To collect more specific data from the stakeholders involved in the case, qualitative interviewing was chosen for the method. More specifically, face-to-face interviews was the primary data collection method. Interviewing is a practical and productive way to collect data which cannot be found in published form (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2008, 80-81). The aim was to collect data from the stakeholders who were working in the Kuusijärvi’s area or involved in the recreational center in any level. Because the project is recent and little written documentation exists, interviewing is the most appropriate method. Additionally, qualitative interviews produce a great amount recent and useful data for future analysis and the response rate for the questions is always 100 percent (Wilkinson and Birmingham 2003). (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008; Wilkinson &
Birmingham 2003.)
According to Warren (2011) a qualitative interview is based on a conversation where researchers are asking questions and listening and the interviewee are answering. The participants are considered as meaning makers instead of passive facets with ready set of answers. The purpose of the qualitative interview is to produce interpretation based on the respondents talk. Additionally, the aim is to understand the respondents’
experiences and life worlds (Warren 2011). According to Eriksson and Kovalainen (2016, 91), the aim of the qualitative interviews is to produce data for the research. The difference between the daily conversations is that the researcher is prepared in advance. Additionally, during the interview, the interviewer focuses on the research topic and questions and builds the conversation around them. These elements were important from my study’s perspective. (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2016; Warren 2011.) By interviewing the participants from public and private sector and other related operators there became a conception about unique experiences, expectation, and practices. The interpretation of the interviewees’ collective view of the current situation was created. I implemented a qualitative interview for the stakeholders of Kuusijärvi
such as entrepreneurs, the city of Vantaa and Metsähallitus to have an idea what are their experiences of open innovation and collaboration about the development of travel business in Kuusijärvi and what possibilities open innovation would give in the future.
Moreover, I was interested in the role of the City of Vantaa from the interviewee’s point of view.
I was pleased to interview these 11 different participators to my research. When asking them to give an interview, all of them agreed immediately after the first inquiry.
Because of this I state that the topic of my research is important to them and that they were willing to discuss face-to-face about the development plan. During the ten interviews, I felt that I was a person easy to approach and that all participators gain an opportunity to tell their views about their situation, experiences about the project and opinions about the city of Vantaa. To discuss generally with someone who is not from the private of the public sector either. I was unbiased facet who listened what others had to say. I state that listening is the main factor in this kind of project. There is a list of participants I asked to have an interview and they all participated:
Laura Muukka, Landscape-Architect, City planning department, the City of Vantaa Pia-Elina Tasanko, Communication Expert, City planning department, the City of Vantaa Annukka Rasinmäki, Special Planner, The national park authority, Administration of Forests (Metsähallitus)
Maarit Engberg, PR-women in Tourism department, the City of Vantaa Rea Hakala, Entrepreneur, Cafe Kuusijärvi
Juha Mäkäräinen, Entrepreneur, Exture Ltd.
Rolf Törrönen, Entrepreneur and Zemppi Registered Association representative Mikko Siemann, Hiking Guide, Like2hike Ltd.
Kati Tyystjärvi, a member of City Council, the City of Vantaa Association (Vantaa-Seura) representative, and a resident of Kuusijärvi-area
Jari Ansio, Entrepreneur and resident of the Kuusijärvi-area
Ari Talusén, Entrepreneur, Artic Hike Helsinki Ltd.
There are three different types of qualitative interviews: structured and standardized, guided and semi-structured and unstructured, informal, open and narrative interviews.
In the structured and standardized qualitative interview type, the questions are the same for all participants. Most of the questions are “what” type of questions. A guided and semi-structured interview includes “what” and “how” questions and they can contain variations. The aim is to recapitulate the topic and issues. Unstructured, informal, open and narrative interview types are relatively flexible. They are prepared with guiding questions or core concepts but the participants are free to take the conversation in any direction. The questions include both “what” and “how” type of questions. (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2016, 93-95.)
Open-ended interview was the best alternative for my research when interviewing the stakeholders. If the interviews are too standardized and the same questions are presented to all respondents, there was a risk that part of the valuable information will be missing. In open-ended interviews, the participants could have decided themselves to which direction they want to take the conversation and give the most relevant information from their own perspective. However, the conversation should not be too unofficial and the topic needs to be present all the time when interviewing.
The preliminary questions for the interviewees were related to collaboration and innovation development, open innovation possibilities, the roles of different stakeholders, user aspects, tourism, residents, entrepreneurship, creating new innovations, users’ experiences and development of city planning and collaboration.
Because I used the unstructured approach I let the interviewees direct the discussion.
However, I planned to ask some questions to keep up the discussion. I asked from the participants, for example:
How they have experience the collaboration between stakeholders at Kuusijärvi
How did the project have been planned and implemented?
How the project was carried out?
How they have affected to the project What are the experiences about the project?
What they think about the project afterwards.
What is the next step?
There are several ways how the interviews and information from conversations could have been saved. From videotaping, writing notes during or after the interviews and using a tape recorder I choose to use the tape recorder when recorded the interviews.
This was because when writing the notes during or after the interview something valuable could have been left out from the notes and the concentration to the interview could have been interrupted. Recording with a camera documenting the interview can be awkward for some people (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2016, 99). Recording only audio can be more relaxed way for interviewees. This was the main reason I choose to use tape recorder. Moreover, when interviews were taped it was easier to remember what people have said and how they have said it. The pauses, overlaps and tone of the voice could be verified from recorder (Silverman 2001, 161).
The different documents such as the proposal of Kuusijärvi, meeting memos, employees’ diaries, written concepts and presentations were the sources for secondary data. These “naturally occurring materials” (Eriksson and Kovalainen 2008, 78) support to mapping the past innovation creation and management. Additionally, the secondary data was useful when forming the final questions for the qualitative interview. Related to Kuusijärvi project there was a proposal, marketing material and survey conducted earlier. (Eriksson & Kovalainen 2008; Eriksson & Kovalainen 2016; Silverman 2001.)
During the interviews, I made several interpretations about participators’ voices, body language and their expressions. I noticed that the more participators were involved
physically to Kuusijärvi, meaning that the more they visited in the area during their free time or had business operators there, the more emotional they were about the place.
Especially, residents were the most attached to the place and interested to develop it on a concrete level. Moreover, residents were showing their emotional feeling in their tone and body language during the conversation. I interpret that they were the most honest group when discussing about possibilities and challenges of the place. They were also showing their negative feelings very honestly. If compared to entrepreneurs and the participators from the public sector I noticed that entrepreneurs discussed more sincerely about the development plans but have not so strong emotional bond to the place as the residents have. The third group, employees from the public sector, were the least emotional while discussing about Kuusijärvi and development project. For them the development plan was a task among their other working tasks. As a conclusion, I state that the more the participators were involved to the place and spent time in Kuusijärvi the more they had emotional bonds related to the place.