La comunidad de los Hechos de los Apóstoles

Data analysis is a systematic search for meaning. It is a way to process qualitative data so that what has been learned can be communicated to others. Analysis means organizing and interrogating data in ways that allow researchers to see patterns, identify themes, discover relationships, develop explanations, make interpretations, mount critiques, or generate theories. It often involves synthesis, evaluation, interpretation, categorization, hypothesizing, comparison, and pattern finding. It always involves what Wolcott calls “mindwork”. . . Researchers always engage their own intellectual capacities to make sense of qualitative data. (Hatch 2002, p. 148 in Leech & Onwuegbuzie 2007, p.564) The choice of qualitative research in this thesis responds to the need for a more contextual and holistic understanding of the place branding process. This case study aims at understanding the context and issues intrinsic to the interactions between stakeholders in place branding processes (Stake 2005) to better understand the construct of ‘participatory place branding’. For that purpose, ‘meaning has to be understood within the social context’ (Saussure 1974).

In this sense, qualitative research is process-oriented and can inform theory and model development (Leech & Onwuegbuzie 2007, p.559) gathered from insights into the practices undertaken in a particular context or setting. Hence, constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss 2017) was employed to interpret the data in search of a rich account of the ‘challenges encountered in implementing interventions designed to change and reform existing [place branding] practice’ (Nastasi & Schensul 2005, p. 186). The focus is on a consistent interpretation

and the researcher coordinated RSVPs and attendance to the focus group by participants. The Researcher forwarded an amended information sheet to potential participants that expressed interest in attending the focus group. Once all the details about the research project, including issues around confidentiality and possibilities for re-identification had been appropriately explained and participants had an opportunity to ask any further questions, they were asked to read and sign the consent form prior to their participation in the focus group intervention.

128

of the contextual and cultural factors that enhance or limit the efficacy of strategies and interventions in place branding processes.

Through the analysis of participants’ discourses I aimed to uncover their systematic relations and patterns of interaction (Cresswell 2007; Denzin & Lincoln 2005). Consequently, in the analysis I strove to interpret the place branding process from the meanings embedded in participants’ observations (Denzil & Lincoln 2005). For that purpose, I employed constant comparison analysis (Miles & Huberman 1994; Glaser and Strauss 1967) based on a mix of deductive and inductive coding derived from specific theoretical interests and recurrent issues in the literature. Therefore, to a series of previously identified codes underpinning the research question and informed by the theoretical framework outlined in the first part of this thesis (literature review), I added a set of emerging themes, based on the most salient constructs, issues and concerns identified in the data. From the evidence, I developed a series of propositions that are reflected in the claims set out in the discussion chapter (Chapter Seven). Finally, through the analysis and the discussion of the results I reflected on my research observations and personal notes recorded during the interviews and focus group discussions.

The most salient constructs were developed into a matrix formed by a set of codes. Those codes guided the thematic organisation of the text from the transcripts. The analysis is divided in two parts. The first part is focused on the common themes through the interview phase, and the second part on the themes arising from the focus group discussions as part of the sociological intervention. The aim of this distinction was to observe the changes in the nature of interactions form isolated interviews to collaborative reflective processes that occurs in the method of sociological intervention. Through this method, participants reflected on their experiences and discussed potential avenues for collaboration for the common good. The analysis is supported by contextual quotes and excerpts from the in-depth interviews and focus groups. Subsequently, the discussion in Chapter Seven connects the theoretical review with the themes identified in the results section and proposes grounded explanations (Attride-Stirling 2001; Yin 2003).

The selection of themes identified a mix of common themes that offer generalisations and thus explanatory value, and individual discourses and narratives that highlighted group differences. Since the thesis aims at exploring the process of place branding, it makes sense to reflect on all these levels and forms of interaction. The result is a mix of commonalities, differences and contradictions analsyed in the discussion section in relation to the research questions (Attride- Stirling 2001).

Lastly, the findings are presented in the data analysis section following the stages of the exploration (in-depth individual, focus groups interviews and interventions), and subsequently reflecting on the research questions in the discussion. The description and exploration of the

129

place branding network and stakeholder interactions is supplemented by the exploration of rival explanations (Yin 2003) to reinforce and legitimate the findings and validity of results.260

5.9 Validity

Although participants were involved in focus groups discussions around strategising and problem-solving about place branding on a quasi-real scenario, they were only engaging in a hypothetical exercise, and not committing to taking further action. The problem of how to distinguish research and action is addressed in this research by clearly organising the interaction between both to ensure that valid knowledge is obtained. Contrary to what happens in action research, in traditional research processes, the researcher is generally not involved. Action research, however, represents a break with those conventional models for obtaining valid knowledge, and the only way is to issue challenges and to be able to tackle them. In order to ensure validity in action research, Karlsen (1991) suggests the following three techniques: pragmatic validation, consensus validation and reflection. Table 5 below further explains the techniques and their application in this research with specific actions to ensure validity: 261

260 _{Rival explanations are useful in case study evaluations as alternative counter-scenarios to validate the data}

collected, accounting for alternative explanations or ‘influences’ (Yin 2003, p. 113). Rival explanations are used as a pattern matching technique and are supported by organisational logic analysis of patterns (linear-analytic) following the research stages.

130

Technique Explanation Application in this research

Pragmatic validation or spiral design

The researcher collects and analyses data to help people understand the context of the situation they are dealing with and to help them formulate solutions.

Implementation of those solutions or actions will lead to new requirements for analysis and the recirculation of data and hypotheses provides control that is scientifically satisfactory and makes useful contributions to the action process.

The spiral design of action uses common methods and reflection to combine the two processes.

In-depth interview phase provided data on current practices of place branding in Tasmania and identified potential issues.

Reflection on the data provided through focus group discussions helped identify requirements for solutions. The presentation of the additional model allowed participants to discuss a potential alternative for collaboration in place branding.

Through triangulation of data from interviews and focus groups, as well as my observations, the study makes

analytic generalisations (Hesse-Biber & Leavy 2011) supported by both method and data triangulation. See also Kvale and Brinkmann (2009) for further discussion on pragmatic validity.

Consensus validation

When the spiral design proves difficult (no clear connection between data, relationships and actions), results can also be corroborated by inviting practitioners to take part in evaluation, interpreting and reflecting on the data generated through the research process. This is an essential part of the design process since it concerns not only the actions of the process but also evaluation and interpretation connected with the research and tested by action.

The type of data and assumptions used as basis in ‘real-life changes’ are not only those that have resulted from observable and controlled processes.

My experience as practitioner was key in evaluating and reflecting on the data generated, establishing the links and lack of interaction between theory of place branding and practice. In addition, participants reflected on their practices in a group context during the focus groups, providing their insights and reflections on the interpretation of data.

By observing discursive interactions, I was able to reflect on power relationships that informed data (for example, government officials being reluctant to lose their position of authority in collaborative settings).

This is understood by Hesse-Biber & Leavy as

communicative validity, or opening to discussion the findings with both participants and the scholarly community (2011, p. 49).

Reflection Properly planned research ensures that regular contact with other experienced research workers, often acting as ‘devil’s advocates’ is maintained. It refrains the researcher from getting trapped in a situation or a role and offers adequate perspectives to what is happening. This research will implement ready-established structures consisting of weekly meetings with the researcher supervisor and sharing of the analysis of findings with several colleagues in the Faculty throughout the process.

I maintained regular meetings with the supervisory team to monitor the developments of research analysis and findings, as well as regularly consulting other researchers, including colleagues outside of the university.

In addition, two participants reviewed the data analysis and provided critical feedback validating the interpretations presented in the study.

Table 4. Validation Techniques and Application to this Research Design (own elaboration from Karlsen 1991).

131

The dialogue arising from the focus groups aims to describe problems and analyses them in the focus (Argyris 1985 in Karlsen 1991).262 However, in the focus group set up, and similarly in the decision-making process, all interest groups typically endeavour to express their views but to also compromise towards a common denominator (Karlsen 1991). The ‘politics’ or action research needs to be observed (Herr & Anderson 2005), since often more radical solutions are not considered for the purposes of reaching consensus.