Case Selection

In case study research, the researcher first identifies the phenomenon of interest and then selects one or more cases for rigorous examination (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2007; Yin, 2009). A purposeful case selection “can best inform the researcher about the research problem under examination” (Creswell, 2013, p. 147), which is why three cases were purposively selected. Case selection was based on criteria including geographic location; accessibility (Yin, 2009); awareness of university interest or involvement with the Commonwealth Games stakeholders; and university research of the Games. Each criterion was identified during PhD supervisor meetings and was based on a realistic timeframe, financial constraints of travel and data collection, and the level of accessibility to key informants. Therefore, I purposively identified and selected Melbourne 2006, Glasgow 2014, and Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games for this research. The next section explains in greater detail why each of these Games was included.

4.3.1 Melbourne 2006 selection criteria

I included Melbourne 2006 for five key reasons. First, according to the

79

previous Commonwealth Games held in Manchester 2002, justifying further exploration of how other Games stakeholders, such as universities were involved with legacy. Second, Deakin University in Melbourne hosted the 20th _{annual Sport Management}

Association of Australia and New Zealand (SMAANZ) conference, which created an opportunity for me to network with stakeholders of the 2006 Games and conduct interviews with many key informants in one location. The conference contributed to snowballing (Gall et al., 2007, p. 185) of interviewees, as I was often immediately introduced to another informant after an interview was conducted. Third, the 2006 Games were held in Australia, the country where I lived when I began my PhD studies, and it is only a two and a half hour flight from the Gold Coast (the city in which I lived), making it time and cost effective to travel for data collection. Fourth, my supervisors have extensive networks in Melbourne and provided contacts to potential informants. Finally, it is the most recent Games to take place in Australia, providing a similar context for comparing and contrasting the Gold Coast case.

4.3.2 Glasgow 2014

I included Glasgow 2014 for four key reasons. First, it is the most recent Commonwealth Games to occur. Second, Games-related websites and documents suggested that legacy initiatives were embedded in the Glasgow bid and within the OC, increasing the importance of legacy to the Games. In addition, these documents also suggested that universities would have an official relationship with the Games. Second, Scotland is culturally similar to Australia with regard to customs, economy, and

language, however, with an element of difference, as it is in the context of the UK. Third, as part of my PhD professional development program, I planned to present a paper and travel to the European Association of Sport Management (EASM) conference in Dublin, Ireland. Therefore, a one-hour flight from Dublin to Glasgow

80

after the conference was a time and cost efficient way to collect data. Lastly, the first trip to Glasgow unearthed more potential interviewees. I was able to organise a second trip to Glasgow because Policy Scotland invited and funded me to present my

preliminary research results at the First International Legacy Network Conference in Glasgow. By the time of the second trip to Scotland (October 2015), I was based in London; therefore, travelling to Glasgow was time and cost efficient. At the Policy Scotland legacy conference, I was able to conduct more interviews with key informants, which also snowballed into additional interviews.

4.3.3 Gold Coast 2018

I included Gold Coast 2018 because I was based in the Gold Coast for five years, and I am a PhD candidate at one of the universities in the host region. As an insider, I was able to gain access to key informants within my own university; however, I was aware that other universities in the region could perceive me as a threat or

someone with whom they would not want to share their university’s strategic plans. I worked to overcome any uneasiness that participants felt about providing sensitive information by developing a rapport with them and building trust. I ensured that the information they provided was for research purposes only, confidential, and I would not share it with their competitors (other universities).

At the time of case selection (August 2013), Griffith University did not have any formal partnerships or associations with the Commonwealth Games. However, since this research has commenced andpost interview data collection, Griffith University has become an official partner of the Commonwealth Games (as of 6 October 2015). At the time of interview data collection this relationship was still considered a commercial in confidence arrangement. Whilst interviewees alluded to these negotiations much of the interview data does not acknowledge the official partnership. Although there was a

81

change in Griffith University’s relationship with the 2018 Games my interview data collection took place prior to the official partnership announcement. Thipartnership marks the first time that a university has been an official partner of the Commonwealth Games. The official partnership contributes to the justification that further research is needed regarding the university–Commonwealth Games relationship in order to inform future universities in host regions about potential opportunities of maximising

collaboration and strategies to achieve legacy.

4.3.4 Identification of universities within each case

Once the three cases were selected, I then identified universities within each host city and more specifically, key informants within those universities, to participate. First, I used Google’s search engine to explore key terms such as “Commonwealth Games” and “university” or “universities”. This search was then refined to specific

Commonwealth Games (e.g. “Melbourne 2006”) plus the search terms “university” or “universities” to target specific universities involved. Using Google maps, I plotted where each of the three Games were located and identified all the universities in the city (see Appendix B).

Then, I conducted a more refined search using Google and Google Scholar to search for specific universities and any mention of Commonwealth Games (e.g. “University of Glasgow” and “Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games”). Next I visited the website for each of the universities initially identified. In the search engine of each university’s website, I searched for “Commonwealth Games” followed by the specific Commonwealth Games hosted in the city (e.g. “Glasgow 2014”) to try and find press releases or articles within university archives involving that specific university and the relevant Games.

82

After discussions with my supervisors about how best to organise the

information, I categorised universities in each Games case based on criteria including university involvement with the Commonwealth Games OC; university involvement with other Games stakeholders, such as local government; university directed research on the Commonwealth Games; and university involvement with legacies of the Commonwealth Games. Based on these criteria, I created an excel spreadsheet of the search results and documents collected and identified 135 potential participants, whom I subsequently contacted to request their participation in my study.

The within and cross-case relationships analysed are displayed in Figure 4 below. Although the universities in each case had similarities, some differences were also found to be considered, including proximity to the Games Village (or competition sites); size of faculty/student body; research agendas; programs offered; and the universities’ strategic objectives. The similarities and differences underpinned the importance of conducting within case analysis (i.e. universities associated with the 2006 Melbourne Games), and these results are presented in Chapter Five.

83

Figure 4: Schema of case relationships examined in this research

The cross-case analysis provided understanding of each university’s strategy related to the Commonwealth Games and determined if there was a common strategy between the universities or if their strategies varied and why. The next section outlines data collection and sources of evidence collected for this research.