Las comunidades primitivas urbanas

The design presented in this dissertation is iterative. Responding to fieldwork and analysis of data collected, the model was further enhanced and the line of questioning was constantly redesigned. As Babbie argues, qualitative field research allows for greater depth of understanding

234 _{Melucci (1989) advocated for an adaptation of the SI method to observe social actors as ‘constructed’ entities and}

emphasised the need to observe the relationship between the Researcher and participant as part of the analysis to ensure reflexivity. Melucci (1996) identifies the influencing role of the researchers in the SI method, and advocates for an abandonment of the quest for agreement for the purpose or raison d’être of the social movement, and an observation of the interactions instead, emphasising the need to observe the inherent role of the researcher as an active participant. However, in research I am concerned with observing the interactions of participants in the process of achieving a common goal (branding Tasmania). This differs from the nature of social movements in search of their purpose, since the purpose is clear from the outset and the challenge is rather to operationalise it.

235 _{My understanding of ideology here is a set of pre-conceived ideas that are shared by a social group, in this case the}

ideas shared by place brand managers about how places should be branded. In my approach, I encourage participants to question and critique their interpretations in order to explore the possibility of alternative arrangements that might at the onset be considered contrary or opposed to pre-established ideologies, but that, in light of the discussion, might offer opportunities to change and enhance place branding practice. For a review of principles for the conduct of action research and the concept of ideology in action research, see Winter (1996, pp. 12-20). There are also limitations linked to participants’ backgrounds and the politics of place branding. The members of political groups are unlikely to provide completely unbiased information in front of members potentially opposed to their political views, therefore, it is important to be aware of and understand the philosophical and normative context in which participants developed and accounted for their experiences (Babbie 2013, p. 324).

118

and emphasises the flexibility of design that can be modified as the process of inquiry unfolds, in which participant’s answers guide the next set of questions (2013, p. 334).

The basic design of the research included a series of in-depth semi-structured interviews and a series of focus groups interventions, as well as my own observations to assist triangulation of data and enhance internal and external validity, as well as reliability of analysis. The fieldwork was therefore divided into six major stages responding to major timeframes:

119

Date Method Duration Num. of

participants Location Description

August 2014 – January 2016 In-depth interviews 45-90 min 17236 _Launceston, Hobart and online

Participants were asked a series of questions about their experiences and involvement in putting Tasmania on the map.

20/11/15 Focus Group 1 – State of the art

120 min 5 Launceston Participants were asked to share their experiences in a group setup, reflecting on the different approaches and issues encountered. I facilitated a discussion on the different approaches taken by the participants to putting Tasmania on the map.

Participants discussed particular actions, interests or contextual factors that influenced or justified the approaches taken.

5/02/16 Focus Group 2 – Introducing the participant- governed model

120 min 4 Launceston I pre-distributed a two-page document outlining a ‘participant-governed network model’ for putting Tasmania on the map, which the group considered and discussed during the intervention. The discussion also included possible solutions or suggestions for collaborative action. 1/05/16 Focus Group 2 – Introducing the participant- governed model

120 min 3 Hobart I pre-distributed a two-page document outlining a ‘participant-governed network model’ for putting Tasmania on the map, which the group considered and discussed during the intervention. The discussion also included possible solutions or suggestions for collaborative action. 1-3/05/16 Post FG in- depth interviews – reflections on model

45-60 min 3 Hobart Participants that were not able to attend the focus group intervention agreed to be interviewed to gather their thoughts on the model.237 16/06/16 Focus Group 3 – Tasmanian Leaders Program

120 min 8 Launceston An extra cohort of 8 participants was recruited for an intervention, aiming at both triangulating the data and achieving a minimum sample of 7 (total of 8 participants). Two participants had previously attended the in-depth interview phase and were able to join this session, but the rest attended only the last focus group discussion.

Table 2. Fieldwork Main Stages (Author’s own).

236 _{Fifteen participants originally selected, plus an additional two (due to original participants not being available).} 237 _{In addition to a fourth focus group, three participants from the southern cohort agreed to be interviewed a second}

120

The outlined schedule above mirrors Touraine’s proposed schedule for the SI method. The aim of SI is to analyse the history of the group and their struggles in creating meaning, in a setup where both researcher and participants generate and acquire knowledge, and translate it into collective action (Touraine 1981, pp. 144-5). This is further detailed in Table 4:

STAGES OF THE