La comunidad Joánica

The researchers expect similar motivations for the participants to those of the people participating in Touraine’s research project, who did it mainly because they expected to obtain knowledge and understand their actions to act more effectively. (Dubet & Wieviorka 1996, p. 57) To ensure a representative sample of appropriate participants I contacted a known network of potential participants based on my experience (Dattalo 2008). An initial set of participants was contacted via existing directories to be invited to participate in this research project. At the point of contact, participants were requested to also inform other potential participants about the study. Additional potential candidates were invited to contact me to express their interest. This approach operationalises the snowball sampling technique (Dattalo 2008) without breaching the personal privacy of individuals under the Tasmanian Personal Information Protection Act (2004).253 _When participants expressed interest in participating in the research project, information packs were distributed electronically and reviewed at the first meeting where the involvement of the participant was confirmed, the consent form signed, and the first in-depth interview undertaken. A total of 18 participants were successfully recruited and interviewed.

251 _{Bloor et al (2001) also note that small groups run the risk of limited discussion, while large groups can be chaotic,}

hard to manage for the facilitator and frustrating for participants who feel they get insufficient opportunities to speak. Barbour (2007) suggests 10-15 participants. The section of sampling outlines the lack of specific framework for sampling in case study research. Reflecting on this debate, Munday (2006) concludes that the group size needs to respond to the particularities of the project.

252 _{In a focus group, typically 5 to 15 people meet in a suitable and comfortable environment to engage in guided}

discussions around one or several topics under study (Babbie 2013, p. 329). The participants are selected on the basis of relevance to the topic under study (Babbie, p. 330; see also Barbour 2007 on purposive sampling for focus groups).

126

The second phase of the case study aimed at holding a series of focus groups discussions. However, despite participants’ initial commitment, they experienced some constraints, such as work commitments, illness or other events preventing them from travelling (5+ hours return drive to attend sessions in the north or south) which impacted the logistics of bringing together participants from different parts of the state.254 _{To facilitate attendance and minimise the impact} on their work schedules and personal time, the research sample was divided in two sub-groups, corresponding to participants from the north and south of the state of Tasmania.255 Despite my efforts to accommodate participants’ constraints, other issues beyond my control, such as participants’ unavailability, work and personal commitments, and illness still impacted the sample size at both locations.256

In light of the small size of both focus groups, I decided to include an additional focus group in the research design. This time, to facilitate attendance, I targeted members of an already existing group arguing, in line with Patton, that more than one purposive (purposeful) sampling procedure is acceptable in qualitative research (2002, p. 242).

The planning of the last focus groups required a change to the recruitment mode and an amendment of the ethics application.257 _{Whereas I initially obtained participants utilising a} snowballed purposive sampling approach, in this case I had the opportunity to access a wider database comprised of existing alumni of the Tasmanian Leaders Program (TLP) that had been engaged in discussions on Tasmania’s development (including branding as a tool for economic development) and invited them to an additional focus group discussion.258 Accessing a cohort of engaged leaders and critical thinkers that already meet on a regular basis assisted me in achieving a new cohort of participants. The alumni of the TLP possess cross-industry skills and backgrounds relevant to this project, since they have been and are engaged in many ways and capacities in branding Tasmania. In addition, potential TLP participants were asked to snowball the sample to acquaintances that might be interested in participating, particularly focusing on incorporating members of civil society with indirect engagement in place branding practices.259

254 _{Constraints include, but are not limited to, sickness, lack of time or availability due to work or family commitments,}

and so forth.

255 _{The sample revealed a 50% split in their location. See Appendix One for more details on participant’s origins.} 256 _{The first focus group in the north had a total of 5 participants, and the second focus group (had a total of 4}

participants (from the original 5). Refer to Table 2 ‘Fieldwork Main Stages’, on p. 119 for more details. Due to the impossibility to host two consecutive focus group discussions, one focus group combining the two sessions (state-of- the-art and introduction and discussion on the participant-governed model) was held in Hobart, with 3 of the participants. The information gathered from the south of the state was complemented by 3 additional in-depth interviews with participants unable to assist to the discussions, to present and gather their insights on the alternative model.

257 _{Small amendment of the original ethics application H14214.} 258 _{See <http://www.tasmanianleaders.org.au/>.}

259 _{The changes to recruitment also included that potential participants were contacted on behalf of the investigator by}

127

An extra 6 participants were recruited from the TLP, and two participants from the previous sample (that attended in-depth interviews) were able to join the group. The total number of participants of the fourth and last focus group discussion was eight.

The final aggregated sample consisted in a total of 24 participants, all adults (18+) of varying age groups, coming from and reflecting the variety of the different groups of stakeholders. As mentioned earlier in the chapter, the stakeholder groups were identified following a review of the literature on place branding and place management (see, for instance, De Nisco et al 2008; Garcia et al 2012; Morgan et al 2003), as well as a background analysis of stakeholders involved in branding Tasmania. See appendices One and Two for more details on the sample breakdown (p. 239, 241).