Preparing the interview sample for this research

The approach to sampling of interview participants was ‘purposeful’ or ‘selective’, which is a deliberate sampling strategy where preconceived categories are used to identify the research group and constraints such as time are taken into account (Coyne, 1997). The target was experts working with design in strategic public and civic sector contexts. To capture insights about where there might be barriers to adoption and to develop balanced data about the impacts of design, two types of experts were interviewed:

● practitioners (experts usually with design training responsible for delivering design activity) (10 people) and,

● commissioners (experts with non-design training responsible for procuring or commissioning design) (5 people).

The pool of experts working with design in strategic public and civic sector contexts is relatively small, and all the participants were previously known to the researcher from professional work - none declined to participate in the research. Prior acquaintance between researcher and participants influenced the sample but it also enabled better access to expert participants. A list of potential participants was drawn up; initially 10 participants were selected, but the sample size was quickly increased to 15 in order to enlarge the data set. There was a small amount of overlap between the qualitative interview participants and the other research strategies: one practitioner in the qualitative interviews also participated in the case study interviews and two other practitioners were involved in the expert conversations for the survey project.

Although the interview participants were known to the researcher, the sample selection criteria were as follows:

- Expert in the field of design in public and civic sectors

- Holding a senior level position or with responsibility for significant projects

- Has public profile e.g. published works, held several high-profile roles, public speaker - Representation from practitioners and commissioners

- A mix of respondents working inside and outside government

Geographic spread was considered in building the sample but it was thought to be less significant than gaining insights from leading experts. Nonetheless, the experts were located in five different countries, many of them worked internationally and five of them were not speaking in their first language during their interviews. Demographic information was collected but factors such as age, gender and nationality were also less important than the level of participant’s expertise and profile in the sector.

The qualitative interview sample represents leading international experts. The expert commissioners included directors of multi-million pound/dollar funding programmes in foundations such as the Big Lottery Fund in the UK and Robin Hood Foundation in New York, and prominent civil servants inside city administrations in Singapore and the United States. The expert practitioners included designers involved in defining policy programmes at the Policy Lab in the UK Cabinet Office and at the Office of Personnel Management in Washington DC, as well as those working for national governments and multinational organisations like the UN or embedded in prominent institutions such as Bloomberg Philanthropies. Some experts worked in

both the public, civic and private sectors, although the interviews focussed only on their public and civic sector activity. The interview sample is included in Fig. 3.11.

Prior to the interviews, the participants were contacted by email and the research purposes and likely questions were outlined. In addition, a consent form with a written summary of the research hypothesis and potential uses of interview data was enclosed. The consent form was developed from Gillham (2005, pp.12-13). The consent form is included at Appendix 2. The qualitative interview quotes are referenced as ‘INT’ in the data analysis chapters.

Fig. 3.11: Qualitative interviews with expert practitioners and commissioners, sample Code Job title Org Org Type Location Design Role Training

Fund Foundation London, UK Commissioner Policy

INT 3 Managing Director

Executive With You Charity London, UK Commissioner Policy INT 5 Service Design

Lead Snook Commercial London, UK Practitioner

Graphic and Packaging Design INT 6 Director The Public

Policy Lab Not-for-profit New York,

USA Practitioner Urban Design INT 8 Course Director Royal College

of Art Charity London, UK Practitioner Architecture INT 9 Strategic Design

Director Dot Everyone Not-for-profit London, UK Practitioner Textile and Service Design

Government Singapore Commissioner Policy

INT 11 Director, Design

INT 12 Delivery Director UsCreates Commercial London, UK Practitioner Graphic Design and Policy

INT 13 Senior Programme Manager

Bloomberg

Philanthropies Foundation New York,

USA Practitioner Graphic Design INT 14 Director

These were in depth interviews with subject specialists, and respondents were therefore encouraged to express their ideas spontaneously and in their own words. An interview guide was also designed ahead of the interviews, which aimed to probe the key considerations about design framed through the Literature Review and emergent concepts from the case study and survey project. The interview guide also needed to ensure that the research aims and questions were comprehensive to interview participants (Gillham 2005, p.19). The guide was designed to enable questions to be “as open and projective as possible” (Oppenheim 1992, p.74).

Overall, the experts were asked about their background and current work. They were also asked about key themes emerging from the other data, including i) their working processes ii) the outputs of their work iii) how their work takes place and with whom. In addition, they were asked about their perceptions of the strengths and limitations in design activity in strategic contexts, and how they would like to see their work develop.

Two versions of the guide were prepared, one for design practitioners and one for the experts with experience of commissioning design. The commissioners were asked how they had used design and where they first encountered it, whereas practitioners were asked more specifically about their own design practice and working contexts. As the interviews progressed, key themes became clearer and there were some issues that were deliberately not probed in later interviews to allow more time for topics that appeared less frequently in the interview data as a whole.