Claves humanísticas en el progreso y la transformación social.

Sampling is another important step in the process of the research after making decisions about methodology and methods of data collection, generation and analysis. For any research, sampling of the unit of analysis is a key not only to finding correct empirical data which addresses the research problem, but also for to ensure the generalizability of research findings. This study involves three stages of sampling: sampling of country case, thematic cases and sampling of interview participants. The ‗case‘ is understood as ‗a phenomenon of some sort occurring in a bounded context‘ (Miles et al., 2013: 28). For this research, the

phenomenon of interest is ‗socialization involved in the process of norm implementation in a transitioning state‘. This phenomenon involves three aspects: ‗external actors‘ role‘, ‗domestic contexts of ideational, institutional and material aspects‘, the ‗norm‘ and the human aspect of ‗implementation‘. Therefore, sampling takes place at three levels: ‗country case selection‘, selection of ‗norms‘ and selection of ‗interview participants‘ who are involved in implementation of the respective norms.

Alan Bryman states,‘ ‗When contexts are being sampled, …[i]t is common for some form of generic purposive sampling to be employed‘ (Bryman, 2012: 422). According to him, generic purposive sampling method is a type of purposive sampling method but distinctive from theoretical sampling method in three aspects. Generic purposively sampling does not necessarily take samples in consideration of theoretical categories. In the generic purposive sampling method, sampling can be in sequential or fixed manner, and criteria for selection of a sample may be formed a priori or be contingent or a mixture of both, in contrast to theoretical sampling which necessarily is sequential contingent on their theoretical categories. For the purpose of the current research, context sampling and sampling of norms cases are done by generic purposive sampling in line with the theoretical orientation of the research.

At the level of context sampling, two criteria for sampling are a ‗country case where the role of external factors can be observed‘ and a ‗country context where norm implementations are in variegated processes‘. The country case of Myanmar is selected as it falls within the two criteria set in relevance to addressing the research question. The second criterion allows the research to see the relations between the selected contexts of political transition with varied processes of norm practices. The country case can be considered as a hard case for norm implementation owing to its historical record of norm evasion, and the first phase of democratic transition was also seen by many as managed transition. This selection of a hard case for the research helps enhance the generalizability of the research findings to many similar cases with norm implementation issues.

At a narrower level for the sampling of two norm cases, the study employs three main criteria. First, at least one case is to allow temporal analysis, i.e. the implementation processes before and during the transition period show differences. Second, the two cases are to show diverse processes of implementation. Third, each case must be an effective subject for seeing different outcomes. Two cases of international norms, Freedom of Association (FOA) and Responsible Business Conduct (RBC) are selected considering their representativeness to the

norms taking different tracks in Myanmar despite their comparability in terms of similar policy attention from government and business actors being the main targets in both norms. This allows the researcher to examine the similarities and differences of the two cases and their relations to implementation processes in the context of transition, the main area of research interest. Both cases are effective cases in explicating the links of transition, norm types and implementation track records. Such selection allows the research to understand multiple factors including states‘ role in influencing domestic norm practices, a major issue of interest which the research seeks to examine. Selection of FOA and RBC, the two norms possessing different characteristics—the former being obligatory whereas the latter is voluntary—allow the research to make a comparative analysis and understand the implementation impact of different types of norms and the channels of such impacts. This case sampling approach also allows the transferability of findings to similar contexts.

The third level of sampling is done for interview participants. The purposive sampling method applies to sampling at the initial stage of field work and the snowball sampling method applies in the later stage of the field work. This research defines four main criteria for interview participants sampling which includes voluntary participation, ability to provide information relevant to the subject matter of the study, being knowledgeable about political transition or FOA or RBC practices in the country, and their intellectual or personal involvement in the activities related to democratic transition, FOA and RBC practices. The study identifies four specific groups of individuals and organizations from whom to acquire the information relevant to research questions. Four groups of individuals are specified: state (government), businesses, and societal (LNGOs, Trade Unions, CSOs), international actors. They are considered as key stakeholders who are involved in democratic transition and implementation of the respective norms in Myanmar.

To identify participants for each group, secondary resources relating to the labour issues and private sector governance issues as well as networking opportunities at stakeholders meetings serves as a ‗sample frame‘ i.e. ‗the information source from which the sample is selected‘ (Ritchie et al., 2013: 10). The sample frame is expanded at the later stage of field work as interview participants‘ referrals are included in the existing lists of participants. In specifying the groups of interview participants and in identifying the individuals from each group, the researcher follows two suggestions by Jane Ritchie and colleagues to include ‗all the key constituencies of relevance to the subject matter‘ and to ensure ‗diversity‘ to optimise the

chances of identifying the full range of factors associated with a phenomenon of interest (Ritchie et al., 2013: 79).