Data Collection

2.3.1.1 General aspects of data collection

The data collection process involved multiple sources of data: semi-structured interviews, observation, documents, pictures, videos, reports, and news. Given that Pragmatists believe individuals can influence the phenomenon as active agents (Dewey, 1929; Rosenthal and Bourgeois, 1980), diverse people from different organisations, departments, and hierarchical positions were interviewed. Further, Pragmatism suggests that truth is changeable; i.e. people’s notions of the truth about things change (Baert, 2005). This indicated the need for a longitudinal research design in order to capture changes over time and to understand the dynamics of TSCs. Therefore, interview questions were designed to capture the functioning of TSCs in different phases of work. In practical terms, first, I sought to understand the nature of TSCs by exploring their main characteristics in terms of relationships, processes, configuration, and challenges. Second, I aimed to understand their functioning over time – which contextual variables trigger their deployment; how they are structured; how they develop considering the relation between required outcomes and dynamic environments; and what happens when TSCs terminate.

The development of the interview protocols happened as follows. Initial interview questions were designed to obtain general information about the temporary contexts of

51

interest and about supply chain elements and dynamics. This was primarily based on the literature review on TOs and supply chains and on secondary data available in the public domain (DC1). These initial protocols were discussed in the 2015 EurOMA Conference Doctoral Seminar, where valuable feedback was relevant to refine the instruments. After initial interviews in the second phase of data collection (DC2), some questions were abandoned, and others included. The new set of interview questions was then used in the third phase of data collection (DC3). However, depending on the interviewees’ profile (e.g. experience, position, and department), new important questions could emerge, and others could be irrelevant, being then ignored. Therefore, the instruments were adapted/adjusted to the research participants’ profiles. Over time, the data collection instruments were constantly adapted and improved. Appendix A presents the interview protocols.

Data collection involved a total of 56 semi-structured interviews with professionals from 16 temporary and enduring (public, private, and humanitarian) organisations, who worked in the temporary contexts explored. Participants were selected intentionally according to their functions and hierarchy positions (Miles et al., 2014). Some of them had previous experience in working in temporary settings, such as the World Cup, the Pan American Games, and multiple relief responses. Most of the interviews were carried out in person and a few by Skype depending on the interviewees’ location and availability. In total, 45 hours of interviews were recorded and transcribed for further analysis. Because anonymity was ensured to the research participants, pseudonyms are used when referring to literal quotes. Appendix B details the interviewees’ profiles.

The interviewing process unfolded as follows. First, I provided a brief overview of my study and gave the interviewee the Information Sheet and the Consent Form to read (Appendices C and D). Once they agreed to continue, they signed the form and then we

52

started the interview. I always started by asking the person to tell me about her/his duties. Then, I focused on specific aspects such as the operation, the phases of work in the TSC, the use of IT, challenges, and changes. At the end of the interviews, I used to ask the interviewee to suggest other people I could interview. Through ‘snowballing’, the initial interviewees enabled access to further respondents. This process was ended when new interviews stopped adding new and relevant information (data saturation).

2.3.1.2 Data collection in each empirical context

This study adopts a combination of two pieces of fieldwork, one retrospective and one real-time, in line with Leonard-Barton’s (1990) study about technology implementation. One of the main advantages of retrospective longitudinal studies is that “outcomes are known in advance, and the researcher has an idea about what a process study will have to explain (…) As long as temporal chronologies can be reconstructed from archival data and interviewing, retrospective studies can be an efficient and effective approach. Indeed, some interesting award‐winning process analyses of change have emerged from studies that were largely retrospective” (Langley and Tsoukas, 2010, p. 11-12). One of the main advantages of real-time longitudinal studies is that, “there is an immeasurable gain in the richness of temporal recording, particularly so when it comes to studying interactions among people, and to recording people’s perceptions and understandings at different points in time” (Langley and Tsoukas, 2010, p. 12). This study benefits from the combination of both types of longitudinal studies. Therefore, the data collection process was distinct in the contexts investigated.

The extensive availability of archive data about the 2014/2015 Ebola Response enabled the study of this TSC retrospectively. There were hundreds of documents available in the public domain, which enabled the collection of multiple types of

53

secondary data (reports, news, procedures, photos, and maps) through different sources. Examples are the International Health Regulations, the United Nations Ebola Emergency Response (UNMEER) brief, and reports from key organisations (e.g. the United Nations – UN, the World Health Organisation – WHO, Médecins Sans Frontières – MSF, and the United Nations Children's Fund – UNICEF) available in their institutional websites. On the WHO’s website alone, there are more than 300 Ebola situation reports. Furthermore, data were collected from important databases such as the Global Ebola Response archive, which provides several news items and documents detailing the evolution of the outbreak, and the Humanitarian Data Exchange database, which provides more than 60 datasets about different aspects of the Response. More details about the documents analysed in this empirical setting are presented in Appendix E. Additionally, I have interviewed key informants from some member organisations of the TSC who worked in the countries most affected (Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone) during the Response.

For the 2016 Olympics, data collection consisted of a real-time longitudinal fieldwork. I worked as a volunteer within the 2016 Olympic Games Organising Committee (OGOC), which provided an insider perspective and contextual embeddedness (Tracy, 2013). This enabled a better understanding of contextual aspects and of people’s perceptions. Data collection involved interviews and documents of the OGOC and other organisations within the TSC, such as operational plans, schedules, and maps. These documents described operational procedures within the TSC and IOC’s manuals and guidelines. Additionally, participant observation was a key source of data in this context. “Participant observers accept their role as researchers while they also engage with their field in an active way” (Easterby-Smith et al., 2012, p. 164). Pragmatists emphasize the active role of researchers in creating data and theories

54

through their own actions or close observations of others’ actions (Goldkuhl, 2012). Being a volunteer of the OGOC allowed the observation of decision processes and co- execution of multiple activities on the ground, as well as the assessment of their effects. My work entailed duties such as controlling access, managing timetables, giving information, and allocating cars to clients. This enabled observation of ground-level relationships dynamics (e.g. communication and coordination), decision-making regarding operational issues, on-the-spot training, IT use, and management of unforeseen situations. Additionally, I could visit and work in different Olympic venues, such as the Olympic Park (most of the time), the Olympic Village, Maracanã Stadium, Deodoro Park, Beach Volleyball Arena, the OGOC’s central office, and garages. The main research participants observed were middle-level managers, operational staff, and volunteers. Rich information and perceptions were collected during the working hours and more informally (e.g. during lunchtime). Valuable sources of data, such as photos and videos, complemented the data collection through observation. These were fundamental especially during the data analysis process, where I could go back and recall specific venues and events captured through photos and videos.