Stage 1 Pre-interview questionnaire

Though traditionally some researchers advocate the use of questionnaires primarily for quantitative research, Yin (2003) points out that the case study researcher often has a wide array of approaches available to carry out case study research, which may include the use of both questionnaires and interviews. A similar view is also shared by other researchers such as Creswell et al. (2007), John-Steiner and Mahn (1996), Wang and Hannafin (2005) and Baxter and Jack (2008), who suggest that investigators within case study research can collect and integrate quantitative survey data with other qualitative approaches. However, the aim of the researcher here was not to combine quantitative methods with qualitative methods of data collection and analysis (also known as mixed methods), but was to employ the use of a questionnaire primarily to gather preliminary data about the participants, and to secure their willingness to participate in the interviews. The interviews were the main source of data for the research.

An online questionnaire created by the researcher using the Bristol Online Survey (BOS) was administered to the participants. Creating and administering the questionnaires online was considered to be the most convenient way of carrying this out due to constraints posed by distance between the researcher and the respondents, cost implications associated with printing and posting questionnaires, and the limited time available to complete this phase of the research. This method makes it easy to obtain responses and also to have automated data, which minimises research effort and time.

As noted by Bouchard (1976), the development of a questionnaire, like any other measuring instrument in the social sciences, requires a great deal of work before it is ready for field use. A list of some considerations to be made when formulating questions and responses in a questionnaire was highlighted by Bryman (2008) and Kumar (2005), which the researcher kept in mind when developing the pre-interview questionnaire for the study. For instance, it was important for the questionnaire to be worded in a clear and simple language without the use of any technical jargon. There was also the need to avoid ambiguous questions as different respondents could

interpret them differently. This also meant that questions and choice of answers needed to be clear and concise. Furthermore, there was a need for the researcher to ensure that no questions were asked based on assumptions. For example, a question such as ‘how does your performance in the London 2012 Olympics compare to your previous Olympic performance’ assumes that the respondent had been involved in previous Olympics. The researcher had to pay careful attention to these factors during the pilot phase of the questionnaire before the actual launch.

One of the aims of using the questionnaire was to help the researcher gain an understanding about the background of the participants and the NOCs they represented. Questions were asked concerning the role of the participants within their country’s NOC and their job description. This was to ensure that the participants were able to express the views of their country’s NOCs. The questionnaire also sought to ascertain the level of involvement the participants had in the planning and preparation of their country’s NOC for the London 2012 Olympics and what specific roles they played. The purpose of this was to further validate the views provided by the participants. Also, importantly, the questionnaire was aimed at establishing the interview preferences for the participants in order to help the researcher plan and schedule follow-up interviews. The questionnaire also helped the researcher identify what needed to be explored in the interviews.

A test-run of the questionnaire was conducted by the researcher among non- participants of the study, most of who were other PhD students at the University of Salford. The purpose of conducting the pilot was to test the effectiveness of the questionnaire in achieving its aim, thereby testing the adequacy of the instrument. The pilot process also provided the opportunity for the researcher to know the average time it would take the participants to complete the questionnaire in the actual survey.

Furthermore, the pilot was carried out to enhance the structural validity of the questionnaire as feedback provided by the pilot team helped the researcher in identifying any difficult or ambiguous questions/statements in the questionnaire. This gave the researcher the chance to add, delete, re-word or re-scale response options for questions, and to ensure the questionnaire instructions were clear and concise enough for the participants.

82

Though most of the participants were quite happy with the structure of the questionnaire, a few comments were raised around the response options for some of the questions. For example, there was a question in the interview preference section that required the participants to select their preferred contact method for the interview from the options provided in the questionnaire. Following feedback from the pilot, the researcher rephrased this question to allow participants to indicate their own preferred contact method rather than select from options provided in the questionnaire, as these may not have been extensive enough. Also, there was a question (Section 3 of the questionnaire) that required the participants to compare the project management of the London 2012 Olympics with the last four Olympics held in Beijing, Athens, Sydney and Atlanta. This question was later removed completely as the feedback from the pilot suggested that not all the participants involved in the London Olympics would have been involved in previous Olympic Games, and also because there was no direct link to the research objectives. The participants in the pilot took around 15 minutes on average to complete the questionnaire and this time was advised to the actual participants as the estimated completion time for the survey.

Those involved in the pilot expressed their satisfaction with completing the questionnaire online, as there were no technical difficulties experienced. The researcher also ensured that there were no challenges in accessing the responses on the BOS website, and all the options for analysing the responses functioned appropriately. The pilot process took one week to complete and the actual survey was launched shortly after this, one sent to each of the 53 African NOCs.

The advantages in using a pre-interview questionnaire included:

 the questionnaire was considered a quick and inexpensive means of gathering preliminary data from the participants;

 using the questionnaire, it was possible to gather data from participants in a widely spread geographical population;

 the questionnaire provided a good first hand background about the participants and the NOCs they represent; and

 the questionnaire was an ‘icebreaker’ in the relationship built between the researcher and the participant as they became more comfortable and willing to take part in interviews subsequently.

Some disadvantages in the use of the pre-interview questionnaire were identified as:

 participants had to be literate to respond to the questionnaire;

 access to the internet was needed as the questionnaire was dispatched online; and

 using the questionnaire required respondents to answer questions without any help from the researcher. In addressing this, the researcher ensured that questions were simple and clear enough for the respondents. This was achieved through the pilot carried out before the actual launch of the questionnaire.