Estudios de 2006 a 2009

The focus for the interviews was on uncovering the participant’s own experience with the network, and their involvement, understanding, commitment and feelings towards what they saw as important in the operation of the network. This follows the guidelines of Seidman (1991) and Eisenhardt (1989b).

Interviews for all three phases of the study were conducted in the same manner in order to capture the respondents’ beliefs as accurately as possible, as suggested by Ragin (1994), and Schloss and Smith (1999). This involved listening to the research participants in a flexible manner in order to take advantage of any new occurrences and ideas that might develop during the interview (Eisenhardt, 1989a; Graziano & Raulin, 1997). Clarification was sought to ensure understanding of what was said and that nothing had been missed, as recommended by Seidman (1991) and Walsham (1995).

Interviews were conducted in private settings where interruptions were unlikely, as recommended by Morse and Field (1995). Confirmatory tactics were employed: data gathered using audio recording was transcribed and sent back to the research participant for checking of accuracy, along with a write-up of their organisation which included objectives. Note-taking was also used in case the research equipment malfunctioned, as recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994).

Field notes were made after each interview during the data-collection process. Typically these included my impressions of each participant, self-reflections on what was being learnt, and related thoughts throughout the process. The collection of field notes followed the methodology guidelines of Eisenhardt (1989a).

The boundary for the study was further defined as the study progressed by following the recommendations for in-depth interviews provided by Eisenhardt (1989b). The interviews were in-depth because most research participants were interviewed once only. The duration of the interviews did not exceed two hours and most were kept to 90 minutes. This follows the recommendations of Seidman (1991) because after 90 minutes there is a strong likelihood that no new information will be uncovered; this also follows the methodology of Eisenhardt (1989b) for in-depth interviews.

Interviews took place in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Dunedin. For the six cases when it was not possible to meet face-to-face, the interviews were conducted over the telephone.

Interview structure for first phase of study

For the first part of the study a semi-structured interview approach was used to gain an understanding of the network context and to explore the structure and functioning of the network. The semi-structured approach aided understanding in two ways: first, by directing the research participants’ responses to the area of interest for this study; and second, by allowing responses which are meaningful to the research participants. Prompts were used to ensure all details were explored (Morse & Field, 1995; Seidman, 1991). The questions and prompts are listed in Table B.2 (see Appendix B). Table B.3 (see Appendix B) lists the questions asked of the Minister for Sport, the Hon. Trevor Mallard.

Interview structure for second phase of study

The interview process for the second phase of the study combined multiple data-collection methods; this ensured that findings can be corroborated and strengthened (Eisenhardt, 1989a). The multiple data-collection techniques included the use of three methods: in-depth

interview, questionnaire survey and completion of a cognitive map. This enabled the research objectives to be addressed by allowing for the measurement of relational strength, and by capturing the dynamic situation of the three embedded NZAS networks.

The phase two interview process was designed around a structured time frame. The first sixty minutes were spent on the in-depth interview, followed by fifteen minutes for the cognitive mapping and, lastly, fifteen minutes for completing the questionnaire. The interviews concluded with an open question, “Is there is anything more that should have been asked?” because this is often when the most revealing information is given. This approach follows the suggestion of Morse and Field (1995). The research participant was also asked whether they could be contacted again if there were any other questions that arose, as recommended by Morse and Field (1995).

The in-depth interview is an inductive approach and this was considered appropriate because the research frame was known, but the answers that were likely to be given could not be predicted (Morse & Field, 1995; Ragin, 1994; Stake, 1994). The interview schedule and the questionnaire were informed by the prior network studies noted in Chapter Two. The interview schedule is presented in Table B.4 and the questionnaire in Table B.5 (see Appendix B). The purpose of the questionnaire was to gain further understanding of the strength of relationships that each actor has with other actors in the network.

My supervisor and I reviewed the phase two interview process after the first interviews, and made two changes. First, two additional prompts were added: “How did you find out about the other members?” (i.e. a probe for social/business connections), and “Why have you not mentioned other members on your website?” Second, a request was added for written information, memos, documents and publicity material, including press releases, magazines, TV and radio coverage concerning the NZAS network.

There were two separate instances during interviews where the interview tape broke. When this was discovered directly after the interview, the notes that were made during the interview were added to in order to ensure all information was captured. A transcript was

then sent back to the research participant for clarification. Fortunately one participant also agreed to a follow-up interview to recapture the information. The tape machine being used was found to be faulty and was replaced.

Interview structure for third phase of study

The interview schedule for the third phase of this study dealt with gathering data from NSOs. The schedule was based on Table B.4 and is listed in Table B.6 (see Appendix B). The similarity of structure allowed for a comparison of data with that collected in phase two. Typically interviews with the High Performance Managers from each of the selected NSOs were between 60 to 90 minutes duration.