Estudios de 1994 a 2001

The epistemological framework adopted for the present study is based on a philosophy known as pragmatism (Dewey, 1925). Pragmatism is concerned with what is practical, and implies that research methods are adopted because they are best suited to comprehensively address the research question. The pragmatic philosophy also ensures that the researcher is not constrained to one particular research approach thereby limiting the study (Dewey, 1925; Feilzer, 2009; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Leech, Dellinger, Brannagan, & Tanaka, 2009). Feilzer (2009) argues that pragmatism accepts “singular and multiple realities that are open to empirical inquiry and orients itself toward solving practical problems in the ‘real world’.” (p. 3). Such a philosophy is appropriate in this current project because the interrelated components of the intentionally formed networks require analysis from all directions if the research questions are to be answered.

The pragmatic stance allows the researcher to combine elements from the constructivist and positivist paradigms even through these philosophical stances are not inherently linked (Hanson, Creswell, Clark, Petska, & Creswell, 2005; Rocco, Bliss, Gallagher, & Perez- Prado, 2003). The distinctions between the two paradigms are important because the assumptions of each impact on how the data is collected and how the findings are interpreted.

The beliefs underpinning the constructivist paradigm are that the social world is comprised of complex variables that cannot be isolated from one another or from the context in which

they are studied. These beliefs are tied to the important assumption that multiple realities exist and are based on each research participant’s construction of that reality. In addition, the researcher’s role in the interpretation of participants’ realities is accepted and acknowledged (Crotty, 2006; Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Perry, 1998). Constructivism uses inductive methods and is suitable for exploratory studies such as this. Because it requires the researcher to be a participant during the data collection (Denzin, 1994), the researcher needs to be involved in rigorous self-reflection and consideration of the impact of the research process in each data collection phase (Guba & Lincoln, 2005). Such reflection is achieved, for example, by allowing participants to read and discuss the researcher’s interpretations of findings and this process is an important element in the research design.

The positivist paradigm, on the other hand, tests a ‘truth’ identified from empirically verifiable knowledge of the world; it assumes the world is experienced as a highly organised and regular place with universal laws that govern it in order to provide meaning (Crotty, 2006). This type of world view is interested in facts, measurements and analysis through statistical tests – with the assumption that a single truth is tested through deductive techniques which can then be generalised (Denzin,1994; Eisenhardt, 1989a; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Another assumption of the positivist paradigm is that the researcher is capable of studying a phenomenon without influencing it or being influenced by it (Guba & Lincoln, 2005).

The pragmatic stance, by combining aspects of the constructivist and positivist paradigms, allows for the inductive development of themes to be taken from constructivism and deductive measurements about the strength and structure of networks from positivism. It also enables the selection of a range of methods most suited to address the specific research questions, while working within the case-study strategy recommended for network studies (Creswell, 2003; Halinen & Törnroos, 2005).

4.2.2 Methods

Before the case-study strategy is explained, it is important to highlight the advantages of applying the pragmatic philosophy and so being able to use mixed methods. The use of

mixed methods allows the researcher to aim for greater breadth and depth of data in order to provide a solid basis for theory generation (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Miles, 1979; Miles & Huberman, 1994).

In this current study, the mixed-method approach not only added depth but provided triangulation to the research findings. The mixed-method approach was both qualitative and quantitative. As this study was exploratory, a qualitative approach was required to explore and generate themes. The quantitative approach, however, enabled the measurement of structural aspects of the networks and also the measurement of relational aspects between actors. The benefit of combining qualitative and quantitative data is that it provided multiple views from different sources and perspectives, which assisted in explaining and augmenting the complex phenomenon of networks.

By using a mixed-method approach, the weaknesses inherent in a single-method approach are restricted and a richer and deeper understanding is obtained from the convergence of data (Driscoll, Appiah-Yeboah, Salib, & Rupert, 2007). By considering both structural and informal coordination mechanisms together, this also addresses the concerns of Hoang and Antoncic (2003) and Tuominen et al. (2000) in their calls for fuller understandings of networks.

The mixed-method approach, the elements of which are the exploratory nature of the study and the measurement of the structural aspects and constructs, has enabled has the additional advantage of enabling triangulation and bringing together the observable patterns that produced the events (Creswell, 2003; Richards, 2005; Rocco et al., 2003). A case-study strategy was chosen as the most suitable research tactic as it offered a means of combining qualitative and quantitative data (Creswell, 2003; Perry, 1998); this strategy is discussed in the following section, while the specific details about the methods used in this current study, such as a retrospective approach which relied on research participant’s memories, cognitive mapping, semi-structured interviews, questionnaires and the use of secondary data, are described in sections 4.3 and 4.4.

Figure 4.1: Overview of research design 1. Initial literature review 2. Findings Identify gap in literature Establish why sport industry important for development of network theory 3. Develop research area of interest Identify and select sport network NZAS Develop research question 4. Develop methodology 5. Case-study strategy - Multiple levels of analysis - Multiple data- collection methods - Longitudinal Investigate sport network context Literature Interview key

informants _{Secondary data}

Data collection on area of research focus Data collection from recipients of network service Develop literature

review further for evidence that could confirm, or refute, theory 6. Case-study analysis and findings 7. Theory development and application Secondary data Inductive and deductive between theory and the findings/observation Phase Phase two In-depth interviews Questionnaire Cognitive mapping In-depth interviews Phase