To obtain primary qualitative data, interviews were conducted with 21 volunteers representing various aspects and stages of the nation brand’s development and implementation. The process for identifying and selecting interviewees involved utilising a purposive sampling strategy.
3.4.3.1 Purposive Sampling
Selection of potential interviewees involved utilising an amalgamation of various purposive sampling techniques, thus may be termed a combination or mixed purposeful sample. The rationale for adopting a non-probability sample was that, whilst it is acknowledged that probability sampling techniques allow for greater generalisation and representation. As the sampling strategy is tied to the research objectives (Given, 2008), the data is emergent and sequential (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Therefore, because the interviews are utilised primarily to obtain the experiences and realities (Rees, 1996) of actors primarily associated with the Island’s nation brand, the aim was not to create generalisations based on the entire population. Rather, through adopting a purposive sample that allows for honing-in on people and events (Dane, 1990), it is acknowledged that the outlooks of the nation brand would be bound by the participant’s experiences, feelings, beliefs and convictions about the themes in question (Welman & Kruger, 1999, p. 196), thus, findings cannot be generalised (Creswell, 1994).
In order to obtain these personal experiences and perspectives of the nation brand (Kruger, 1988), particularly with reference to its development, implementation and management, it was deemed necessary to determine who would be appropriate for the study; as far as being in a position to disseminate information pertaining to these aspects of the nation brand. As such, potential participants were selected in a deliberate, non-random fashion, with the purpose of obtaining
knowledge and perspectives of the nation brand in mind (Kerlinger, 1986). A sample frame of potential participants was drawn-up by following three purposive sampling techniques: stratified, stakeholder and maximum variation. Firstly, a stratified sampling technique was used to divide the population so that a sample frame based on the characteristics of a sub-group of interest may be designed. In this way, the population was stratified so that a distinction could be made between potential participants who were likely to have knowledge of the various nation branding activities and processes, and those who were not.
Secondly, stakeholder sampling, known to be useful in policy analysis (Given, 2008) was adopted for the purpose of identifying potential participants from the stratified sample. Finally, having reduced the stratified sample using a stakeholder sampling technique, the sample was reviewed taking into account the principles of a maximum variation sample. In this way, individuals known to represent a spectrum of positions in relation to the nation brand were identified and added to the potential sample frame.
3.4.3.2 Interview Process
As far as the interview process is concerned (Figure 3.5), following the confirmation of interviews, each informant received a tailored interview pack which explained the following: background and purpose of the research, the informant’s role in the research, the voluntary nature of participation, protection of anonymity and privacy, interview topics, use, preservation and disposal of data and where to raise concerns or complaints about the research.
Figure 3.5 Interview Process
3.4.3.3 Interview Content
Interviews were semi-structured and other than PMVA02, were carried out face-to-face and lasted between 45 minutes and two hours long, most lasting for over an hour. The rationale for developing semi-structured interviews was bound by the pragmatic epistemological stance of this research, where a pragmatic concept of inquiry would allow for producing accounts of the Isle of Man’s nation brand that could be practically examined in combination with the quantitative data (Guia, et al., 2009). As the perspectives of informants are unique, semi-structured interviews were utilised in order to allow for the exploration of views, insight, experiences and attitudes towards the Isle of Man and its nation brand (Robson, 2002). Thus, through being inevitably exploratory in their nature (Cooper and Schindler, 2008), issues of reliability are acknowledged as far as the interviews were not intended to be repeated, because the views expressed reflect attitudes at the time in which the data was collected. Also, the interview pack intended to promote validity and a degree of reliability, by describing the themes to be covered in the interviews. However, in order to allow for flexibility and because interaction with interviewees was considered likely to impact the manner in which the data was collected (Silverman, 2007), interviewees were informed that the range of questions described
in the interview pack were ‘a guide only’, thus allowing for interviews to be circuitous and conversational (Brannen and Collard, 1994).
While the desired atmosphere of the interviews was that they would be conversational, as the aim was not to uncover specific responses, but was to engage the informant in discussion of the nation brand. It was taken into account that developing a non-directive rapport with informants and allowing them to talk freely about the nation brand may be forestalled by differing degrees of knowledge and interest. Thus, although unstructured interviews may have been more appropriate for exploring perspectives of the nation brand, the decision to develop a set of standard and back-up question was deemed necessary in the likelihood that such a rapport could not be developed. To allow for the flexibility required in exploring aspects of the nation brand, at the same time as maintaining a reasonable degree of control should rapport not be established, a list of 14 standardised questions were developed along with supplementary questions geared specifically to each of the category classification.
In addition to the initial set of questions, a further set of 4 category classification specific questions were developed (Supplementary Question Set A). Again, the purpose of these specific questions was to allow for the eventuality that informants would not engage in in-depth discussion, thus allowing for the solicitation of specific information relating to the informants views and experiences of the brand. The supplementary questions for members of the steering committee, that could apply to SCPR01, CSKS02 and PMVF05, were based on Bramwell and Sharman’s (1999) collaboration framework. The motivation for basing these question on this particular framework was that the framework allows examination of collaboration and power imbalances amongst stakeholders. Moreover, its variables and measurements correspond with a number of the critical success factors and basic conditions put forward in other works on the subject (Gray, 1989; Reed, 1997; Sautter and Leisen, 1999; Morrison, et al., 2004). Thus, taking into account the importance afforded to managing the gamut of stakeholders involved in nation branding (Anholt, 2005b) along with the necessity for
interrelationship between nation branding actors or systems remonstrated throughout this research, Bramwell and Sharman’s (1999) framework is considered an appropriate basis for uncovering the manner in which the steering committee was established and operated, particularly with reference to the issues with legitimising stakeholders described in Chapter 2.
For those current politicians who voted for or against the recommendations of The Branding Project Report (2006), a set of five supplementary questions were developed. These questions sought to obtain specific information relating to their attitudes towards the brand at the time of voting (Q1 and Q2) as well as their perspectives of the nation brand at the time of the interview. Likewise, to solicit information pertaining to the informants perceptions of the nation brand, 5 supplementary questions were developed for current politicians who were not elected at the time the vote was cast (Table 3.2).
# Question
Current politicians present at vote (Set B)
What were your reasons for voting for/against of the Branding Project Report? Do you think others made the right decision?
Do you think it has been value for money?
At the time, some members of Tynwald expressed that they felt left out of the project, did you?
One of the major concerns, at the time, was getting the message of freedom to flourish out to the people; do you think this was achieved?
Current politicians not elected at the time the vote was cast (Set C)
Had you been elected at the time the Branding Project Report was discussed in Tynwald, would you have voted in favour of, or against it?
Do you think others made the right decision? Do you think it has been value for money?
Are you involved in Freedom to Flourish in anyway?
One of the major concerns, at the time, was getting the message of freedom to flourish out to the people; do you think this was achieved?
Table 3.2 Supplementary Question Set B & C
Thus, in total, four sets of questions were developed prior to the interviews taking place: 1) standard questions that would open the interviews, but also serve as the main content, should the interview not evolve in a conversational manner, 2) supplementary question set A, that would serve to
produce additional content for steering committee members, 3) supplementary question set B, produced for the same reason as A, but for politicians who voted for or against The Branding Project Report (2006) and, 4) supplementary question set C, geared to current politicians not elected at the time the vote was cast. Following the loose or flexible nature of the interview framework, it was not considered vital that every informant answered the above questions, particularly if the opening questions led to discussion on the informants perspectives of the nation brand. However, to maintain a degree of control and to ensure the data collected would be of use in addressing the research objectives, judgement was used to provide balance in the way that while informants could digress, discussion should remain relevant to the research.
As such, reflecting the flexible interview framework, although interviews covered similar topics based on the Island’s nation brand, as the intention was to allow essence to emerge (Cameron, Schaffer & Hyeon-Ae, 2001) via an interchange of views between two persons conversing about a theme of mutual interest (Kvale, 1996, p.1), no two interviews were the same. Thus, facilitating accounts differing perspectives and points of view, and providing varying descriptions of experiences of the nation brand (Bentz and Shapiro, 1998, p. 96).