identify the following: • Where the interest of all stakeholders who may affect or be affected by the programme/project lies; • Likely threat, crisis or danger that could hamper the project/ programme initiative; Stakeholders and Institutional Analysis in Social Research 525 • Opportunities and associations that can be built on during project implementation; • Groups that should be stimulated to involve in different stages of the project lifespan; • Appropriate plans and methods for engagement of stakeholders; and • Techniques to reduce negative impacts on vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. An important gateway to success in project conception, design and execution is full participation of stakeholders at all these stages. However, full participation may not assure same success rate at all times. Golder, WWF-US and Gawler (2005), also explained that Stakeholder’s participation: ITY • provides people some insight over how projects or policSies may affect or influence their lives; R • is quite crucial for sustainability purposes in projVectE execution; • ensures a sense of ownership if in it I UiateNd early in the project development process; • provides opportunities for learRninYg for both the project team andstakeholders themselves; and (_ • builds capacity and enhaRnceAB s responsibility of stakeholders. Appropriate TimNe fo r LUn Idertaking Stakeholder Analysis Stakeholder analysis is best undertaken right from the commencement of a project. HDoweAver, it is possible to carry it out from the beginning to the end of the project. Carrying out stakeholder analysis throughout the course of I(aBll sAtages of) the project lifecycle is equally possible. In fact, this is advisable. In particular, during project conception phase when it is being planned, stakeholder analysis is an important aspect of situation analysis. Gender issue is also important to note in any stakeholder analysis. For instance, it should be noted that discrimination based on gender is likely to affect the impact and success of projects and policies. Gender analysis involves the assessment of: • The sharing of tasks, responsibilities, activities, and rewards associated with the division of labour at a particular locality or across a region; • The relative positions of women and men in terms of representation and influence; and • The relative importance and hindrances related to assigning tasks and responsibilities to women and men. 526 Salami K. Kabiru and Taiwo Patricia A. Techniques for Carrying out Stakeholder Analysis A number of techniques exist for carrying out stakeholder analysis. The adoption and use of these techniques depend on the nature of a project and the researcher’s interest. Few among them are: (1) Workshops, (2) Focus groups, (3) Interviews and (4) Questionnaires. Through workshops potential stakeholders are identified and brought together. Workshop facilitators would be someone who is experienced in the project target, skilled in identifying the needs of the project, the stakeholders and their potential strength. They are exposed to the interest of projects and can address the potential needs and expected contribution of the members of different stakeholders. They are introduced to other members present. Participants are encouraged to declare what they feel they could make as their own contribution in order to make the project successful. In focus groups, members of the same status are brought together to shaIre thYeir views on how to support the project, who they think should be invitTed and for what strength different from those strengths possessed Sby already selected members. There would be a moderator who drivesR the discussion and a note-taker who documents the whole NprocIeVss Eof identifying the strength of the members. Potential stakeholders could be interviewed to tease out their potential contributions to thUe success of the project. Also questionnaires could be administereRd toY ac hieve the same purpose. Stakeholder Analysis Tool (SAT) In their own study, KLenInBon R, Howden and Hartley (2009) proposed a one- size-fit-for-all Ntool . The tool featured a 16 square matrix with two axes that focused on stakeholders who are: ‘Influential’ and ‘Important’. The essence of tAhe tool is to ascertain the team’s understanding of project, its outcAomeDs and stakeholder’srnanagement skill. These are channelled in IfBive steps as follow: Step One: Identification of stakeholders. This stage of the analysis involves identifying the project’s stakeholders. It also involves making the team discuss the reasons for their consideration as being critical for meeting project targets. At this level, it is critical that the main interest should be primarily the persons and their roles, rather than just an organizational group or a position title. It is essential to note that persons involved in a project have different levels of power or importance within an organization, within their networks (or none at all) with various team members. It is also important to identify power relations at this level. Step Two: Prioritization of stakeholders. There is possibility of having different categories of stakeholders. At this stage, the team is required to develop a matrix and use the matrix to prioritize their list of stakeholders in terms of how critical they are to the outcomes of the project. This will Stakeholders and Institutional Analysis in Social Research 527 help to prioritize communication and engagement activities with the people most likely to affect project success. The matrix has two axes which are labelled as “influential” and “important”. ‘Influential’ refers to people who have either direct or indirect power to influence the success of the project. These may include monetary power, positional authority or persuasive capacity over core decision makers. On the other hand, ‘Important’ refers to those who have either direct or indirect power to influence the delivery of project outcomes. These people may include opinion leaders (in the project’s target population), critical knowledge resources (e.g. scientific experts), and providers of enabling resources (e.g. mapping technology) or those critical in delivery of innovations produced by the project. In this second step, important questions in stakeholder analysis according to Golder, WWF-US and Gawler (2005) may include: ITY • Whose decision is final on issues that are important to the pSroject? • Who holds positions of responsibility in concerned orgRanizations? • Who is influential in the project thematic and geVogrEaphic areas? • What categories of people will be affected Nby tIhe project? • Whose involvement will promoteY or sUupport the project (through human and social capital resources), only if they are involved? • Whose neglect will oRbstrAuct/ Rhinder the project if they are not involved? B Step Three: Underst aLndiIN ng and managing the stakeholders. This step involves inwaArd examination of the likely attitudes of the various stakeholdeDrs to the project, their attitude to the project team and any risks assoBciaAted with their participation in the project. This step proposes the coInsideration of possible changes that may be required in engaging with the stakeholders to minimize any risks and/or to increase their appreciation of, and commitment to, the project. The questions that follow may be relevant when identifying where stakeholders are located on the Influence/Impact analysis quadrant, according to Golder, WWF-US and Gawler (2005): • Are the stakeholders likely to influence the success or failure of the project? • What is nature of their relationship with other stakeholders in the project? • How do the stakeholders relate with the project? • Where are the stakeholders now versus where you expected them to be on the Influence/Impact quadrant? 528 Salami K. Kabiru and Taiwo Patricia A. Active participation of the stakeholders and the potential to work together towards the goal achievement of the project is dependent on the level of involvement of persons in the team, and when and how that involvement can be achieved. These aspects need to be understood and made clear to the team. Once stakeholder’s opinions are understood, a decision can be made on whether to collaborate or not. The significance of the process in planning and conducting successful collaborations cannot be overstressed. Good-faith efforts are often disrupted because the parties involved are not skilled in the collaboration process, and because insufficient attention is paid on designing and managing collaboration. Using an inclusive, transparent approach during project design and execution will help researchers and/or programmers build the spirit of ownership and commitment in the stakeholders. However, if it is not realistic to haveY all key stakeholders involved from the onset, then mild aSnd IgTradual involvement may be necessary. R Step Four: Setting goals and identifying costsV. AEt this stage, the group/team needs to assign tasks and set appropriatIe timelines for different tasks in the project. At this level the key q uUestiNons to ask may include: • What are the key contribAutiRons Ytargeted at each stakeholder? • What are the key gRoals of the project that stakeholders have to support to be achievable? • What reso uLrceIs Bdo the stakeholders have to support with the project? • DHowA c Nould the support of the stakeholders be harmonized to Areduce overlap?ISBtep Five: Evaluation and revision. This aspect is to be carried out regularly from the time of the commencement of the project and continue throughout the lifespan of the project. It is of utmost benefit to the organisation if stakeholder analysis is consistently being updated in order to identify whether there are potential new stakeholders, changes in current stakeholder’ importance or influence, or just in case there is sudden change in the perceptions held about the project. Participants are stimulated to fill in a stakeholder analysis table throughout these steps. Stakeholders and Institutional Analysis in Social Research 529 An abridged stakeholder analysis table (with examples) N a m e R o le W h y a r e R a n k C u r r e n t W h a t w e K e y H o w ( T a c t i c s ) W h e n W h o th e y ( w h e r e in a t t i t u d e w o u ld l ik e m e s s a g e s i m p o r t a n t t h e m a t r ix ) t h e m to d o B o b F a r m e r I n f lu e n tia l a t I D o e s n o t A d v o c a te o u r T h e r e a r e In v i te to 1 2 th N o v Ia n a p o li t ic a l u n d e r s ta n d o u r p r o j e c t t o o th e r b e n e f i t s to p r o je c t f ie ld le v e l. p r o je c t fa rm e rs h im in d a y F a rm e r w o r k in g w ith o p in io n u s le a d e r Source: Nicole Kennon, Peter Howden and Meredith Hartley (undated) Limitations of the Stakeholder Analysis While Stakeholder analysis has its advantages, it also has its limitations. For instance, despite its capacity for its possible cross-sectional view of an evolving picture, the utility of stakeholder analysis for predicTtinYg behaviour and managing the future project is time-limited SandI the approach should be supported by other policy analyEsis Rapproaches. Hence, consideration for institutional analysis is given credence here. .However, they could be done together at almost thNe saImVe time. Institutional Analysis U The study of institutions is flocked Ywith several approaches and perspectives; vis-a-vis those RthatA fo Rcused on the history of institutions (historical institutionalismI)B (Zysman 1994; Katznelson 1998), the new and the old institutionalism L (Hodgson 1998; Langlois 1986, 1989), and several other approaches Nin the social sciences, such as the functionalist, conflict and symbolic Ainteractionist perspectives (Haralambos, Holbom and Heald 2008; AOtiDte and Ogionwo 2006). The confusion that exists in the utIilBization of the concept of institutions and in turn its analysis is reflected in the works of North (1990) Institution, Institutional Change and Economic Performance when he defined institutions as the “rules of the game in a society”. To him, institutions serve as forms of control to influence how people behave and shape how they interact and how society revolves around them and evolve over time. This was, however, contested by Schotter (1981), who argued that institutions are “not rules of the game” but behaviours that occur in line with set rules. Institutions, to him, refers to behaviours that follow from rules because they have to do with what actors do with the rules and not what the rules are. Thus, while many scholars may agree with the views of North (1990) that rules and norms are institutions, many will, however, disagree with his view about what a rule actually entails. Sociologists see very strong connection between norms and institutions, in the sense that norms influence and determine the behaviours of people within institutions, while norms can be changed or modified by institutions (Haralambos et al. 2008; Otite and Ogionwo 2006). While institutions are seen as a place or build, enduring customs 530 Salami K. Kabiru and Taiwo Patricia A. and practices (Hornby 2000), contemporary sociologists generally believe that institutions are relatively enduring and exist to meet certain basic needs. More important is the relationship that exists between institutions and organizations which North (1990) believes are two distinct entities. He further added that the type of organization that exists and evolves through time is determined by societal norms and rules as well as its institutions. Sociologists focusing on Organizational studies, however, did not see much or found no differences between institutions and organization. According to Hollingsworth (2000), norms and rules are seen as institutions which unfold in cycle with organizational structures and processes. Hollingsworth (2000) further added that changes in organizational systems affect and reveal changes in societal norms and rules A few other scholars considered as the institutionalists have Yalso argued that cultural norms and rules determine the type of organTization created by actors in the society (Zucker 1988, 1991). These alsSo cIontribute to institutional change which to a large extent influencRes the type of institutional analysis that should be carried out in Ethem. Institutional change has been observed to occur resulting fromI aVnd in the development of any institution and society. In fact, the wUayN an institution works is such that the unwritten “rules of the game” that govern it often become so embedded in it that the idea of changYe may be completely unimaginable for those who work inside the iAnstiRtution. Although the concIeBpt oRf institutional change is extensively discussed, the capacity to m eLasure this change in any society is relatively lacking among scholarNs. This limitation is also compounded by the relative lack of ability to understand and build new institutions which is part of the impAortaDnt Aproblems of societal development (Hollingsworth 2000). This ImBay be because there are very little or no theories of institutions especially in the social sciences. Advancement of theories of institution requires a clear definition of the parameters that can be used to ensure institutional analysis. The definition of such parameters however depends on a clear understanding of the institutional make up and how it is connected to its style of innovativeness. Relating institutional analysis to its innovativeness is not easy especially that there are poorly developed theories to explain them. While both concepts may be viewed separately by scholars, relating the connection between both will enable analyst to understand institution better and be able to do more appropriate analysis. A country’s innovativeness has been found to be linked to its ability to compete with others (Nelson 1993). Furthermore, the differences in the innovative style of most societies have also been said to depend to a large extent on the institutional configuration. Innovativeness can either hinder or make the growth of any institution and society smooth (Hage and Hollingsworth 2000). In discussing technological innovation for instance, many scholars Stakeholders and Institutional Analysis in Social Research 531 have focused their discourse on the firms (Langlois and Robertson 1995; Whitley 2000). In the same vein, Chandler (1990) emphasized how the success of technological innovation in a firm across borders and time had been affected primarily by either the firm’s possession of appropriate structure or utilization of the right strategy. He emphasized that organisations have been able to develop capacities that enable them prioritise their means, strategy and structure of production and hence increased scope to enjoy cost of production advantages over other organisations they compete with because they adopted relatively right strategy and structure (Teece 1993). Institutional environment has also been emphasized as an important aspect that needs to be understood in the quest to know why some firms are more successful than others generally, why some firms excel at some point in time and later lose it at other times and why some firms perforYm better than others (Landes 1998; North 1990). How endowed an instIitTution is can provide economic actors and firms with an insight into Sthe initial challenges and prospects that are suitable or not for speciEfic Rtechnological activities (Mumamm 1988). Although, institutionaIl Venvironment varies widely across society, successful firms and inUstitNutions are those that have adapted and survived in the midst ofY these variations using the best activities that are compatible with and suitable to their institutional environment. With such succeRsses, th Rey are able to participate in collective and collaborative activitIieBs to ad Ajust their institutional environment so as to facilitate their leve lL of innovation and technological competence. Levels of InsAtituNtional AnalysisSometAimeDs, scholars do engage in activities that are not coordinated such thIaBt their activities are fragmented across disciplines and sub-disciplines. In carrying out institutional analysis, therefore, it is pertinent to take into cognizance the multiple levels of reality in the analysis process (Hollingsworth 2000). Understanding the organizational or institutional map with these multiple levels of reality is also pertinent. Usually each of the areas on the maps are inter-related and interdependent such that changes in any of these components can equally affect the others. Hollingsworth (2000) provides a prototype of levels of institutional analysis as follows: (i) Institutions: This is the level of norms, rules, conventions, habits and values (North 1990). These usually exist at the micro-level (i.e at the level of the individual) and are usually more enduring and persistent than other components of institutional analysis. Furthermore, institutions play a very pivotal role in influencing the history of any society as result of their durability. 532 Salami K. Kabiru and Taiwo Patricia A. (ii) Institutional arrangements: This level results from the first level. Norms, values and habits of the society lead to institutional arrangement which involves the coordination of various economic actors such as producers and suppliers of raw materials and those who process the raw materials. At this level, there are institutions, agencies and groups such as markets, states/govemment, corporate bodies, networks of trade guilds and associations and communities (Hollingsworth and Streeck 1994). This is usually viewed in two distinct ways: the nature of action motive and the distribution of power. (iii) Institutional sectors: This level includes systems such as business system, educational system, economic system, and system of research (Hollingsworth 1997) among others. (iv) Organizations: These and institutional sectors are usuYally operative at the macro-level. IT (v) Outputs and performance: Such levels includSe statuses, administrative decisions, the nature, quantity Rand quality of industrial products, sectoral and societal IpVerfoErmance. Conducting an institutional analysis baseNd on the above levels of reality is dependent on the type of instit utUion, organization or society in which it is being conducted. In a univYersity system and a banking system, for instance, certain modifiRcatiAons R may be necessary in the tool and in the process to suit the IkBihd of institution being analyzed. Institutional analysis can also Lbe viewed as stakeholder analysis of government agencies, non-Ngovernmental organisations (NGOs) and firms that support and implemAent the actions that underlie policy reforms. In such instances, the AanaDlysis is informed by three central premises; (a) governments not a IBunitary sector, (b) different actors within government compete for power and resources (c) decisions made in central hierarchies are modified at the local level. Institutional analysis can make use of either two approaches or a combination of both: The Institutional Assessment Tool (IAT) It is an analytic computer package whose report is usually presented in Microsoft word. The tool guides institutions such as banks through their researches into various components of their operation. The instrument which also guides in questionnaire development produces questions that help analyst to structure thoughts about institutional operations (i.e bank operations). Such thoughts could include complex institutional structure and dynamics which are found in many reforms. The units of analysis using the IAT tool include country counterparts except when it involves the use of institutional impact module. The respondents are usually bank operational staff who are expected to have knowledge on how the questionnaire can be filled, especially on necessary information such as Stakeholders and Institutional Analysis in Social Research 533 identifying the areas of bank operations. The bank operational staff where necessary may need to acquire knowledge on a wide range of issues because each module in the questionnaire may include questions that border on highly specific operational issues. Some of the Advantages o f Utilizing IA T (i) It is relevant for operational issues: Focusing on banks counterparts and dividing it into operational stages enable the IAT to achieve its goals of making the operations in question its main target from the beginning of the process to the end. (ii) It requires fewer resources: Cost is saved in the sense that only one questionnaire may be expected to be filled either by an individual or the bank operational team using the institutional assessment tool. The tool is convenient, fast and less expensive.Y The electronic version used also ensures “user friendly” IaTnd facilitates the production of presentation of reEporRts. SIt gives room for findings to be shared and validated with counterparts. (iii) The tool ensures that a thorough process is uVndertaken because of the systematic way the questions are dNesigIned. The process is helpful in that it ensures that saliYent oUrganizational issues are not missed out because a large amRount of information is elicited and a vast analytical territoryA is covered from political incentive to administrative capBacitRy. Some of the LimitationsL oIf Using IA T (i) The pArobNlem of isolation can occur due to lack of an interactive diDmension in using the tool. Such interactiveness can include Adebates for or against opinions. The information received may IB thus be a reflection of an individual’s point of view. Although this can be addressed using the process of re-validation or cross­ checking of data which can be put forward for scrutiny and defense, it will increase cost. (ii) The information garnered in using IAT can be over-loaded especially because of the advantage of being thorough. There can be too much data which may be difficult to manage and analyze, arising from inability to prioritize specific information in the questionnaire. Trimming or summarizing the questionnaire to address only very salient issues becomes necessary. (iii) The information may be one-sided since it focuses on members of the bank operational team and not on the members of the organization being reformed. This shortcoming can be addressed when responses are made to be based on interaction with the necessary stakeholders from both ends. This again can increase cost and make the process longer. 534 Salami K. Kabiru and Taiwo Patricia A. Organizational Mapping The other tool is organizational mapping. This helps individuals or researcher to understand the areas in which their researches fit in to research of other practitioners on the map. Organization maps thus help to identify specific public actions which may be associated with policy reform as well as the organizations that are saddled with the task of implementing the policies. Organizational maps can provide the proof or snapshot of actors who perform certain tasks in form of reforms (static mapping). In addition, it can provide the process mapping which shows how the organization actually works after the reform has been implemented. Thus, while the static mapping provides the diagrams and proof of those who carried out the task and how it was carried out, process mapping gives an insight into organizational norms and culture that may not be ascertained from diagrams and documents (static mapping). Process mappiTng Yis a highly visual tool that is used to trace how process and proceduIres flow through institutions and through all levels of a system. SRuchS process and procedures could include those of funds, informatIioVn, Edecisions, resources etc. The tool relates objects or myriad of information that are clearly identifiable by humans with broader activities Nand less easily defined tasks performed by people or machines.Y A Uprocess map provides details information about relationship beRtween different organizational systems mapped. Process maps are simple,A but highly valuable visual aids that help researchers, decisio RLn maBkers, analysts, workers and auditors to understand complex operaNtion s an Id dynamic processes in organizations. The maps are highly utiliAzed in private organizations and many of them are available for commeDrcial purposes as software tools that are helpful in the process of anaAlysis but just with slightly different visual language. Process mapping IBis usually based on the use of qualitative methods which involve direct interaction through in-depth interviews or focus group discussions with key actors and relevant stakeholders across different levels and functions in government. It can reflect information on the availability of information and direction of flow of information across the hierarchy of decisions in an organization. Information is broken down into short, discrete questions by the analyst in order to initiate a dialogue (for example, who has decision­ making power? What financial year is it? etc). The analyst then compiles responses to such questions and arranges them into appropriate themes. Those at the bottom levels of the organizations all particularly are taken into cognizance because they can give first-hand information since they are in more direct and regular contact with individuals who are affected by organizational reform. The static maps or road maps are always used as the starting point, while doing process mapping. Static mapping is ideally informed by previous stakeholders identifying government and other implementing actors. Process maps are produced in company of a team of members from all levels of the Stakeholders and Institutional Analysis in Social Research 535 organization when resources and time are accessible. This involves a participatory process which promotes acceptance by groups that are central to the organization, but also promotes accuracy of the maps used. However, in order to reduce cost, focus group discussions are usually conducted at first, after which interviews are then carried out to validate the findings. Some Advantages of Using Process Mapping (i) It encourages focus. Since data is collected through an interactive medium such as interviews, some challenges are likely to surface which could on the other hand propel the interviewees or participants on the focus group to strive to maintain some element of focus on the areas of concerns. (ii) It can produce detailed and robust information since lithe procedures of data collection in organizational mappinSg, gIiTves Y room for more discoveries. Information can be generated at all levels of the organization and semi-structured intervRiews which utilize mainly open-ended questions enable one tEo probe further into problem areas that may not be readUilyN obs IerVvable. (iii) Information collected gives opportunity for looking outwards considering they are elicited from t he narrated experiences and perceptions of organizatioAnalR sta Ykeholders themselves. Some Limitations o f PrLoceIsBs M Rapping (i) It may requi re high amount of resources because organizational mappAingN consumes time and may require funds and some degree oDf expert skill. It can also require the presence of personnel or Aresearcher in the field possibly in several organizations to IB conduct the qualitative aspect of data collection.(ii) Information can be distorted especially when only small sample of stakeholders is consulted and also because static maps and process maps are subjective outputs. Hence, findings are more likely to be based on incomplete information where few the organizational levels are addressed or small numbers of stakeholders are consulted. Usefulness of Institutional Analysis Institutional analysis answers questions that border on the organizations that carry out certain policy reforms and describes the characteristics of these organizations. It involves the analysis of a broad range of characteristics of people’s daily lives and work. Such characteristics are usually identified by the people who are directly concerned and participated in the institution being analyzed, and give an insight into the worthiness of analyzing the institution. Debates on issues can be 536 Salami K. Kabiru and Taiwo Patricia A. encouraged, especially in places where institutional problems are recognized. It is, however, noteworthy that some issues in institutions may be viewed as “usual phenomena” to the extent that they may not be considered worthy of analysis in most institutions. However, the features of institutional analysis depict that it involves some form of diagnostic activity which involves someone outside the organization who is not a participant in the institutions and most times not among the subject of analysis, but is however considered very necessary because of the role he/she stands to play. For instance, only someone who is outside an organization may be capable of giving opinions and information on salient issues within or outside the institutions of which “insiders” may be oblivious or negligent. Institutional analysis can be useful at any stage of developingY an intervention and can have particular relevance depending on StheI sTtage at which it is utilized. Hence, doing institutional analysis has considerable benefits in terms of its ability to generate more appropriate Rand sustainable intervention and support for whatever issues it is tVargeEted. However, the process of carrying it out can be complex anNd timI e-consuming. It may also require enormous resources. In Yad diUtion, the sensitivity of issues being addressed through this procRess needs to be considered in making decision on when, how, wherAe and who should carry out the analysis. Furthermore, institutionBal Ranalysis can be used for reforms that are complex and gearedL toIwards changing or developing responsibilities for government orN on e that requires that government of different levels and agencies toA cooperate and collaborate in meeting certain needs. It is particulDarly useful in reforms that take care of issues such as regulation of mBarkAets, delivery of public services, management of public expenditure Iand decentralization. Conclusion This chapter has attempted to re-introduce the concepts of Stakeholder and Institutional analyses as tools, with special attention focused on the process of using the tools to engage stakeholders on their potential capacities and capabilities geared towards enhancing substantial and immediate impact in a project. The appropriate conditions and levels under which Stakeholder and Institutional analyses should be employed were also addressed along with explanation of the relevance of these analyses in terms of their advantages, disadvantages and limitations. Stakeholder and Institutional analyses have been strong tools in the social sciences, an improved step-by-step processes of implementation described here attempt to demonstrate the fact that these analytic tools can be applied at any level in any organization to achieve set goals. Stakeholders and Institutional Analysis in Social Research 537 References Brugha, R. and Varvasovszky, Z. 2000. Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy and Planning 15(3): 239-246. Bryson, J.M. 2004. “What to do When Stakeholders Matter? A Guide to Stakeholder Identification and Analysis Techniques.” A paper presented at the London School of Economics and Political Sciences Public management review. Vol. 6 Issuel: 21-53.ISSN1471-9037 print/ISSN 1471-9045 online. DOI:10.1080/14719030410001675722 Chandler, A. 1990 Scale and scope: The dynamics of industrial capitalism Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University Press. Freeman, R. 1984. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston. Pitman. Golder, B., WWF-US and Gawler, M. 2005. “Cross-Cutting Tool: Stakeholder Analysis.” Resources for Implementing the WWF Standards. Haralambos, M., Holbom, M. and Heald, R. 2008. Sociology: Themes TandY perspectives. 7th edition London: Collins Education. I Hage, J. and Hollingsworth, J. 2000. A strategy for analysis oEf idRea in Snovation networks and institutions. Organization Studies 21. Hodgson, G. 1998. Economics and institutions: A maniVfesto for a modem institutional economics. Philadelphia: University oNf PeInnsylvania Press. Hollingsworth, J. 2000. Doing institutional analysiUs: Implications for the study of innovation. Review of International PRolitYical Economy 7(4): 595-644 United Kingdom. Hollingsworth, J. and Streeck,R WA. 1994. Governing capitalist economies performance and contrIolB of economics sectors, (eds.) New York: Oxford University. _________ . 1994. “C oLuntries and Sectors Performance, Convergence and CompetitiveAnesNs” In Governing Capitalist Economies Performance and ConAtrolD of Economics Sectors, Hollingworth, J. Schmitter, P. and Streeck, W. (Beds.), New York: Oxford University. Pp 221-254HoIllingsworth, J.R. 1997. “Some Reflections on How Institution Influence Styles of Innovation” Paper for Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study of the Social Sciences. Hollingsworth, J. and Boyer, R. 1997. Contemporary capitalism: The embeddedness of institutions. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University. Hornby, A.S. 2000. Oxford advanced learning dictionary. 5th Edition, Oxford University Press, United Kingdom. Katznelson, I. 1998. The Doleful dance of politics and policy: Can historical institutionalism make a difference? American Political Science Review 191-7. Kennon, N., Howden, P. and Hartley, M. 2009. Who really matters? Stakeholder analysis tool. Extension Farming Systems Journal 5(2), Charles Sturt University. Landes, D. 1998. The wealth and poverty of nations: Why some are so rich and some are so rich and some are so poor. New York: W.W. Norton. 538 Salami K. Kabiru and Taiwo Patricia A. Langlois, R. 1986. Economics as a process: Essays in the new institutional economics (ed.) Cambridge University Press. _____ . 1989. What is wrong with the old institutional economics. Review of Political Economy Pg. 270-298 Langlois, R. and Robertson, P. 1995. Firms, markets and economic change (eds.) London: Routledge. Mumamm, J. 1998. “Knowledge and Competitive Advantage in the Synthetic Dye Industry” Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbia University. Nelson, R. 1993. National innovation systems: A Comparative analysis, (ed.) New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. North, D. 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Nutt, P. and Backoff, R. 1992. Strategic management of public and third sector organizations: A handbook for leaders. San Franscisco, Jossey-Bass. Y Otite, O. and Ogionwo, W. 2006. Introduction to sociological studies. IITbadan: Heinemann Educational Books Nigeria Pic. S Schotter, A. 1981. The economics theory of social institutiEon. RCambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Teece, D. 1993. Perspectives on Alfred Chandler’s scaIleV and scope. Journal of Economic Literature March. N Varvasovszky, Z. and Brugha, R. 2000. HoYw t oU do (or not to do) “A stakeholder analysis”. Health Policy and PAlannRing 15(3): 338-345.Whitley, R. 2000. The institutiRonal structuring of innovation strategies, business systems, firms types IaBnd patterns of technical change in different market economies. Organization Studies.Zucker, L. 199N1. InLstitutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environmAent. Cambridge, Mass. Ballinger_________. 1988. “Microfoundations of Institutional Thought” In The New InAstitDutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Walter W., Powell and Paul, J. IBDiMaggio (eds.). University of Chicago Press. 103-107.Zysman, J. 1994. “How Institutions Create Historically Rooted Trajectories of Growth” In Industrial and Corporate Change.