Social enterprises in the EU (IVOR nr. 111) 2018/3.4.2.3:3.4.2.3 Procedure and analysis

Social enterprises in the EU (IVOR nr. 111) 2018/3.4.2.3

3.4.2.3 Procedure and analysis

Documentgegevens:

mr. A. Argyrou, datum 01-02-2018

Datum: 01-02-2018
Auteur: mr. A. Argyrou
JCDI: JCDI:ADS586912:1
Vakgebied(en): Ondernemingsrecht / Rechtspersonenrecht

The collected data comprised several interview transcriptions, interview reports, data tables and other relevant documents.1 The collected data amounted to a large compilation of complex and lengthy textual data. In order to analyse the collected data, the application of the constant comparison method (coding) was required.

Initially, a coding template was developed including a priori codes (legal codes in Table 3.9) that emerged deductively from the theoretical analysis of the legal framework. Thereafter, these were refined based on emerging codes from the interview transcriptions using coding techniques.2 The emerging codes were created by means of in vivo coding using a software for qualitative analysis, i.e. ATLAS t.i. Coding was used to compare and contrast the ideas captured in the text and to sort and group the data into emerging patterns (focus areas) that were categorised into themes.3

The analysis of the interview data was guided by the primary objectives of identifying real-life evidence in the text in respect of identified theoretical propositions. The use of the analytical technique of template analysis was hence adopted.4 Through template analysis, pre-existing legal concepts which could be derived from the theoretical analysis on a deductive basis were routinely contrasted against the real-life concepts that emerged from the data inductively and which were then integrated into patterns and emerging themes (Table 3.9).

Table 3.9: Codes and themes in the two UK case studies

Legal codes	Emerging codes	Refined codes-Focus coding	Themes	Different roles of stakeholders
Organisation	Products and services provided	Product and services of the CIC	Community benefit model of the CIC
	Size of the CIC	Size of the CIC
	Objective-aim- mission	Community benefit purpose
	Community benefit	Community benefit
Governing bodies	Experts versus stakeholders	Board’s composition	The CIC governance structure	Stakeholders as decision-makers
	Directors’ skills	Skills of directors in the board
	Directors’ involvement in the company’s affair	Commitment of the directors
	Board meetings	Decision-making process
	Stakeholders in the board	Stakeholder representation in the governing bodies
	Stakeholders in the annual general meeting of members
Voting rights	One man, one vote Voting in the board			Stakeholders as decision-makers
Voting in the board
Ownership and membership rights	Number of members	Owners and members of the CIC	Ownership and control of the CIC	Stakeholders as members and owners
	Control of the organisation
	Opportunities of membership
	New members
Information rights	Newsletter, email, phone calls	Communication with stakeholders	Communication with employees, stakeholders and the community	Stakeholders as recipients of information
	Website and social media
	One to one communication	Communication with employees
Stakeholder participation	Volunteering in the company	Volunteers’ voice	Opportunities for providing feedback	Stakeholders as advisors and consultant
	Employee involvement in decisions	Employment setting in the CIC
	Communication with suppliers	Stakeholder involvement in operations
	Surveys, open days, workshops, community events, education activities and training
	Community and social enterprise networks
	Strategic partners and clients
	Opportunities to participate	Opportunities to participate

Toon alle voetnoten

Voetnoten

Voetnoten

ibid.

J. Saldana, The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (Sage 2009) 45-50; See also the replicated methodology in the research conducted by Argyrou et al. 2016a (n 24), Argyrou et al. 2016b (n 85) and Argyrou et al. 2017 (n 169).

ibid.

Crabtree and Miller (n 49); King (n 49); See also the replicated methodology in the research conducted by Argyrou et al. 2016a (n 24), Argyrou et al. 2016b (n 85) and Argyrou et al. 2017 (n 169).