ubc_2012_fall_shcherbyna_olga.pdf

1. DO POLICIES OF THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR BRING
ABOUT SYSTEM-LEVEL SOCIAL CHANGE?
EXAMINING THE SUCCESS FACTORS OF THE TORONTO REGION IMMIGRANT
EMPLOYMENT COUNCIL
by
OLGA SHCHERBYNA
B.Sc., The Odessa State Economic University (1998)
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE (PLANNING)
in
THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES
THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
(Vancouver)
September 2012
© Olga Shcherbyna, 2012

2. ii
Abstract
The employment outcomes of Canadian immigrants have been deteriorating over the last two
decades. Given the scope of the problem, a more systemic-based problem solving approach that involves
multiple stakeholders is required to address immigrant labor market misfortunes in Canada. The
Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council (TRIEC) has been recognized as a promising multi-
stakeholder collaboration model in the area of immigrant economic integration. This study attempts to
examine the conditions that contributed to the perceived success of TRIEC, with the goals being to
discover critical success factors that made TRIEC a ‘success story’, and to identify lessons that could be
learned by other Immigrant Employment Councils (IECs) in Canada. The study finds six success factor
groups that were associated with TRIEC’s accomplishments. These include TRIEC’s highly
professional operational practices, its action-oriented approach, its strong leadership model (which
included business, community and municipal leaders), its focus on employers, its unique contextual
environment, and its professional and highly effective communication and public relations strategies. It
is argued that the last factor contributed to the formation of TRIEC’s ‘successful multi-stakeholder
model’ branding in Canada and overseas.
When the strategies and activities of TRIEC were compared to those of seven other IECs in
Canada, it was revealed that TRIEC was the only IEC whose leaders either were or became truly vocal
on the topic of immigrant integration. It was also discovered that TRIEC was the only IEC to openly
and consistently share its results, activities and finances with the general public. Finally, TRIEC was the
first group in Canada and only one of IECs that managed to bring three levels of government together
to discuss immigration issues. Shedding light on the role of municipalities in relation to immigrant
economic integration issues, this research has shown that all the Canadian municipalities of reviewed
communities were recognized by IECs for their capacity to initiate and support collaborative
community efforts. The final discussion focuses on the implications of solely adopting an economic
perspective in promoting the benefits of hiring immigrants to Canadian society. The study concludes
that more research should be conducted to define the success of multi-stakeholder collaborations such
as TRIEC, to develop appropriate frameworks to measure their effectiveness and to evaluate to what
degree their interventions contributed to societal change(s).

3. iii
Preface
This study involved human subjects. Thus, ethics approval was required by UBC Behavioural
Research Ethics Board. The application was approved on June 28 2010.
UBC BREB number is H10-01561.

4. iv
Table of Contents
Abstract.............................................................................................................................. ii
Preface .............................................................................................................................. iii
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................. iv
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. viii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... x
List of Equations............................................................................................................... xi
Glossary ........................................................................................................................... xii
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... xiii
Dedication .......................................................................................................................xiv
Foreword ..........................................................................................................................xv
Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Research Background.................................................................................................... 1
1.1.2 Significance of the Study in the Planning Context ........................................................ 3
1.1.3 Research Objectives and Primary and Supplement Questions ....................................... 4
1.2 Theoretical Foundation and Conceptual Framework of the Study ......................... 5
1.2.1 Defining Collaborations................................................................................................ 6
1.2.2 Systems Change and Outcomes of Collaborations......................................................... 7
1.2.3 Systems Change Success Factors.................................................................................... 9
1.2.4 Current Trends in Canadian MSCs Regarding Immigrant Economic Integration.......10
1.3 Study Methodology ............................................................................................. 12
1.3.1 Overview of Study Design and Methods .....................................................................13
1.3.2 Participant Observation and Role of the Researcher....................................................15
1.3.3 Extreme Case Study Approach ....................................................................................17
1.3.4 Literature Review ........................................................................................................19
1.3.5 Two-phased Research: Interviews with Various Stakeholders ......................................21
1.3.5.1 Semi-structured Interviews with TRIEC Key Stakeholders.................................22
1.3.5.2 Structured Interviews with IECs Across Canada.................................................23
1.3.6 Quantitative Comparative Analysis of Factors, Sub-factors and Indicators ..................24
1.3.7 Research Protocols and Procedures..............................................................................25
1.3.8 Sampling and Limitations of the Study ....................................................................... 26
1.4 Outline of the Thesis ........................................................................................... 28
Chapter 2: Immigration to Canada: Policy and Social Contexts of Immigrant
Employment Challenges............................................................................... 30
2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 30
2.2 Contemporary Immigration to Canada................................................................ 31
2.2.1 Three Major Immigrant Classes ..................................................................................31
2.2.2 Recent Canadian Immigrant Destinations and Demographic Characteristics..............32
2.2.3 Reasons for High-level Immigration to Canada...........................................................34
2.3 Immigrant Integration Challenges ....................................................................... 35
2.3.1 Immigrant Settlement Challenges ...............................................................................35

5. v
2.3.2 Immigrant Employment Challenges............................................................................36
2.3.3 Toronto CMA’s Specific Immigrant Employment Challenges ....................................37
2.4 Causes of Immigrant Employment Challenges..................................................... 39
2.4.1 Immigrant Individual Attributes .................................................................................39
2.4.1.1 Composition of Immigrant Classes Admitted to Canada....................................39
2.4.1.2 Fluency in English Language..............................................................................40
2.4.1.3 Essential, Soft and Literacy Skills........................................................................41
2.4.1.4 Lack of Social Networks.....................................................................................43
2.4.2 Societal Development .................................................................................................43
2.4.2.1 Changes and Fluctuations in the Canadian Economy.........................................43
2.4.2.2 Increased Level of Education of Canadian-born Workers ...................................44
2.4.3 Institutionalized Systemic Barriers...............................................................................45
2.4.3.1 The Foreign Credential Recognition Issue..........................................................45
2.4.3.2 Canadian Work Experience................................................................................47
2.4.3.3 Employer Racial Discriminatory Practices ..........................................................47
2.5 Government Roles and Responses to Challenges.................................................. 50
2.5.1 Contemporary Canadian Immigration Polices since the 1990s....................................50
2.5.2 Major Immigration Policy Shifts and Implications for FSW Class...............................51
2.5.3 Role of Municipalities in Immigrant Integration.........................................................52
2.5.4 The Settlement Sector Crisis as Part of the Problem....................................................55
2.6 Chapter Conclusions............................................................................................ 58
Chapter 3: TRIEC and its Programs .............................................................................. 60
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 60
3.2 Goals and Objectives of TRIEC........................................................................... 60
3.3 TRIEC’s History.................................................................................................. 61
3.4 TRIEC Governance and Operational Structure ................................................... 64
3.4.1 Leadership and Founding Members ............................................................................64
3.4.2 TRIEC’s Council and Board.......................................................................................65
3.4.3 TRIEC’s Working Groups / Advisory Committees .....................................................67
3.4.4 TRIEC’s Secretariat and Staff.....................................................................................69
3.5 TRIEC Geographical Boundaries......................................................................... 70
3.6 TRIEC’s Programs and Initiatives........................................................................ 71
3.6.1 Employer Engagement and Recognition .....................................................................71
3.6.2 Partnering with Local Community and Immigrant Serving Agencies ..........................72
3.6.3 Career Bridge..............................................................................................................73
3.6.4 The Mentoring Partnership.........................................................................................74
3.6.4.1 A Different Approach.........................................................................................74
3.6.4.2 Program Results and Evaluation.........................................................................76
3.6.5 Resources for Employers .............................................................................................77
3.6.6 Public Awareness Campaign........................................................................................78
3.6.7 Resources for Immigrants............................................................................................79
3.6.8 BUILD I.T. in York Region........................................................................................80
3.6.9 Policy and Advocacy ...................................................................................................81
3.7 TRIEC Budget and Funders ................................................................................ 82
3.8 TRIEC Results, Outcomes and Outputs.............................................................. 84
3.9 TRIEC Recognition and Legacy .......................................................................... 85
3.10 TRIEC Success Factors Identified by Other Researchers...................................... 86
3.11 Chapter Conclusions............................................................................................ 91

6. vi
Chapter 4: Semi-structured Interview Findings and Analysis......................................... 93
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 93
4.2 Semi-structured Interview Findings ..................................................................... 93
4.2.1 Identifying Immigrant Employment Barriers ..............................................................93
4.2.2 Defining Systemic Change in the Area of Immigrant Economic Integration ...............94
4.2.3 Defining Ultimate Success for TRIEC ........................................................................95
4.2.4 Defining TRIEC Objectives and Approaches..............................................................95
4.2.4.1 Champion Qualities...........................................................................................96
4.2.4.2 Communication Model......................................................................................97
4.2.4.3 ‘Business Case’ Message......................................................................................98
4.2.4.4 Role of Local Municipalities...............................................................................98
4.2.5 TRIEC Current Achievements....................................................................................99
4.2.6 Exploring TRIEC Success Factors.............................................................................101
4.3 Analysis of Semi-structured Interview Findings................................................. 101
4.3.1 Immigrant Employment Barriers – Analysis..............................................................101
4.3.2 Systemic Change, TRIEC Ultimate Success and Objectives ......................................102
4.3.3 TRIEC Philosophical and Operational Approaches...................................................106
4.3.3.1 Business Case Messaging ..................................................................................107
4.3.3.2 TRIEC’s Current Achievements.......................................................................110
4.3.4 TRIEC’s Success Factors...........................................................................................112
4.3.4.1 High Standard Practices ...................................................................................114
4.3.4.2 Action-oriented Approach................................................................................117
4.3.4.3 Strong Leadership Model .................................................................................119
4.3.4.4 Employer-driven and -focused Council ............................................................125
4.3.4.5 Communication and Public Awareness Strategies.............................................126
4.3.4.6 Unique Location ..............................................................................................129
4.3.5 What should TRIEC do differently? .........................................................................131
4.4 Chapter Conclusions.......................................................................................... 133
Chapter 5: Structured Interviews Findings and Analysis.............................................. 137
5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 137
5.2 Methods ............................................................................................................ 137
5.2.1 Developing Success Factors: A Comparative Framework...........................................137
5.2.2 Calculating and Reporting the Results ......................................................................139
5.2.3 Characteristics of IECs Participating in the Study .....................................................140
5.3 Comparative Analysis Findings and Discussion.................................................. 141
5.3.1 Factor One: High Standard Practices (HSP) .............................................................141
5.3.2 Factor Two: Action-oriented Approach (A)...............................................................145
5.3.3 Factor Three: Strong Leadership Model (L) ..............................................................148
5.3.4 Factor Four: Employer-driven and -focused Council (E)...........................................150
5.3.5 Factor Five: Communication and Public Awareness Strategies (CS)..........................152
5.3.6 Factor Six: Unique Location (UL).............................................................................155
5.3.7 Similarities between IECs and TRIEC ......................................................................158
5.3.8 Major Differences Between TRIEC and other IECs..................................................159
5.4 Chapter Conclusions and Lessons from TRIEC................................................. 161
Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusions....................................................................... 165
6.1 Discussion and Reflections................................................................................. 167
6.1.1 What is 'Success' for an IEC? ....................................................................................167
6.1.2 What is TRIEC's Philosophy?...................................................................................168
6.1.3 Why Doesn't TRIEC Talk About 'Race'? .................................................................169

7. vii
6.1.4 Can Discrimination be Explained by Employer Productivity Concerns Alone? .........170
6.1.5 Why is the Issue of Immigrant Employment Challenges De-politicised? ...................171
6.1.6 Why is it Difficult to Talk about Racial Discrimination? ..........................................173
6.1.7 Is There Evidence of Systemic Change?.....................................................................175
6.1.8 How Does Our Language Affect our Actions and Expected Results?.........................178
6.1.9 Why Aren't Policies of the Lowest Common Denominator Bringing System-Level
Change?..........................................................................................................................180
6.2 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 183
Endnotes........................................................................................................................ 185
Bibliography.................................................................................................................. 188
Appendices..................................................................................................................... 210
Appendix A Developmental Stages and Structures of Collaborations ..................... 210
Appendix B Systemic Problem Analysis Model ...................................................... 212
Appendix C Challenges and Outcomes of Collaborations ...................................... 214
Appendix D Success Factor Frameworks ................................................................ 219
Appendix E Success Factors Identified in the Literature......................................... 222
Appendix F List of Semi-structural Interview Key Informants ............................... 229
Appendix G TRIEC Funders and Sponsors as of November 24, 2010 ................... 230
Appendix H Interview Questions (Categorized by Key Informant)......................... 231
Appendix I Immigrant Employment Council (IEC) Questionnaire ...................... 232
Appendix J List of Canadian Immigrant Employment Councils, as of January 1,
2011................................................................................................... 239
Appendix K Letter of Initial Contact – Semi-structured Interviews........................ 240
Appendix L Letter of Initial Contact – Immigrant Employment Councils............. 241
Appendix M Consent for Semi-structured Interview Participants............................ 242
Appendix N Consent for Participants (Immigrant Employment Councils' Staff).... 244
Appendix O Four Waves of Canadian Immigration ............................................... 246
Appendix P Overview of the Federal Skilled Immigrant Category ......................... 248
Appendix Q Most Frequently Cited Reasons for High-level Immigration to
Canada............................................................................................... 252
Appendix R Selected Fees for Ontario’s Self-regulated Professions ......................... 257
Appendix S List of TRIEC Staff, 2004-2010 ........................................................ 259
Appendix T TRIEC Project Milestones and Impacts 2003-2010 ........................... 260
Appendix U TRIEC’s Factors, Sub-Factors and Indicators At-Glance.................... 262
Appendix V Developing Success Factor Comparative Framework.......................... 263
Appendix W Developing Indicators and Sub-factors ............................................... 265
Appendix X Issues Identified in “Fulfilling the Promise”, 2002 versus TRIEC’s
Actions by 2012 ................................................................................. 272

8. viii
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Study Interviews by Informant Category............................................................................. 21
Table 1.2 Study Interviews by Format ................................................................................................ 22
Table 2.1 Comparing Selective Temporary and Permanent Immigration Classes................................ 52
Table 3.1 Number and Proportion of Immigrants by GTA Regions Since 1991................................. 70
Table 3.2 Growth Rate for Total, Non-immigrant and Immigrant Populations, Ontario and GTA ... 71
Table 3.3 TRIEC’s Funding, 2003-2011............................................................................................ 83
Table 4.1 Immigrant Employment Barrier Responses......................................................................... 94
Table 4.2 Defining Systemic Change in the Area of Immigrant Economic Integration Responses ...... 94
Table 4.3 Defining Ultimate Success for TRIEC/IEC Responses........................................................ 95
Table 4.4 Defining TRIEC Objectives Responses............................................................................... 96
Table 4.5 TRIEC Approach Responses............................................................................................... 96
Table 4.6 TRIEC Approach: Champion Qualities Responses ............................................................. 97
Table 4.7 TRIEC Approach: Communication Model Responses........................................................ 97
Table 4.8 TRIEC Approach: TRIEC Business Case Message Responses............................................. 99
Table 4.9 TRIEC Approach: Role of Municipalities in TRIEC/IECs Responses ................................ 99
Table 4.10 TRIEC Current Achievements Responses ....................................................................... 100
Table 4.11 TRIEC Success Factor Responses.................................................................................... 100
Table 4.12 Objectives and Top Three Systemic Change Responses .................................................. 102
Table 5.1 TRIEC’s Key Informant Success Factor Responses by Factors and Sub-factors ................. 138
Table 5.2 Comparable Analysis Between TRIEC’s and Other IECs’ Tactics and Activities, High
Standard Practices Factor (HSP) .............................................................................................. 142
Table 5.3 Comparable Analysis Between TRIEC’s and Other IECs’ Tactics and Activities, Action-
oriented Approach Factor (A)................................................................................................... 146
Table 5.4 Comparable Analysis Between TRIEC’s and Other IECs’ Tactics and Activities, Leadership
Factor Model (L)...................................................................................................................... 149
Table 5.5 Comparable Analysis Between TRIEC’s and Other IECs’ Tactics and Activities, Employer-
driven and -focused Factor (E) ................................................................................................. 151
Table 5.6 Comparable Analysis Between TRIEC’s and Other IECs’ Tactics and Activities,
Communication and Pubic Awareness Strategies Factor (CS) .................................................. 154
Table 5.7 Comparable Analysis Between TRIEC’s and Other IECs’ Tactics and Activities, Unique
Locality (UL) ........................................................................................................................... 156
Table 5.8 Summary of IEC Sub-factor Averages ............................................................................... 158
Table B.1 Analysis of Immigrant Labour Market Integration with Precursors and Consequences
(Adapted from Blum, 1981 and Kreger et al. 2007) ................................................................. 213
Table D.1 Success Factors by Developmental Stages of Coalitions, Kreuter et al. 2000 .................... 220

9. ix
Table E.1 Success Factors by Publication and by Success Factor Groups .......................................... 224
Table P.1 Federal Skilled Worker Category Selection Factors ........................................................... 248
Table P.2 Changes Proposed to FSW Program as of October 2011 .................................................. 251
Table V.1 TRIEC's Key Informant Success Factor Responses by Factors and Sub-factors................. 264
Table W.1 High Standard Practices Sub-factors and Indicators ........................................................ 265
Table W.2 Action-Oriented Approach Sub-factors and Indicators.................................................... 266
Table W.3 Strong Leadership Model Sub-factors and Indicators ...................................................... 267
Table W.4 Employer-driven and -focused Council Sub-factors and Indicators ................................. 268
Table W.5 Communication and Public Awareness Strategy Sub-factors and Indicators.................... 270
Table W.6 Unique Location Sub-factors and Indicators ................................................................... 271

10. x
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Study Analytical Framework ................................................................................................ 7
Figure 1.2 Study Design ..................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 1.3 Study Logic Model ............................................................................................................ 15
Figure 2.1 Canadian Permanent Residents by Category, 1986-2010.................................................. 31
Figure 2.2 Canadian Permanent Residents by Top Seven Canadian CMAs, 2001-2010..................... 33
Figure 2.3 Percentage of Toronto CMA Labour Force with Post-Secondary Education by Major Field
of Study ..................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 2.4 Canadian Permanent Residents by Category, 2001............................................................ 40
Figure 2.5 Canadian Permanent Residents by Category, 2010............................................................ 40
Figure 2.6 Canadian Permanent Residents by Category and Language Ability, 2010.......................... 41
Figure 3.1 TRIEC’s Funding Sources, 2003-2010.............................................................................. 83
Figure 3.2 TRIEC’s Expenses, 2003-2010......................................................................................... 84
Figure 4.1 Rating of the Effectiveness of TRIEC’s PR and Communication Tools by Funders/Sponsors,
N=7, n=42 ................................................................................................................................. 98
Figure 4.2 Success Factor Analysis by Success Factor Groups, N=20, n=98....................................... 113
Figure 4.3 Success Factor Analysis by Category of Key Informants, N=20, n=98.............................. 114
Figure 6.1 Evaluation Flow, Adapted from Fowler, 2002.................................................................. 167
Figure 6.2 Linking Language and Interventions................................................................................ 179
Figure A.1 Types of Collaborations, Backer, 2003............................................................................ 211

11. xi
List of Equations
Equation 5.1 Percentage of ‘Yes’ Answers for Seven IECs ................................................................. 139
Equation 5.2 Sub-factor Average for Seven IECs .............................................................................. 139
Equation 5.3 Percentage of ‘Yes’ Answers for an IEC........................................................................ 140

12. xii
Glossary
ALLIES – Assisting Local Leaders with Immigrant Employment Strategies
AEO – Arrangement Employment Offer
CEC – Canadian Experience Class
CIC – Citizenship and Immigration Canada
COIA – the Canada-Ontario Immigration Agreement
EASI – Employment Access Strategy for Immigrants
FARPA - the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act
FCM – the Federation of Canadian Municipalities
FCR – Foreign Credential Recognition (issue)
FCRO - Foreign Credential Referral Office
FSW(s) – Federal Skilled Worker(s)
GTA – the Greater Toronto Area
HRSDC – Human Resources and Skills Development Canada
IEC(s) – Immigrant Employment Council(s)
IEC of BC – Immigrant Employment Council of British Columbia
IGR Committee – Inter-government Relations Committee
IRPA – the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act
LINC - Language Instructions for Newcomers to Canada
LIP(s) – Local Immigrant Partnership(s)
LMPA - the Canada-Ontario Labour Market Partnership Agreement
NOC - National Occupational Classifications
OECD – Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
OCASI – Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants
PA – Principal Applicant
PN(P) – Provincial Nominee (Program)
PR – Public Relations
TCSA – Toronto City Summit Alliance (also known as Greater Toronto CivicAction Alliance)
TIEDI – Toronto Immigrant Employment Data Initiative
TRIEC – Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council

13. xiii
Acknowledgements
This thesis represents the end of my journey in obtaining a graduate degree, and I would like to
take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all those who made this study possible. I feel very
fortunate that I was allowed to select the topic of research that I feel very passionate about. Thus, first
and foremost, I want to thank the School of Community and Regional Planning and its faculty and
staff for being extra flexible with me, and for allowing me to complete this research at my own pace.
I have been indebted in the preparation of this study to my thesis supervisor, Dr. Nora
Angeles. Despite her extremely busy schedule, she always found time to meet with me and provide
feedback. I will never forget hours and hours of our discussions that I believe greatly improved my
understanding of qualitative research processes and comparative analysis methods as well as expanded
my knowledge in the field of social justice. Nora showed extraordinary patience in reading many revised
versions of this study and consistently providing feedback and making corrections. I deeply appreciate
her endurance and assistance in navigating this research and her invaluable guidelines in my writing
process. She is a truly inspiring scholar and a wonderful human being whose intelligence, wisdom,
kindness and understanding made all the difference in the world and will always be remembered.
I owe my deepest gratitude to my second reader, Dr. Dan Hiebert, a well-known expert in the
area of immigrant integration. Dan’s constructive criticism and extensive but very helpful comments
made me question many of my assumptions, polish my writing and crystallize the interpretation of my
findings. I am extremely thankful to Dan for challenging my thinking and for convincing me to write
more precisely to dramatically improve the quality and readability of this study.
I would like to extend my gratitude to the other member of my committee, Dr. Penny
Gurstein, for reviewing my thesis and providing useful suggestions. I appreciate that Penny was able to
find time from her busy schedule as a Director of SCARP to serve as my external reader.
I offer my sincerest gratitude to Dr. Bonnie Slade, whose research draws on adult education
and labor and migration studies, and who kindly provided her feedback and encouragement after
reading my first draft of Chapter 2. Also, I was fortunate to have Dr. Edward Grabb, who specializes in
social inequality and political sociology, reading my concluding chapter and providing his comments
with respect to my arguments and conclusions.
This research would not have been possible without the 27 key informants. I would like to pay
homage to all my interviewees for their time, sincere answers and valuable insights and, particularly, to
TRIEC, Maytree Foundation and ALLIES staff who assisted me in reaching out to a great number of
their stakeholders. A very special thanks goes out to Mary Portelance, Thomas Deane and Sarah-Nelle
Jackson for their assistance in formatting and editing my thesis.
Last, but by no means least, I thank my family members, who has been my save haven, and a
source of inspiration and joy in my life.
For any errors and/or omissions that are still present in this study, the responsibility is utterly
my own.

14. xiv
Dedication
First of all, to my supportive and patient husband, Oleg, and our amazing children, Masha and Luka.
Without their easy-going personalities, constant encouragement and unconditional love I would never have
been able to finish my graduate studies. I also dedicate this to my mom and my brother who helped me to take
care of my family while I was at school, and to my late father, who always encouraged me to express my own
views and never take anything for granted. It is because of his hard work that we were able to immigrate to
Canada and start a better life for our family.

15. xv
Foreword
This thesis is a reflection of my journey as a researcher. I started this study with two particular
research questions in mind – what contributed to Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council’s success,
and what did it do differently from other Immigrant Employment Councils across Canada? However, as the
research evolved, I came to the realization that my subsidiary questions, what system-level successes look
like and whether TRIEC is successful in bringing about system-level changes, were more important to
explore.
Two major factors affected my approach in the initial stages and impacted the evolution of my
thoughts. First, I started my journey with assumptions based not so much on evidence, but on
‘common wisdom’, i.e. I naturally assumed Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council (TRIEC)
was successful because most of the literature on TRIEC referred to it as a ‘best practice model’. Now, I
realize that in my initial literature review, which took place in 2007-2008, I was under the influence of
a highly effective public relations strategy that was developed by TRIEC and the Maytree Foundation,
and which abundantly praised TRIEC’s programs as ‘working solutions’. Secondly, I believe that
because I spent more time on my research than was initially planned, I had the luxury to be more
reflective than usual. I trust that this allowed me to produce more accurate interpretations of
information obtained from key informants, and what was and was not said.
This is not to suggest that I did not answer my initial research questions. Three chapters of my
thesis (3,4, and 5) are dedicated to exploring in detail what TRIEC had achieved, why it became known
as a ‘best practice model’, and how its practices and approaches differ from those of other Canadian
Immigrant Employment Councils. However, somewhere in the middle of my research journey I came
to realize that there was a flaw in my initial thinking that guided the development of the whole study.
Initially, I truly believed that the ‘business case’ argument that TRIEC utilized to engage employers was
an excellent strategy, subsequently generating the system-level change in businesses hiring practices and
enabling immigrants to be considered as equals of Canadian-born job applicants. However, later on,
while economic reasoning proved to be successful in engaging employers, I was not able to find strong
evidence that after eight years of TRIEC’s work, true system-level change in immigrant employment
outcomes took place in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), an area with one of the highest proportion of
visible minorities in Canada. Furthermore, I realized that most of the outcomes reported by TRIEC
reflected either their program outputs or short-term, individual level outcomes, and that no baseline or
concrete long-term goals were identified by the government and involved partners for TRIEC as a
model.
I came to the conclusion that while the economic argument might be working in the short-
term – to generate employers’ interest in hiring immigrants – it is not going to change people’s attitudes
and belief systems, which have been influenced by white Canadian racial identity and practices for
generations. This level of societal and individual change will not happen just because it makes good
business sense for companies to hire immigrants. At the beginning of my research I felt perfectly
comfortable to accept the framing and rationalization that TRIEC ‘deliberately focused on
manifestations of racial discrimination’ or those challenges that all immigrants encounter in the
Canadian labour market (i.e. no Canadian experience, no business connections, no access to
information for employers and job seekers). I now argue that this is a very narrow conceptualization of
the problem. When paired with no concrete long-term outcomes, unsurprisingly, such an approach has
resulted in little if any system-level change taking place in the area of immigrant economic integration
or poverty reduction in the GTA and beyond.

16. xvi
You can never solve a problem with the same kind of thinking that created the
problem in the first place.
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

17. 1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social
transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the
good people.
- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND
Canada is recognized as a world leader in the field of multiculturalism, immigration and
immigrant settlement. Its public discourse is still focused on the positive impacts of immigration as
opposed to the dominance of the ‘security and terrorism dialogue’ in Europe, it has one of the most
open and welcoming immigration policies among developed countries. For the last ten years, at least a
quarter of a million immigrants have been admitted into Canada as permanent residents each year and
an increasingly larger number of temporarily visas are issued on an annual basis (Citizenship and
Immigration Canada – CIC, 2010a). In fact, the last Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration
stated (CIC, 2011a: 3) that, since 2006 “Canada has welcomed the highest sustained level of
immigration in nearly a century”. In this report, the Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister of
Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, attributes this boost in immigration levels largely to an
increase in the proportion of highly skilled immigrants who were chosen based on their skills and
talents to meet Canada’s labour market needs. The Minister concludes that “for immigration to
continue to support our economy’s development, it is crucial that we maintain an immigration system
that responds to Canada’s economic needs in a timely manner” (ibid: 3).
However, a substantial body of literature attests to immigrants’ deteriorating employment
outcomes in the Canadian labour market (Bonikowska, Green and Riddell 2008; Pecout, Hou and
Coulombe 2007; Plante 2010). Additionally, the Ontario settlement sector, in its current form and
level of funding1
, struggles to address the labour integration needs of skilled immigrants (Government
of Ontario, 2010; Stasiulis, 2011) as employers put less value on credentials obtained outside of Canada
(Bonikowska et al., 2008; Oreopoulos and Dechief, 2011). Also, while the evidence suggests that access
to social capital, and its main component, social networks, leads to better employment outcomes,
1
Overall settlement funding in Canada has more than tripled from 2005-2006 to 2012-2013 (from less than $200M to over
$577M). While per capita settlement funding has not decreased since that time, however, Ontario’s allocation for settlement
services decreased from $346.5M in 2011-2012 to $314.9M in 2012-2013. Cumulatively, as a result of changes introduced
through the Strategic Review and the Settlement Allocation Model, the cuts to the province represent $70M in 2011-2013, in
addition to $207M in under-spending from COIA (OCASI, 2011a). This will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.

18. 2
immigrants lack social and professional connections in Canada, which negatively affects their economic
performance (Kunz, 2005; Xue, 2008). Finally, visible minority immigrants and their children face
racial discrimination in the workplace, including access to employment. For example, immigrants with
non-Canadian names are less likely to be called for interviews (Oreopoulos, 2009), racialized Canadians
face employment-related discrimination, such as discriminatory remarks made by employers and/or co-
workers, limited access to promotion or “participation in work-related social interactions”, etc. (Agocs
and Jain, 2001: 5; Reitz, Banerjee, Phan and Thompson, 2009). Subsequently, visible minority groups
earn less income than the Canadian-born white population group, despite the fact that immigrants and
the children of visible minority parents are more highly educated than the rest of the Canadian
population (Li, 2001; Pendakur and Pendkakur, 2011).
One of the most prominent Canadian organizations with a mandate to improve the
employment outcomes for immigrants is the Toronto Region Immigrant Employment Council
(TRIEC). TRIEC was founded in 2003 by a broad range of civic and community leaders to address
some of the above mentioned challenges. Its major objectives are:
1. “To convene and collaborate with partners, creating opportunities for skilled
immigrants to connect to the local labour market.
2. To work with key stakeholders, particularly employers, building their awareness and
capacity to better integrate skilled immigrants into the workforce.
3. To work with all levels of government, enhancing coordination and effecting more
responsive policy and programs for skilled immigrant employment.” (TRIEC website)
Since its inception, this multi-stakeholder group was a well-known advocacy group and expert-
organization in the area of immigrant economic integration. It contributed to the development of new
policies and agreements in the area of immigration by creating an opportunity for funders and key
policy makers to meet on a regular basis (through an Inter-government Committee), to discuss and take
actions towards better coordination of the settlement sector in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), and
expand the range of services to address immigrant employment challenges. It developed innovative
programs to assist immigrants in accessing professional networks in Canada (The Mentoring Initiative)
and overcome the “catch 21” phenomenon when immigrants cannot find jobs without Canadian
experience (Career Bridge program). Finally, it managed to engage top-ranked employers in the
development of its programs, and what is more important, in the implementation of solutions to
improve newcomers’ labour market outcomes. Following TRIEC’s path, a number of other Canadian
communities embraced a multi-stakeholder approach to improve immigrant employment results.
However, research has shown that although some of the groups were convened or launched
approximately at the same time as TRIEC, many of them struggled to sustain their organizational

19. 3
structure and/or funding, were not as successful in producing and/or reporting on results from their
activities, and none of the eleven other IECs became as well-known as TRIEC. While other researchers
(Allahwala, 2011; Fong 2008; Lewkowicz 2008) have already studied TRIEC, none of them has
focused on the causes of its perceived success and/or conducted in-depth independent analysis of
TRIEC’s success factors. This study aims to explore what differentiated TRIEC from other IECs and
what and how other multi-stakeholder groups can learn from TRIEC.
1.1.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY IN THE PLANNING CONTEXT
Immigration falls under Federal jurisdiction. However, when immigrants come to Canada,
they tend to settle in cities. Hence, many cities are struggling to address the emerging needs of
newcomer-residents in accessing schooling, library, housing, parks, etc. (Good, 2009) and need to adapt
their various policies and practices on the municipal level. Some cities went beyond their jurisdictional
mandates stated in the Canadian Constitution. The City of Toronto is a particular good example of
how civic leadership, supported by municipal elected officials and bureaucrats, contributes to the
development of, arguably, the most successful multi-stakeholder collaboration to address immigrant
employment barriers in Canada – TRIEC. A number of scholars and Canadian think tanks have already
attested to the role of municipalities in addressing immigrant integration. Alboim and McIsaac (2007:
11) pointed out the unique economic conditions in cities and regions, which require local approaches
where “cities and regions must also be given the means to convene businesses, educational institutions,
immigrant groups and other stakeholders in order to identify which programs and services are needed
to facilitate individual and community growth”. Indeed, municipalities and planning departments
increasingly play more significant roles in “state-civil society collaboration in managing immigrant
integration” (Sandercock, Attili, Cavers and Carr, 2009: ix). Not surprisingly, Paul Born, President of
Tamarack Institute for Community Engagement in Canada, identified cities’ leadership roles in
‘transforming their communities” (quoted in Pero, 2011: 25). Finally, a recent report by the Federation
of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), identified employment challenges facing municipalities as one of
the top three major barriers to successful immigrant integration (Federation of Canadian
Municiapalities, 2011). Given the increased recognition of municipalities as important ‘actors’ in
immigrant economic integration, among other objectives, this study examines the role of municipalities
in addressing immigrant employment challenges.
More importantly, this study aims to identify the critical success factors of TRIEC, a
collaboration which engages multiple stakeholders from various sectors and is recognized as a ‘best
practice’ model in this field. In the last four years, a number of researchers have conducted critical
independent studies of TRIEC, either praising its innovative, collaborative, and local approaches to the

20. 4
immigrant employment issue (Lewkowicz, 2008) or questioning this emerging regional collaborative
governance infrastructure. Scholars in the latter camp argue that TRIEC is guided by the ‘competitive
multiculturalism’ philosophy, promotes neoliberal ‘city-regional economic development policy’
(Allahwala, 2011: 174) and does not address fundamental systemic problems of inequality and racial
discrimination in the labour market (Fong, 2008). Additionally, a number of studies were carried out
by researchers and evaluators with the intention to showcase the success of TRIEC and other
Immigrant Employment Councils and elaborate on their success conditions (Wayland, 2007a;
Wayland, 2007b; Wayland, 2007c; ALLIES, 2010). However, as these studies were contracted by
TRIEC and/or the Maytree Foundation, they are not considered to be independent scholarly opinions.
As TRIEC’s model receives significant recognition from settlement sector stakeholders, researchers, the
business community and funders2
, an increasing number of communities are implementing
regional/province-wide collaborative approaches to improve immigrant employment outcomes. As of
2011, eleven other jurisdictions have received funding to conduct environmental scans in order to
establish Immigrant Employment Councils (IECs), launch IECs and/or introduce programs (such as a
Mentoring Initiative). However, while there is a substantial body of literature outlining the success
factors governing multi-stakeholder collaborations in other social arenas, as noted later in this chapter,
there seems to be a research gap in examining the success factors for Immigrant Employment Councils
in Canada. This study aims to address this gap.
1.1.3 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND PRIMARY AND SUPPLEMENT QUESTIONS
Two primary research questions guided this study:
1. Why did TRIEC become successful?
2. How can other Canadian multi-stakeholder collaborative groups, aiming to address
immigrant challenges, learn from TRIEC’s experience?
In order to identify the critical success factors, the baseline conditions of success for TRIEC
had to be established. Therefore, all key informants were asked the following question:
• What factors contribute to the success of TRIEC?
As I began to investigate the above-stated primary research questions, I realized that the
premise of these questions is that TRIEC was successful. This assumption was built on anecdotal
evidence only, as no independent evaluation of this collaboration had been conducted at the time when
2
In 2009, TRIEC received the Canadian Centre for Diversity’s Legacy Award for the Mentoring Partnership. More about
TRIEC’s recognition see in Chapter 3, Section 3.9 TRIEC Recognition & Legacy.

21. 5
I started my research. A number of supplementary questions were posed to all key informants to
investigate the notion of success in the context of immigrant labour market integration:
• What is systemic change, and what will it look like?
• How do you define the ultimate success of TRIEC?
• Is TRIEC successful? How do you know that?
In retrospect, these secondary questions appeared to be more important than my major
research inquiry. Additionally, my two directed studies (Shcherbyna 2008, 2010), examined systems
change concepts and collaborative approaches, and reviewed the grey literature on TRIEC. These
previous studies provided me with the opportunity to understand the mostly commonly-cited success
factors for multi-stakeholder collaborations. A number of researchers, including those who studied
TRIEC’s degree of success suggested that strong leadership, existing unique conditions (including
historically-strong diversity and immigration policies at the City of Toronto, in particular), and smart
communication strategies contributed to the success of multi-stakeholder collaborations. Furthermore,
clearly stated objectives and a narrowly defined business approach that excluded discussions about race,
played an important role in TRIEC’s success. Therefore, I included several questions to further examine
who TRIEC leaders were (e.g. what their leadership qualities were, etc.), how TRIEC addressed the
racial discrimination issue, how TRIEC communication tactics contributed to its success, and what role
the City of Toronto played in its formation and development.
1.2 THEORETICAL FOUNDATION AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF THE
STUDY
Despite being more educated than previous cohorts of immigrants as well as the Canadian-
born population, recent immigrants are lagging behind in terms of their employment and income rates
(Bonikowska et al., 2008; Galarneau and Morissette, 2008)3
. Immigrant employment is a complex
issue, which is connected to many aspects of our lives. Without meaningful and well-paid employment
immigrants not only face higher levels of poverty and poor quality of life (Kazemipur and Halli, 2001;
Li, 2001; Li, 2003; Picot, Hou and Coulombe, 2008) but, not surprisingly, they also experience a loss
of identity (Laroche and Rutherford 2006) and deteriorating health (Chen, Smith and Mustard, 2010;
De Maio and Kemp, 2010; Ng, 2011). From the societal point of view, poor immigrant employment
outcomes contribute to a more polarized and less inclusive society. From the state’s viewpoint, less
employment means fewer tax contributions, less robust economy and greater need for social services
3
An evaluation of a new FSW program suggests that recent professional immigrants are doing much better in terms of their
financial outcomes. Due to certain limitations of this evaluation, it is too early to make any substantial claims in this regard.

22. 6
and support. From business perspectives, immigrant labour underutilization makes Canadian
companies less competitive in the global economy. Finally, from the city’s standpoint, immigrants’
inability to find meaningful and well-paid employment as well as the increases in immigrant poverty
rates imply greater social inequality, community segregation and an increase in the number of poor
neighbourhoods (Murdie, 2008).
1.2.1 DEFINING COLLABORATIONS
The field of multi-sectoral collaborations (MSCs) is flourishing. An internet search for ‘multi-
stakeholder collaborations’ generates close to 3 million webpages, revealing a range of organizations,
news, resources as well as what worked and what did not for partnering agencies. Probably one of the
most cited definitions of collaboration can be found in Barbara Gray’s book: Collaborating: Finding
Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. According to Gray (1989: 11), collaboration is “a process
through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences
and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible”. Nowell
emphasized the ability of collaborations to build community social capital while addressing their two-
faceted mandate in “both improving the level of coordination among organizations within the existing
community system as well as making needed changes to the infrastructure of the system itself” (Nowell,
2009: 209). Kreger and colleagues argued that collaborations “affect systems change through their
ability to simultaneously engage and mobilize multiple constituents and sectors of the system” (Kreger,
Brindis, Manuel and Sassoubre, 2007: 306). In his second book on collaborative leadership, David D.
Chrislip (2002: xvl) asserted that “collaboration is not just another strategy or tactic for addressing
public concerns, it also provides a means for building social capital, sustaining a democratic society, and
transforming the civic culture of a community or region”.4
Drawing on the works of the above-
mentioned authors, multi-stakeholder collaboration is defined in this research as collective, innovative
community efforts to bring about systemic change in the community and where all relevant multiple
stakeholders from public, and/or private, and/or nonprofit agencies are engaged in a coordinated manner, and
share decision making power and resources to realize mutually-agreed goals.
Given the complexity and interconnectedness of the problem, this study adopts a systems
approach in examining the issue of poor immigrant employment outcomes and one of its potential
solutions – multi-stakeholder collaboration. In recent years, this approach has received increased
attention from researchers.i
As can be seen in Figure 1.1, immigrant employment is a part of the labour
market subsystem, which is a part of a larger system – our society.ii
Everything in a system exists in
4
While it is not essential for this theses, it is important to remember that MSCs undergo different developmental stages and
have various organizational structures as noted in Appendix A: Developmental Stages and Structures of Collaborations.

23. 7
connection with each other and changes in one aspect might trigger positive or negative changes in
other aspects, and consequently, transformations in the form of the system and how it operates (Hirsch,
Levine and Miller, 2007).
There are many instruments that can be utilized to address the immigrant employment issue,
from state policies and employer practices, to public opinion and accreditation processes. Selective tools
featured in Figure 1.1 are part of the problem, as well as the solution. Multi-stakeholder collaboration
(MSC) is not the only or best solution but one of many tools to address a systemic societal problem
(Kreuter, Lezin and Young, 2000).
Figure 1.1 Study Analytical Framework
1.2.2 SYSTEMS CHANGE AND OUTCOMES OF COLLABORATIONS
Arguably, one of the greatest assets of this collaborative approach is its ability to bring about
systems change, i.e. to introduce “those activities which work to create environments that are more
supporting to people (as opposed to individual level activities that focus on supporting people directly)”
(Janzen, Nelson, Hausfather, and Ochsocka, 2007: 288, emphasis supplied). There are probably as
many definitions of systemic change as there are studies about the phenomenon.iii
For the purposes of
this study, the following definition of systems change is adopted: “systems change is change efforts
that strive to shift the underlying infrastructure within a community … , including shifting

24. 8
existing policies and practices, resource allocations, relational structures, community norms and
values, and skills and attitudes” (Foster-Fishman and Behrens, 2007: 191).
While systems change efforts in the social services field have become increasingly popular
around the world, many of them fall short on reporting about their successes and/or were not able to
reach systemic change they hoped for (Foster-Fishman, Nowell, and Yang, 2007a). The lack of a
conceptual understanding of the system’s complexity and the non-linear process of change, i.e.
“leveraging change in one part will lead to the desired outcome only if concurrent shifts happen in the
relational and compositional elements of the system” (Foster-Fisher et al., 2007a: 198), greatly
contributes to the disappointing results of many systems change efforts. If a change agent is a linear
thinker, he might think that interventions and outcomes “are predictable, uni-directional, and
sequential” (ibid: 198). This approach fails to recognize the complexity of how a system works in reality
and fails to distinguish multiple system characteristics and ever-changing boundaries. Thus, how change
agents think about systems change critically affects the outcomes. Thus, the system boundaries or scope
of the problem should be established early in the planning stages to ensure that multiple environments
and the system context are considered in the design of interventions. Furthermore, having a well-
defined problem with an established scope and identified actors is important in the process of social
change evaluation (Burton, Goodlad, and Croft, 2006).5
However, as this research has re-confirmed, it
remains difficult to assess the effectiveness of multi-sectoral collaborations to bring about significant,
systemic and sustained social change (Backer, 2003; Clarke and Fuller, 2010; Florin, Mitchell, and
Stevenson, 1993; Kreuter, et al., 2000; Zakocs and Edwards, 2006).6
Recently, scholars became
interested in learning about intermediate outcomes of MSCs – namely improved community capacity
and outcomes at the individual level, which, evidently, are easier to measure and track (Allen et al.,
2008; Javdani and Allen, 2011; Kegler, Norton, and Aronson 2007; Lasker and Weiss, 2003; Nowell
and Foster-Fishman, 2011; Tseng, Liu and Wang, 2011). Moreover, it has been suggested that
collaborations can create a ripple effect of change in communities since “part of what is valuable about
coalitions is what they make possible outside of the immediate collaborative setting” (Allen, Watt and
Hess, 2008: 70, emphasis supplied).
Additionally, MSCs allow for multiple stakeholders who, potentially, have quite different point
of views on the subject (in our case, immigrant employment) to come up with innovative solutions
which, most likely, would not have been created by individual stakeholders (Gray, 1989). For example,
participating employers and settlement sector representatives might be guided by rather different
philosophies, whereby employers are looking for the most efficient way to find the best workers and
5
For a ditailed discussion on a problem analysis framework in defining system boundaries, see Appendix B: Systemic Problem
Analysis Model.
6
For a detailed discussion on this issue, see Appendix C: Challenges and Outcomes of Collaborations.

25. 9
make a profit and settlement workers might believe that immigrants are not being hired and
discriminated against because of employer biases, including racial stereotyping. Similarly, when post-
secondary educational institutions introduce bridging programs to improve immigrant chances in
obtaining professional licenses, professional accreditation bodies might not eagerly welcome the
increased volume of qualified applicants as it is not in the interest of their current paying-dues-members
to increase the supply of licensed professionals in their occupation, which, potentially, might reduce
wages for this occupation. Thus, MSCs serve as a platform for understanding and negotiating the
differences in perspectives and allow these different groups to identify their common goals.
1.2.3 SYSTEMS CHANGE SUCCESS FACTORS
There is a voluminous literature on success factors of MSCs (Conway, Greenaway, Casswell,
Liggins, and Broughton, 2007; Clarke and Fuller, 2010; Cornelius and Wallace, 2010; Emshoff et al.,
2007; Foster-Fishman et al., 2007a; Foster-Fishman et al., 2007b; Kreger et al., 2007; Perrault,
McCelland, Austin and Sieppert, 2011; Ramsey, 2010; Reast, Lindreen, Vanhamme, and Maon, 2011;
Witherbee, 2008) and a number of assessment frameworks were introduced by scholars to identify pre-
conditions and/or factors that contributed to the effectiveness of collaborations, including the Wilder
Collaboration Factor Inventory (Mattessich, Murray-Close and Monsey, 2001), the collaboration stages
approach (Kreuter et al., 2000), operational and structural change factors (Antelo and Henderson,
1990), a combination of two approaches (Tseng, et al., 2011)7
and others.
To inform this research, a broader literature review on success conditions for multi-stakeholder
collaborations in the social arena was conducted.8
As a result of this exercise, a number of the most-
cited success factor groups identified were: (1) Strong Leadership; (2) Trust and Personal Relationships;
(3) Common Language/Shared Values; (4) Broad Group Membership/Public Engagement; (5)
Adequate Resources /Use of Resources; (6) Specialized Expertise; (7) Measurable and Achievable
Outcomes; (8) Local Focus/History; (9) Communication; and (10) Shared Responsibility/Decision
Making.iv
One interesting observation was made in the process of analyzing goals of collaborations in
reviewed articles. Out of all reviewed collaborations, very few groups were found to have specific goals
with measurable outcomes, in a definitive timeframe.9.
For example, the Boston Healthy Start Initiative,
discussed by Kreuter and colleagues (2000: 51) as a successful collaboration, identified the following
goal: “Reduce infant mortality in high risk area of Boston by 50% over 5 years”. While setting
7
For a detailed discussion on this topic, see Appendix D: MSCs Success Factor Assessment Frameworks.
8
For a detailed discussion on this topic, see Appendix E: Success Factors Identified in the Literature. This analytical exercise
greatly informs my thesis and provides a sound framework for developing TRIEC’s sucess factors.
9
Not all authors listed the goals of collaborations they reviewed. So, potentially, there were other groups which had more
definitive vs. abstract goals but they were not reported by authors of reviewed articles.

26. 10
definitive outcomes does not guarantee the success of an intervention, it addresses the uncertainty
around what is being changed and holds groups accountable in their efforts. This observation echoes
findings of many authors of studies reviewed for this chapter, which urged collaborative groups to
establish specific outcomes and set reasonable expectations for their efforts (Foster-Fishman et al., 2001;
Granner and Sharpe, 2004; Perrault et al., 2011; Zakocs and Edwards, 2006). An extensive literature
review on success factors for MSCs was found to be very helpful in the development of the comparative
success factor framework for this study.
1.2.4 CURRENT TRENDS IN CANADIAN MSCS REGARDING IMMIGRANT ECONOMIC
INTEGRATION
The Canadian government has increasingly recognized the local, collaborative, multi-
stakeholder approach in addressing newcomer integration challenges. For example, since 2009, CIC
and the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration Ontario allocated over $9 million to fund 45 Local
Immigration Partnerships (LIPs) across the province which, among other government expectations, will
“establish or enhance partnership and participation of multiple stakeholders in planning and
coordinating the delivery of integration services” (CIC, 2011b: 7). Additionally, over the last eight
years, eleven Immigrant Employment Councils (IECs) were established and (co)-funded by the
Canadian government in five different provinces. These Councils have a more narrowly defined
mandate – to improve immigrant labour market outcomes. Similar to IECs, LIPs are not expected to
deliver services but rather contribute to the empowerment of local communities to create enhanced
integration infrastructures with better coordination between service providers and other stakeholders
(Bradford and Andrew, 2010). However, the recent adoption of strategies where local communities
assume active roles in immigrant integration has already received strong criticism from academics
(Allahwala, 2011; Pero, 2011).
Rebecca Pero (2011), in her Master’s essay, argues that while “collaborative forms of
governance that involve informed community members, have been cited as a ‘best practice’ by the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration … [however] attempts to align
empowerment and responsibility materialize as responsibility with no authority to substantiate what
happens in communities where immigrants live, work and play” (Pero, 2011: 25 and 29, emphasis
supplied). Additionally, Pero questions the perceived effectiveness of MSCs. She asks, “who benefits the
most from this new form of local governance?” Is it immigrants, communities, the settlement sector, or
the government, which gradually dismantles its mandated responsibilities by funding new governance
structures with no legal entity, sustained sources of funding, specific outcomes and/or evaluation
strategies and consequently, lack of accountability to the public? These important questions resonate

27. 11
with the statements made in the 2006 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) Report From Immigration to Integration Local Solutions to a Global Challenge, which identified
TRIEC and similar multi-stakeholder initiatives as promising practices in the area of immigrant
integration but urged the Canadian government to invest “in creating a strong culture of evaluation”
(ibid: 94). The report concluded:
“A key problem arising out of all the case studies was the lack of strong evaluation data available for
the initiatives visited. In order to understand the effectiveness of local initiatives and their longer
term impact on immigrants it is vital that policy makers create and maintain a strong culture of
accountability and evaluation. At the same time it needs to be recognized that evaluation and
monitoring can be more difficult when local initiatives are delivering ‘soft’ interventions. Outputs
should be broad and long enough to avoid encouraging local policy markers to deliver short-term
responses to integration issues without investing in longer career progression for immigrants or
encouraging more systemic change” (ibid: 94, emphasis supplied).
Furthermore, Allahwala (2011: iv), who studied the TSCA/Greater Toronto Civic Action
Alliance (CivicAction) and TRIEC, calls our attention to the shift from “state-led employment equity
and anti-discrimination efforts to a market-based and meritocratic approach to recognizing immigrant
skills…[and concludes that] the new politics of competitive multiculturalism promoted through
Toronto’s civic regionalism is a part of a wider process of neoliberalization within the Canadian urban
context” [original emphasis]. Allahwala expanded on the argument developed earlier by another young
scholar who asserted that “in conforming to the liberal model of multiculturalism, which emphasized
harmonizing race relations to facilitate global capital accumulation, TRIEC has neglected the social
justice dimension of the issue” (Fong, 2008: 1).
Therefore, four major conclusions were made based on the literature review of key theoretical
concepts and current trends in Canadian MSCs in the area of immigrant integration:
1. In the last decades, MSCs, in general, received much attention from scholars, funders and
community activities for their perceived ability to create innovative solutions to systemic social
problems.
2. It was found fairly difficult to assess the effectiveness of collaborations and, particularly, their
ability to bring about systemic change. Therefore, scholars increasingly consider intermediate
outcomes of collaborations, i.e. their impacts on enhanced community capacity and better
coordination between stakeholders.
3. Recently, the Canadian government has been quite supportive and has funded a number of
MSCs in the area of immigrant integration.
4. However, some scholars criticized existing MSCs, particularly those promoting only a business
case for hiring immigrants, as direct products of neoliberal strategies that Canadian

28. 12
government and businesses push forward as ways of decreasing responsibility for the state and
increasing profitability for corporations.
These four conclusions guided the development of the study and encouraged me explore the
concepts of systemic change in the immigrant employment area, as well as systemic barriers to
immigrants and the perceived effectiveness of TRIEC to address these barriers. While the evaluation of
TRIEC was not the ultimate goal of this thesis, it became evident that some basic level of assessment is
required before any discussion of success factors can be initiated. Important questions that arose in the
initial phases of this study were ‘how’ and ‘why’ some MSCs become, arguably, more successful than
others. I was encouraged by a number of prominent academics who urged for further advancement in
this type of inquiry, including Perrault and her colleagues (2011: 295) who stated that “[m]ore research
is required to determine the unique factors involved in a community collaboration”, as well as Berger et
al. (2004: 88) who asserted that “Managers on both sides of the “profit” divide require a full and rich
understanding of the factors and processes that drive, sustain, and support this new organizational form.
Furthermore, researchers need to continue to develop concepts, theories, and frameworks that capture
the challenges and opportunities presented by social alliances” (Berger, Cunningham and Drumwright,
2011). This statement is echoed by Czajkowski (2007: 1) who declared that those involved in
collaborative efforts “need to acquire a working knowledge of collaboration theory and an
understanding of the factors that assist in the development of successful inter-institutional
collaborations”.
1.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY
A mixed methods research approach is introduced to analyze the data. I build my base
knowledge on pragmatic grounds, which are “consequence-oriented, problem-centred, and pluralistic”
(Creswell, 2003: 18). In this type of methodology, qualitative inquiry is complemented by quantitative
analysis. This pragmatic ‘what works’ approach “allow the researcher to address questions that do not
sit comfortably within a wholly quantitative or qualitative approach to design and methodology. …
“[Furthermore] the pragmatic paradigm can be adopted for the purpose of social and management
research endeavors as this is congruent with the mixed quantitative and qualitative approach taken
within the predisposition of ‘practitioner-based’ research” (Armitage and Keeble-Allen, 2007: 30,
emphasis supplied).

29. 13
1.3.1 OVERVIEW OF STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
This study’s mixed-method approach has been conducted in two phases and follows the
Sequential Exploratory Design process (Creswell, 2003: 215), whereby qualitative data collection and
analysis is followed by quantitative data collection and analysis and the two phases culminate in the
final interpretation of entire analysis (Figure 1.2). The study utilized a number of qualitative and
quantitative methods: (1) participant observation; (2) literature review; (3) semi-structural interviews
with TRIEC key informants; (4) structured interviews with IECs informants; and (5) quantitative
comparative analysis of indicators, sub-factors and factors identified in the research. The main goal is
“to explore the phenomenon …to expand on the qualitative findings [to test] elements of an emergent
theory resulting from the qualitative phase” (ibid: 215-216). Exploring and analyzing TRIEC’s success
factors in the first phase was achieved using the case study approach. A comparative analysis of the
success factors in the work of TRIEC and other IECs was introduced in the second phase. In both
phases, TRIEC and its success factors were the units of analysis.
While the goal of the first phase was to identify success factor groups based on interviews with
key informants, the second phase was developed to identify critical success factors – those TRIEC
factors in which the indicator values scored the highest in comparison with other IECs. Thus, the
method was introduced to check the following hypothesis:
(1) if TRIEC is considered to be a success model and;
(2) A, B, C are conditions of its success (identified by key informants), and;
(3) a1, a2, … b1, b2, … c1, c2, … are indicators, i.e. activities/approaches that contributed to
its success.
Then, if we compare the values of TRIEC' indicators to those of other IECs and we don’t find
any significant differences or indicators of other IECs are scored better than those of TRIEC, then we
either did not correctly identify TRIEC's success factors / indicators or TRIEC is not the most
successful model, in the first place.
However, if the opposite occurs, and individual and average indicator values of other's IECs
scored lower than those of TRIEC, then we could discover critical success factors for TRIEC, i.e. those
indicators (factors) that showed the highest scores in comparison with other IECs. Graphically, this
hypothesis is illustrated in Figure 1.3.

30. 14
Figure 1.2 Study Design

31. 15
Figure 1.3 Study Logic Model
1.3.2 PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION AND ROLE OF THE RESEARCHER
I came to Canada ten years ago as an immigrant. Similar to other immigrants, I have gone
through some situations where my intellect was judged based on my English language facility. Also, my
employee rights were compromised by an employer who once assumed that immigrants were not
familiar with Canadian law. As it was my decision to change my occupation and start working in the
social services as opposed to the corporate world, I cannot claim that I have experienced the hurdles of
de-skilling and/or other challenges in the job search process to the same extent that other skilled

32. 16
immigrants when they had to take odd jobs or were unemployed for a long period of time. However, I
have witnessed my husband, a former Financial Director in a multi-national corporation, taking a
junior accounting position, which was a big step down from the position he last held in our country.
Also, I was a close observer of the struggles of our new friends, highly-educated immigrants, who
worked in low-paying positions for years.
In the last eight years, I have been working in the area of immigrant integration, either assisting
recent immigrants in their settlement processes or working with business and non-profit organizations
in developing tools and resources to encourage BC’s employers to tap into the immigrant talent pool
and to assist them to better understand the hurdles immigrants experience when searching for jobs in
Canada. Additionally, in the course of my work and my community volunteering, I have been engaged
in a number of multi-stakeholder collaborations in BC. My introduction to the multi-stakeholder
collaboration concept was initiated in 2004, during my brief participation in the late stages of the
Looking Ahead Initiative, which was mostly composed of BC’s immigrant employment agencies and
funders. This group slowly transformed in the mid-2000s into the Employment Access Strategy for
Immigrants (EASI), with a slightly broader representation from community organizations.
Concurrently, I was fortunate to be involved in the Vancouver Mayor’s Immigration Task Force and,
most recently, in the Immigrant Employment Council of BC (IEC of BC), which was developed as a
result of the cumulative efforts of the above-mentioned groups. This group in BC is the counterpart of
TRIEC in the GTA. It is composed of many stakeholders from various sectors and has strong ties with
ALLIES and TRIEC (e.g. it received funding from ALLIES and program development support from
both organizations).
Consequently, I have met many members/staff of TRIEC and other Immigrant Employment
Councils from different parts of Canada (e.g., Halifax, Toronto, Ottawa, etc.) by attending national
conferences, as well as events organized by EASI and the IEC of BC. My familiarity with many key
informants presents both opportunities and challenges to me as a researcher. On the one hand, it is an
advantage to know them, as it was easier to contact and set up meetings / interviews. However, I
realized that my role as a researcher could be compromised. One might even argue that my objectivity
could be called into question, as I knew some of my informants and might have my particular biases
towards the subject. As Kathleen and Billie DeWalt (2002: 93) pointed out in their book Participant
Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers, “the use of participant observation allows for greater rapport,
better access to informants and activities, and enhanced understanding of the phenomena investigated
using other methods … [however as] the observer is the research tool, [t]he limits of objectivity flow
from this fact. Understanding from where any observer is observing is fundamental to understanding
the products of research ”. Therefore, the only way to overcome this problem is to be as reflective as

33. 17
possible, challenge my own assumptions, and, finally, reveal my background subjectivity in the research
paper, which is the goal of this section.
With respect to researcher’s subjectivity, I entered this study with my eyes wide open and
acknowledging my potential biases in the interpretation of the findings. For instance, I assumed that
TRIEC was successful in addressing systems level issues as it developed programs that ‘got immigrants
jobs’ and/or ‘made them more employable’. Secondly, being an immigrant myself as well as a Caucasian
woman also influenced my research directions. Finally, knowing some of the people I was interviewing
could have led to biased interpretations of their answers. I was inspired by Suzanne Schwarz McCotter
(2001) who also experienced the role of ‘insider’ in her research. Based on her experience, Schwarz
McCotter advised at the beginning of the research “to critically look at and question everything that
went on, particularly my role in the research” and encouraged young scholars to accept the researcher’s
subjectivity as ‘inevitable’ and while checking for it periodically, not to try to escape ‘the role of the
self’ (McCotter, 2001, online text, emphasis supplied).
1.3.3 EXTREME CASE STUDY APPROACH
A case study approach has been utilized in the first phase of this thesis. Case study research
design has evolved over the past few decades as a useful tool in many social disciplines. In comparison
with other research methods, a case study approach is used when such questions as ‘how’ and ‘why’ are
primary foci of the inquiry (Yin, 1984; 2009). Yin suggests that the case study research method is “an
empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the
boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of
evidence are used” (Yin, 1984: 23). The case study approach is quite valuable when an interesting story
can be told and learning occurs as a result of it. Therefore, it was found particularly useful in this
research, which aims to discover critical success conditions of a well-known multi-stakeholder
collaboration.
The case study method has received rigorous criticism from academics because of its perceived
weakness in design, i.e. the fact that it is frequently based on only one or several cases, its poor
suitability for full-scale research and low objectivity due to extent of the researcher’s personal biases in
the analysis and interpretations (Campbell and Stanley, 1966; Geddes, 1990). While the case study
method was greatly criticized for its inability to yield sufficient validity, a number of scholars caution
against such strong statements, stating that the approach has greatly contributed to the development
and strengthening of social science. Flyvbjerg (2006: 219) argued that: “a scientific discipline without a
large number of thoroughly executed case studies is a discipline without systemic production of

34. 18
exemplars, and a discipline without exemplars is an ineffective one”. Tellis (1997), in his exploration of
case study history and its methodological value, concluded that “Case study is a valuable method of
research, with distinctive characteristics that make it ideal for many types of investigations. It can also
be used in combination with other methods. Its use and reliability should make it a more widely used
methodology, once its features are better understood by potential researchers” (Tellis, 1997, online text,
emphasis supplied).
The literature identified different typologies of case study. Yin (1993), proposed three major
types of case studies: Exploratory, Explanatory and Descriptive. Gerring (2007: 88) suggested nine
different case study types: typical, diverse, extreme, deviant, influential, crucial, pathway, most-similar
and most-different (ibid: 88). I believe that an exploratory approach to an extreme case study is the
best means of identifying the success factors for TRIEC. Along with the investigation of the
phenomenon, it provides an excellent opportunity to describe the events (steps) of TRIEC’s
development and yields contextually-rich data for further analysis. There are a number of reasons why a
researcher might consider selecting an extreme case study. Yin (2009) argued that studying only one
case is appropriate, particularly when a case is unique or extreme. Another scholar pointed that, “an
extreme case corresponds to a case that is considered to be prototypical or paradigmatic of some
phenomena of interest“ (Gerring, 2007: 101). If a particular phenomenon is studied, like fascism, a case
study of the German fascism movement would be an appropriate extreme study of this phenomenon
(ibid). Similarly, if the health and global environmental consequences from radiation are examined,
then the Chernobyl reactor accident in 1986 would be one the most effective case studies. In Chapter
Three, I illustrate why TRIEC has been identified as a model for other Canadian communities to
follow. Thus, other researchers pointed to the fact that the City of Toronto has one of the highest
immigrant rates (Fong, 2008; Lewkowisz, 2008), emphasized TRIEC’s proximity to funding (Wayland,
2007a), and argued that it has emerged at the right time, in the right place, and emphasized the history
of civic engagement in Toronto prior to TRIEC’s formation (Allahwala, 2011; Good, 2009).
One of the most problematic but significant properties of extreme case is that it is not
representative of a broader population group (Seawright and Gerring, 2008), in our case – other IECs .
In other words, findings from extreme cases cannot be generalized, as for example, if research was to
develop a blueprint of activities that should lead to success for any IEC. However, this is not the goal of
this study. I do not treat findings from my research as representative of a population. I simply suggest
that having a broader understanding of why TRIEC became successful and knowing what it did
differently than other IECs is useful to other multi-stakeholder groups working in the area of
immigrant labour market integration. Additionally, these groups might find the lessons learned from
TRIEC’s success to be quite valuable regardless of the latter’s unique position.

35. 19
1.3.4 LITERATURE REVIEW
Given the dual analytical framework of this study (Figure 1.1), the literature review was
conducted in two major areas. Firstly, the conceptual foundations of systems change theory were
investigated. Then, current trends and concepts in the area of immigrant economic integration were
explored. Systems change and collaborative efforts concepts were explored through diverse discipline
lenses from community psychology (Allen et al. 2008; Berkowitz, 2001; Foster-Fishman et al., 2007a;
Javdani and Allen, 2011; Nowell and Foster-Fishman, 2011) to urban health and community issues
(Clarke and Fuller, 2010; Lasker and Weiss 2003) to non-profit management and leadership
(Alexander, Hearld and Mittler, 2011) to organization development and business ethics (Cornelius and
Wallace, 2010; Reast et al., 2010). Additionally, two dissertations by Ramsey (2010) and McNamara
(2007) were found to be quite helpful in understanding collaboration processes and factors and
conditions, which, potentially, contributed to their successes. A number of books, workshop and
conference proceedings were reviewed to develop a broad understanding of the phenomena.
To set the historical context of Canadian immigration, this study draws on the works of
Bodvarsson and Van den Berg (2009), Dewing and Leman (2006), Day (2002), and Troper (2003).
Murdie (2008) and Bernard (2008) were reviewed to provide a brief review of recent immigrant
destinations and demographic characteristics. A number of studies on reasons behind high-level
immigration to Canada were reviewed. Various scholars, business organizations and government
agencies are in favor of mass immigration and identified a number of reasons behind the high-level
immigration to Canada. It is important to note that almost all reviewed have their supporters and
critics. While the reasoning behind high immigration to Canada is not a focus of this thesis, it is
believed to provide an important contextual framework for the research.
Immigrant integration challenges were illustrated based on the findings and conclusions of
researchers representing diverse disciplines -- from prominent community advocates, such as Ted
Richmond and Ratna Omidvar (2003) who discussed how deteriorating immigrant employment
outcomes impact immigrants’ sense of belonging in a society, to multicultural urban planning
researchers, such as Mohammad Qadeer and Sandeep Kumar Agrawal (2006) who called our attention
to the impacts of ethnic enclaves on social inclusion of immigrants and their children. Toronto’s
specific immigrant integration challenges were discussed based on works by Murdie (2008), who
explained immigrants’ movement to suburban areas and how it is connected with their income levels,
and Frisken and Wallace (2002), who examined municipal responses to address immigrant settlement
challenges (including the City of Toronto).

36. 20
Finally, an extensive literature review, pertaining to immigrant labour market outcomes was
conducted, which revealed nine major causes of immigrant employment challenges, including (1)
composition of immigrant classes admitted to Canada (Hiebert 2006); (2) fluency in English language
and accents (Aydemir and Skuterud, 2005; Boyd, 1999; Creese and Kambere, 2003; Preston and Giles,
1997; Scassa 1994); (3) essential, soft and literacy skills (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg, and Kalleberg, 2000;
Casimir and Waldman, 2007; Grugulis and Stoyanova, 2011; Laroche and Rutheford, 2006; Peters and
Austin, 1985); (4) lack of social networks (Bauder, 2005; Xue, 2008; Ooka and Wellman, 2006; Reitz
2007a); (5) changes and fluctuation in the Canadian economy (Hiebert, 2006; Phythian, Walters and
Anisef, 2009); (6) the increased level of education of Canadian-born workers (Hiebert, 2006; Seidle,
2010; Reitz, 2001b); (7) the foreign credential recognition issue (Basran and Zong, 1998; Girard,
2010; Picot, 2004; Reitz, 2001; Reitz 2007a; Reitz 2007b); (8) Canadian work experience (Alboim and
McIssac, 2007; Chetty, 2002; Girard and Bauder, 2005; McIssac, 2003; Slade, 2008); and (9)
employer discriminatory practices, which were detected by analyzing the gaps in earning between visible
minority immigrants and Canadians and/or visible minority and other Canadian-born population
(Pendakur and Pendakur, 1998; 2002; 2011; Skuterud, 2010; Swidinsky and Swidinsky, 2002;
Yoshida, 2008). There are more specific studies that provided a comparative analysis of job interview
return rates on resumes with ‘foreign-sounding’ and Western names (Oreopoulos, 2009; Oreopoulos
and Dechief, 2011) and those that analyzed legal complaints of racial discrimination, which showcased
existing systemic racism in employment in Canada (Agocs and Jain, 2001).
Additionally, a broad spectrum of grey literature on immigrant integration was reviewed,
including the Governments of Canada and Ontario websites, Citizenship and Immigration Canada
(CIC) facts and figures reports, Statistics Canada analytical reports and tables, mainstream media
newspaper articles (The Toronto Star, The Vancouver Sun, The Ottawa Citizen, etc.), relevant
professional, business and community organization websites, and social media, including blogs and
online publications.
Furthermore, a detailed analysis of TRIEC’s materials was conducted, including a review of its
Annual Reports, official website, articles about TRIEC, publications and other publically accessible
materials pertaining to TRIEC. Also, websites of all eleven IECs, ALLIES, the Maytree Foundation,
and the City of Toronto were examined. Finally, an effort was made to review all previous research on
TRIEC. A number of researchers have made attempts to describe TRIEC’s practices and activities and
explore its success or lack of thereof (Allahwala, 2011; Fong, 2008; Lewkowicz, 2008; Wayland,
2007a), including TRIEC’s links to civic movements and municipal responses to increasingly
multicultural population in the area (Good, 2009).

37. 21
1.3.5 TWO-PHASED RESEARCH: INTERVIEWS WITH VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS
Two types of interviews were utilized for this research: semi-structured interviews with
TRIEC’s key informants in the first phase (n=22) and structured interviews with other IEC
representatives in the second phase (n=7). As can be seen from Table 1.1 and Table 1.2, a total of 29
interviews were conducted with 27 various stakeholders. For the purpose of this study, TRIEC’s
stakeholders are called key informants as they were consulted in the first phase of the research. Five
categories of stakeholders were identified10
: (A) TRIEC/Maytree Staff; (B) TRIEC Board/Council
members; (C) Experts/Researchers of TRIEC/Civic Leaders; (D) Other Immigrant Employment
Councils’ representatives; (E) TRIEC Funders/Sponsors.
Table 1.1 Study Interviews by Informant Category
Key Informants /
Analysis Category,
N=interview informants
A –
TRIEC /
Maytree/
ALLIES
staff
B –
TRIEC
Board /
Council
members
C –
Experts /
Civic
leaders
D – IECs
staff
across
Canada
E –
TRIEC
funders /
sponsors
Key
Informants
interviewed
in two Key
Informant
categories
Total
N, Phase 1 and 2 3 5 4 8 7 1 27
N, Phase 1: Semi-structured
Interviews
3 5 4 3 7 1 22
N, Phase 2: Structured
Interviews
7 7
N, participated in both
phases
2 2
N, interviewed and analyzed
in TWO categories
1C 1
N, interviewed and analyzed
in ONE but belonged to
two categories 1 2C 1B 1B 5
N, interviewed, analyzed and
belonged to ONLY ONE
category
2 3 1 8 5 19
N, Foreign-born 2 1 3 0 1 7
On average, interviews took 47 minutes and interviews with TRIEC/Maytree Staff were the
longest. Most of the interviews were conducted over the phone (n=19), followed by interviews in
person (n=9) and one was done over email. Twenty semi-structured interviews were recorded,
transcribed and coded. Two interviews were coded based on partial recording and note-taking. Seven
interviews with IECs staff used structured questions where the majority required simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’
type of answers with some brief examples.
10
Immigrants who participated in TRIEC’s programs were originally included as a separate category. However, as access to
this category key informants was not granted, the category was not included in the research.

38. 22
Table 1.2 Study Interviews by Format
Interview Category /
Analysis Category,
n=number of interviews
A-TRIEC
/ Maytree
staff
B-TRIEC
Board /
Council
members
C-Experts
/ Civic
leaders
D-IECs
staff
across
Canada
E-TRIEC
funders /
sponsors
Total
n, by question format 3 5 4 10 7 29
n, Semi-structured 3 5 4 3 7 22
n, Structured 7 7
n, with two key informants 0 0 1 0 0 1
n, by recording format 3 5 4 10 7 29
n, recorded with Notes / Questionnaire 7 1 8
n, Transcripts 3 5 4 3 6 21
n, by contact format 3 5 4 10 7 29
n, In person 3 2 3 1 9
n, By phone 3 1 8 7 19
n, Via email 1 1
Average Interview Duration, min 61 50 48 41 52 47
One interview was conducted with two key informants; one key informant was interviewed
and analyzed in two categories as s/he was suggested by one of the stakeholder agencies as its
representative but s/he had already been interviewed in another category earlier11
. Also, two category D
key informants were interviewed in the first and second phases of the research. Finally, some key
informants referred to their backgrounds in their responses and based on this information, it was
revealed that at least seven out of 27 interviewees were immigrants.
I used data transformation in analyzing semi-structured interview responses where the
qualitative data was quantified (Creswell, 2003: 220). I developed and coded the answers as I was
reviewing interview transcripts for responses related to TRIEC’s success factors. Then all factors were
combined into six major success factor groups and presented based on a number of responses in each
category.
1.3.5.1 SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS WITH TRIEC KEY STAKEHOLDERS
All key informants for the first phase were contacted in June – December 2010. The semi-
structured interviews were conducted in two major batches. The first one took place in the summer of
2010 and the majority of key informants were interviewed then (Category A-D). Category E
informants, i.e. TRIEC’s Funders/Sponsors were interviewed in the winter of 2011. Initially, TRIEC
and the Maytree Foundation were approached with a request to interview their staff and Board
11
While most of key informants were asked the same core questions, some questions vary from one category to another.