2003 IMTA Proceedings - International Military Testing Association

262
2.3 Stakeholder Salience
SA also allows researchers to map out power differentials and to determine saliency
among stakeholder groups – i.e. the relevance of stakeholder goals and objectives to those of the
research project. According to Chevalier, (2001) contemporary understandings of stakeholder
saliency encompass three elements: power, interest (or urgency), and legitimacy. While
‘legitimacy’ in its different forms is an important variable, two other factors must not be ignored
when determining the relevance of stakeholder claims to project objectives. Power, defined as
“the ability to influence the actions of other stakeholders and to bring out the desired
outcomes”... can be actualized “through the use of coercive-physical, material-financial and
normative-symbolic resources at one's disposal”. The other factor is that of interest, which
relates in part to the ability of stakeholders to impress the critical and pressing character of their
claims or interests. Chevalier remarks that these three attributes are transient and have a
cumulative effect on salience:
“[They] are highly variable; they are socially constructed; and they can be possessed with
or without consciousness and willful exercise. They can also intersect or be combined in
multiple ways, such that stakeholder salience will be positively related to the cumulative
number of attributes effectively possessed” (Chevalier, 2001).
To further assess the various stakeholders’ places in the research process, they can be
categorised into the following groups:
• dormant stakeholders only have power (in the MFRC Modernisation, one example could
be DND Budget Allocators);
• discretionary stakeholders only have legitimacy (in the MFRC Modernisation, one
example could be the Minister of National Defence);
• demanding stakeholders only have strong interest (in the MFRC Modernisation, one
example of a ‘demanding stakeholder’ could be CF Loved ones who do not fit into
traditional definitions of the ‘military family’);
• dependant stakeholders have legitimacy and interest (in the MFRC Modernisation, one
example of a ‘dependant stakeholder’ could be CF ‘military families’);
• dominant stakeholders have power and legitimacy (in the MFRC Modernisation, one
example of a ‘dominant stakeholder’ could be Commanding Officers);
• dangerous stakeholders have interest and power (in the MFRC Modernisation, one
example of a ‘dangerous stakeholder’ could be civilian social workers); and
• definitive stakeholders have legitimacy, power and urgency (in the MFRC Modernisation,
one example of a ‘definitive stakeholder’ could be DQOL researchers).
45 th Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association
Pensacola, Florida, 3-6 November 2003