Interviews

The most influential information for the research was acquired from interviews. In fact, the primary data largely depends on the interviewees. As mentioned earlier, the approach was used in both case studies. The process involved two different stages: pilot interviews and primary interviews. For this matter, the researcher opted for ‘purposive or judgmental sampling’ which happens to be a form of the ‘non- probability sample’ (Neuman, 2007). This type of sampling is best used for qualitative research that seeks to understand cases in detail and is often used in exploratory and in-depth investigation, related to perceptions and experience (Neuman, 2007). O’Leary (2010:p169) suggested the use of this approach if the research is “working with key informants” and “attempting to gather some insider or expert knowledge”. In relation to this, O’Leary (2010:p172) suggests that ‘key informants’ can include “experts, or insiders, or the highly experienced, or a leader, or former staff, or even the observant [individual’s in an organisation or community who have a reputation for knowing who’s who and what’s what]”.

92

The pilot interviews were conducted at an early stage of primary data collection in September 2010, while the primary interviews for MW were completed from December 2010 to February 2011, while interviews for LV took place in September 2011. The pilot interviews were designed as a preparation for the primary interviews and surveys. The purpose was to aid this researcher with key information in order to construct the interview questions and questionnaires in the next level. The benefit of going through this process was that it had enabled the researcher to further develop the questions and modify any deficiencies within the research (O’Leary, 2010). This factor was very much influenced by Yin’s (2009:p92) work which suggested that a pilot case study enables the researcher to improve the process of data collection.

The research applied a semi-structured interview questions, allowing a permissive interview process, especially in terms of getting the information from the interviewees. The semi-structured interview method promotes flexibility in terms of response, perception and attitude, as compared to restricted close- ended questions (Patton, 1990; Burns, 2000; Bennett, 2003; Walliman, 2005). The practice was more of an exploratory discussion. The idea of exploratory interviews was to acquire information on the interviewee’s experiences, beliefs and perceptions. To Burns (2000:p425), the list of questions for an in- depth interview does not have to be regulated and the idea is to initiate “a free-flowing conversation”. Additionally, a report by the Central Course Team (1979) mentioned that the initial design of the research can be modified as exploratory interviews can result in profound information and ideas. In fact it could also provide new perspectives about the research.

The researcher classified the area of investigation into several key topics. These topics tended to differ from one interviewee to another, reflecting on the background of the interviewees within the organisation. The set of questions has a basic format and structure, with similar subjects of inquiry as a guide. The element of flexibility was imposed here and questions tend to be added or excluded based on the role and responsibility of the interviewee, as well as their experience within the programme. There were questions that needed to be instantly added if discussion was seen as encouraging thereby fostering more information. It is the nature of conversation that some intended plan was not possible and it is the character of an exploratory investigation that enables an interviewee to be probed to elaborate more. However, taken as a whole, the broad main subjects that guided the interview process were:

a) Experience with the programme;

b) The preliminary stage of programme delivery; c) The process of programme implementation; d) The mechanism applied throughout its delivery; e) The organisation and management;

f) The knowledge in benchmarking;

g) The key success factors affecting programme delivery; h) Issues and problems related to programme delivery;

93 i) The outcome of the programme; and

j) Expectations and recommendations from interviewees.

In the case of the number of interviewees, the researcher adopted the idea by Stake (1995:p4) which mentioned, “case study research is not sampling research”. To him, “case studies are undertaken to make the case understandable” (Stake, 1995:p85). Additionally, Burns (2000:p465) also addressed the same issue and said “non-probability sampling is more often applied in case study”. It is therefore apparent that, sampling strategy is not an issue here. In another account, Dixon, Bouma and Atkinson (1988) state that research which seeks to examine a small group does not require a sampling method as the subject can represent the whole group. For this reason, the research targets to interview no less than fifteen interviewees from each major case study. This number is believed to be adequate as this researcher plans to interview those with experience in relation to programme delivery and can respond to specific interview questions (see Appendix 2 for Sample of MW Interview Questions and Appendix 3for Sample of LV Interview Questions). Additionally, these interviewees were expected to supplement the information from secondary data. In short, it was also the idea that it is not the huge number of interviewees that matters, instead, it is the information needed from the right person. Because of this, this researcher believed that certain position, role and involvement within the regional park organisation may provide the required information. It was then decided that interviewees should be among the Board Members, the Executive Team and Project Managers. In reaching this target, the interview plan had included every potential participant in the assignment.

Meanwhile, in relation to the interview process, interviews were mostly conducted through the face-to- face method and a few were carried out via telephone calls. Nonetheless, for both techniques, interview conversations were recorded. Each interview lasted about one to one and a half hours while the face-to- face interviews took place at the interviewee’s office.

For MW, even though the research required 15 interviewees, a total of 31 possible participants were contacted. These potential interviewees included the Chief Executive, Board Members, the Executive Team and Project Managers. Of these targeted participants, 21 interviewees were conducted (see Appendix 4 for the list of MW interviewees). The range of interviewees included seven individuals from the current Board, four former Board Members, five from the current Management Group, four individuals from the former Executive Team and an interviewee with the MW / The Mersey Partnership (TMP) Representative. This meant that the research had gained access to 67% of its total potential participants.

In the case of LV, the first effort was to contact the Chief Executive of LVRPA, in order to seek permission and gain access to information. A positive response was received, and this researcher was

94

referred to a senior officer who was assigned to coordinate the process. Originally, the research aimed to interview 15 personnel, including the Chief Executive, Board Members, Head of Departments and Project Managers. For this reason too, several names were proposed for interviews. It was then realised that during the time when this research was planning to conduct the interviews (in June 2011), the LVRPA was facing a huge task in delivering Olympic facilities. And, because of this, access to interview was partially granted to certain individuals. Access was therefore gained to interview four key actors of LVRPA; the Chief Executive, the Head of Planning & Strategic Partnerships, the Assistant Director Resources & Business and the Head of Performance & Information (see Appendix 5 for list of LV interviewees).Nevertheless, it was evident that the four key officers had provided sufficient information, along with the secondary data available. These individuals holding important posts and role within the Lee Valley Authority Park Authority had offered the necessary data needed and therefore it can be determined that having four key players with absolute information are adequate and satisfactory for the research purposes. As O’Leary (2010:p171) believes, “key informants can be instrumental in giving you access to a world you might have otherwise tried to understand while being locked on the outside”.

In terms of the interview arrangements, the approach was different for each case study. For MW, every potential interviewee was contacted through e-mail and telephone calls. Along with the e-mails, the permission of each possible participant was sought and was given a copy of the research background and the interview questions. This was mainly done for the purpose of ethical obligations (further explanation on this matter is discussed in Section 5.11 of this chapter). Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, for LV, authorisation was requested from the Chief Executive of the LVRPA.