Study 1 Data Collection

Study 1 used interviews as the primary method of data collection within four NGB case studies. Interviews are one of the most important sources of case study evidence and this mode of data collection involves verbal information from a participant and is driven by the researcher (Yin, 2013). Grix (2010) reinforces the importance of using interviews as part of a triangulated method, rather than the sole research method. This allowed the investigation of the social phenomena through different methods, which provided a more objective approach.

The study aimed to give a deeper insight into non-traditional sports and the processes surrounding policy implementation. This study is formed of an embedded, multi-case design, which comprised of interviews with individuals involved with four minority sports, to gain an insight and to evaluate the impact of London 2012 Games and the mechanisms that the interviewees created and implemented to make the most of the legacy objective. CR is well suited to case study research that examines complex issues such as organisations or inter-organisational relationships; as “it justifies the

study of any situation, regardless of the number of research units… with the objective of understanding why things are as they are” (Easton, 2010, p.119).

The interview participants included both NGB staff (policy creators), as well as the clubs and coaches themselves (policy delivers) to investigate the

implementation process from its conception to its delivery. NGBs are ‘network’

organisations and they operate via a network of regional structures and VSCs. When investigating their performance, it is essential to examine the role and management of other organisations in the network, as well as the headquarters themselves (Bayle and Robinson, 2007). As such, this underlined the importance of examining the process of implementation from the national level (NGB staff) through to the individual VSC perspective, to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the diverse network was achieved.

Interview Process

Interviews enable participants to talk about their experiences and provide their own account of the social phenomena under investigation. This allows rich data and often unexpected data to emerge, especially in unstructured or semi-structured interviews (Gratton and Jones, 2004). Face to face interviews allow analysis of

participant’s body language, tone of voice and facial expressions, which can provide critical information about the participant’s beliefs or approach (Gratton and Jones,

2004). The major benefit, is the opportunity for the researcher to build up trust and establish a rapport, encouraging the discovery of the richest data possible (Gratton and Jones, 2004).

There are four main types of interviews, a) unstructured, b) semi-structured, c) structured and d) group interviews or focus groups, as they are also known. Semi- structured interviews involve the researcher having a set number of questions relating to the research area, although they are not in a predetermined order. Additional probing during the interviews, allowed expansion using subsidiary questions, ensuring flexibility when required (Gratton and Jones, 2004). This was the selected method for the current research, as the results could still be compared with the views of other respondents and statistics can be used (Grix, 2010).

Group interviews, sometimes referred to as focus groups, can be structured, semi structured or unstructured in nature. In this context, it is the role of researcher to act as a facilitator to stimulate discussions, rather than acting as an interviewer (Gratton and Jones, 2004). This method was used during the initial exploratory stage, prior to study 1 and 2, and they aided the development of the interview script and survey template. The script was created through a triangulated method, with the focus group data being used in conjunction with existing literature and document analysis.

Furthermore, group interviews were used on a few occasions during study 1, when enough information was not known by one VSC coach individually. For example, one VSC coach that was contacted by the researcher had only been volunteering at the club post London 2012 and was unable to provide information on programmes, advertising and participation changes during the pre-London 2012 period. Consequently, another coach that was volunteering pre-London 2012 also

participated in the interview to provide a more holistic perspective of the clubs’

affiliation to the same club, the focus group provided an advantageous solution. More detail on the specific sports and clubs that were used within this research are highlighted in the next section and the data analysis for the interview data is described in the next chapter.

Overcoming the disadvantages of interviews

Grix (2010) highlights that one of the main problems with interviews is the access to participants, especially if you are trying to use hard to reach or senior individuals. To limit the possible issues with access, contact was made via email first, with the key individuals within the NGBs and VSCs to see if they would be willing to participate in the research. This initial contact ensured a relationship was already established between the researcher and the participants. The resources required for interviews are more intensive than questionnaires, with extra pressures on time, travelling and the financial elements which form a consequence of the interview process. This study was conscious of these issues and they were accounted for when possible.

Skype interviews were used as an alternative method when face-to-face interviews were not practicable. Hanna (2012) argued that Skype is the most feasible alternative to traditional face-to-face interviews, because the software provides a simultaneous interaction between the participant and researcher. In addition, due to the live video feed, this reduces the suggested limitations around physical interaction

and the researcher’s ability to build a rapport and trust with the participant (Evans, Elford and Wiggins, 2008). Further, benefits worth noting are the “low costs, ease of

access and minimization of eco- logical dilemmas... In addition, both the researcher and the researched can remain in a ‘safe location’ without imposing on each other’s

personal space” (Hanna, 2012, p.241)

Additionally, Grix (2010) reinforces the importance of listening and analysing the interview data, as soon as possible after the data collection itself. Otherwise there may be issues with interpretation later. This ensures that the clearest possible idea can be drawn from the data and any issues or clarifications that are needed can be addressed. Thus, for this study the recording, with any field notes were transcribed within one week of each data collection period, so participants could be emailed if any clarifications were needed. An important consideration is the equipment used and making sure it is suitable and the researcher familiarised themselves, as one does not

want to waste time working out how the equipment works or having a recording error (Grix, 2010). This issue was overcome, through two recording devices being used for every interview to limit the chances of any errors in recording or quality issues. Furthermore, a pilot interview was undertaken prior to data collection to ensure the researcher was comfortable with the equipment and the quality of the recording could be checked.