Methodfindings’ and ‘not important

Method


findings’ and ‘not important findings’. Since these two first interviews where conducted approximately a week before the other two, and one month before the last one, we started to analyse them. When we did the analysis, we thought that the existing models where not very good. No single model seemed to be able to explain the whole process in how to develop a strong personal brand, and it did not seem enough to combine two or more models. Many aspects where also repeated in several models. We started to think about if we could create a better model and if some parts where missing from the existing models. We constructed a research model and added some questions to our interview questions and send some complementing questions to Maria Wetterstrand and Gustav Fridolin. We noted that Shan Atci had discussed these issues already so we did not find it necessary to contact him again. We conducted the last three interviews and analysed their answers in the same way (tape recorder, took further notes, sorted the interview material) and applied all our interview participants on our research model. Finally we discussed our findings and draw conclusions.

3.6 Trustworthiness in the Thesis

According to Collis & Hussey (2003) there exist two aspects concerning trustworthiness and relevance of one’s findings in a thesis; validity and reliability.


3.6.1 Validity

Validity refers to in what extent the measurement procedure really measures what the researcher sought to study (Lekvall & Wahlbin, 2001). According to Gummesson (2000) researchers can be unaware of that they study something else than what they sought to study. We are aware of this and will keep this in mind while conducting our thesis. Validity also means that a model, theory, concept or category describes the reality with a good fit. Some research errors, like poor samples, inaccurate and misleading measurements can undermine the validity (Collis & Hussey, 2003). Lekvall & Wahlbin (2001), discuss different types of validity, for example face validity and construct validity. Face validity refers to ensure that the measurements or tests really measure what they are supposed to represent. It also refers to that the questions seem reasonable. Construct validity exists when the outcome of the study correlates with theory.

In order to achieve face validity, we have revised our questionnaire several times after both internal and external discussions. We have discussed our questionnaire with our tutors and friends. Further on we have tested the interview questions on each other and on external persons. We believe that construct validity is achieved because the outcome of our study correlates with existing theory.


3.6.2 Reliability

The other criteria to take into consideration when writing a thesis is reliability. Reliability is the other aspect of the credibility of one’s findings (Collis & Hussey, 2003).

According to Gummesson (2000) reliability refers to that several researchers that study the same phenomena should get almost the same result on different occasions. If this study will be repeated, the same results should be achieved since people do not change values and personality that fast and you need to be able to stand for what you believe in. Sekaran (2003) argues that reliability is a measure of how stable and consistent the concept used by the researcher is, and to what extent it is without bias. Esaiasson, Gilliam, Oscarsson & Wängnerud (2004) claim that a high reliability also refers to the absence of errors in the thesis. It is important to be careful when doing a research, in order to avoid insufficient reliability.

If the researcher is well informed about the participant in the interview, this could be a way to increase the creditability and this can encourage the participant to be more open and detailed about the questions asked. Reliability may also be promoted if the participants receive a list of questions that are going to be discussed during the interview (Saunders et al, 2003).

In order to increase the reliability in this thesis, we have read about the participants in our study in advance and we have also send the interview questions approximately one week before the interviews were conducted. All our interview participants have further on got the possibility to read the thesis before it was handed in, in order to make sure that we did not misunderstand anything. Media has created a picture of our interview participants so it is hard to be completely objective but we will be open-minded and form own opinions about the persons. The personal brand literature used in this thesis is mostly from the 21st century and this will increase the reliability since it is up to date.


3.7 Generalisability

Generalisability is:

“The extent to which you can come to conclusions about one thing (often a population) based on information about another (often a sample). (Vogt, W. P. 1993, cited in Collis & Hussey, 2003, p59).

Normann (1970, cited in Collis & Hussey, 2003) argues that it is possible to draw general conclusions that fit the whole population of just a few or one single sample. That is of course if one has managed to get a sample that contains all deviations within the sample. In our sample we believe that we have not been able to capture all different aspects of developing a strong personal brand, since it has so many different variables. Therefore, we have only focused on how a few selected persons have done it and we will provide some guidelines of how you can develop a strong personal brand.


3.7.1 Method Criticism

The method that we have chosen for this bachelor thesis is a qualitative approach. We argue that this method was the best one to chose since we studied human and social activities and we only had a small sample of which the results were not possible to convert into numbers.

One thing that we could have done to increase the trustworthiness of this study is to include more interview participants. We have only five different perspectives of how a strong personal brand is develop and sustained. This means that there is a risk that we have missed some important factors. However, we tried to get more people to participate but it was hard to reach our population, and many of those that we were able to reach did not have time. We also had a couple of very late drop-outs which caused us some problems.


3.8 Presentation of the Interview Participants

As said before, it has been very hard to get people who want and have the time to participate in our thesis. We were very lucky to get five persons that have different backgrounds and they are in different stages in life, which was exactly what we strived for. The reason to why we have chosen to interview the following persons is that we believe that they all have or are beginning to develop strong and interesting personal brands. We also believe that they have developed their personal brands in different ways, so that we are able to get different perspectives on the phenomenon of personal branding. To see pictures of our interview participants, see appendix 5.

Shan ‘Shan the Man’ Atci

Shan Atci is a stand up comedian and he has made himself a name within this industry as
‘Shan the Man’. He can be seen on ‘Stockholm Live’ on the Swedish Television and on
‘Lobby’ on ZTV (Bergquist, 2005). His key words are ‘Love’ and ‘Respect’ which he always ends his performances with. Further on, he is the arranger of one stand up club in Stockholm (Café Tivoli) and he has also been the host of Melodifestivalen (Swedish Song Contest) (Swedish Television, retrieved 2005-12-07).

David Lega

David Lega was in 2004 appointed as ‘the speaker of the year’ and in 2005 he was the first Swede ever awarded as the ‘The Outstanding Young Persons of the World 2005’ for his leadership abilities (Lega, retrieved 2005-11-03). David Lega has written one book and he has also recently started a company – Lega Wear – that tailor-make clothes that you can order from the Internet (Lega & Stenerdahl, retrieved 2005-11-03). He is also known as a swimmer in the Swedish national team for disabled between 1993 and 2000. He has won many medals, and is still today the holder of world records on five distances (Karlsson & Lega 2003). David Lega told us that his swimming career is not something that he wants to be associated with anymore since he does not want to be a former ‘something’, he wants to be recognised for what he does now (personal communication 2005-12-04). When he gives lectures he presents himself as ‘the most disabled person that you are ever going to meet’ (own translation, personal communication 2005-10-05). Something that expresses his positive attitude is his answer to the question ‘is it not hard with all high edges on the pavements?’ ‘I do not know because I only look for pavements with low edges’.

Maria Wetterstrand

Maria Wetterstrand is The Green Party’s (Miljöpartiet) spokesperson. The Green Party do not have a party leader, they have two spokespersons instead. She is 32 years old and is the mother of a one-year-old boy. Maria Wetterstrand has been politically involved in The Green Party since she was about 15 years old, and between 1996 and 1999 she was one of the spokespersons in The Green Party’s youth organisation (Grön Ungdom). On top of her political career, she has also completed a master degree in biology (Wetterstrand, retrieved 2005-11-03).