ACI Structures the Methods of Data Collection and Analysis

This section considers suitable methods for data collection and analysis to inform the research design and respond to the three questions. The literature review identified that previous governance research and the proposed conceptual framework, Actor-Centered Institutionalism (ACI), point at specific analysis methodologies. These methodologies are discussed and then applied to the research questions, generating a detailed research design. This section draws

69 heavily on Hermans and Thisse (2009) and Reed et al (2005) and their review of multi-actor analysis methodologies.

Hermans and Thisse (2009) review and explain a full range of governance analysis methodologies in detail, highlighting that while most popular methods can be grouped generally into stakeholder analysis, other methods such as discourse analysis and cognitive mapping are being employed with a spectrum of quantitative and qualitative results. Stakeholder analysis is the least analytical of the methods reviewed; Hermans and Thisse argue that its lack of specificity is offset by its practical usability. More analytical methods include social network analysis, multi-attribute assessments and vote-exchange models; their specificity is balanced by their limitation to specific sub-sets of policy processes, and their rigid data input parameters (2009).

Chapter 4 describes how ACI points at a structure for the research design, clearly identifying focus areas for the research and proposing a research approach which can address the research questions. Looking at the first three components of ACI (policy problem, actors, and actor constellations), the methodology is required to address of a broad spectrum of kinds of interactions and be able to draw out and understand not only the capabilities of the actors, but also their orientations and preferences both generally and towards other actors. This requirement to understand the ‘perceptions’ of each actor towards the other actors’ strategies and preferences across a broad range of topics suggests a in-depth, qualitative approach would be more appropriate than specific, quantitative analysis. Stakeholder analysis, with its history of applications to many in-depth qualitative studies and its ability to be ‘inclusive’ the types and kinds of actors and interactions is particularly suited to these needs of ACI and the research questions. While Hermans and Thisse acknowledge that stakeholder analysis is stronger on identifying resources than perceptions, Reed et al believe that stakeholder analysis methodologies can also be strong in understanding actor relationships and perceptions (Hermans & Thisse, 2009; Reed, et al., 2009).

Stakeholder analysis methods are proposed as the appropriate analysis tools to address the research questions. Stakeholder analysis methods are a loosely grouped range of flexible analysis methods which assist in understanding policy making as a process influenced by multiple actors. Stakeholder analysis methods are widely recognised as appropriate to generate information on the relevant actors and to understand their behaviour, interests, agendas and influences (Reed, et al., 2009; Hermans & Thisse, 2009). The methods attempt to structure the stakeholder (or actor) environment, to assess cooperative potential and threat of obstruction.

The outcomes are a series of tables and matrices for actor classification and participation strategies. The analysis and matrices build on the ACI framework, as detailed below.

This research employs an iterative approach to actor identification and matrix analysis, building on initial desktop research to undertake semi-structured interviews. The relationship between these analysis methods and the research questions is described below

70 Social Network Analysis and the challenge of messy policy problems.

Social Network Analysis (SNA) was considered as potential quantitative analysis pathway to understand the relational characteristics of actors within the case studies. Hermans (2009), (Marsh, 1998). and Reed et al (2005) all highly recommend social network analysis (SNA) to understand network governance relational characteristics. The SNA approach was trialled on the Elephant and Castle Case study, where interviewees were asked to quantitatively rank the importance of other actors and their strength of communications with others. Two adjacency matrices were established and initial analyses run on communication, influence, reciprocity, centrality and equivalence. However the trial illustrated the difficulties of establishing a boundary set for actors engaged in the network and gathering sufficient quantitative information from each actor within the set. The boundary set is critical to SNA calculations which compare individual relationships against the total possible set; therefore while the results were interesting they were not considered robust. It would have been even more difficult to collect sufficient information for robust boundary sets across all cases; comparison of SNA findings across cases would not have been valid. Therefore the research did not continue with SNA.

Relational characteristics are instead analysed through a qualitative approach. Size, duration, density, and centrality are judged instead through comparing the relative qualities in the five case studies.

Data collection

The research exclusively uses primary sources arising from the identified actors in each case study to undertake the ACI stakeholder analysis of actor powers, orientations and preferences as well as to analyse the collective actor constellation. Secondary sources of information or analysis not arising directly from the actors (e.g. other academic or industry publications) are used to inform an understanding of the institutional context and to corroborate patterns of behaviour emerging from the primary analysis.

In ACI, the starting point for explaining policy-making processes and their outcomes is to

“identify the set of interactions that produces the policy outcomes which are to be explained”

(Scharpf, 1997, p. 43). Research into each case study begins with a review of publicly available information to identify these interactions. The review considers information available such as corporate and personal websites, government policies; research conducted by academics as well as industry bodies and published presentations by individuals. Reports and publications are sought through internet keyword searches, relevant planning, policy and energy research archives, and reference tracing. This stage establishes the set of interactions to be studied, identifies actors and potential composite actors, as well as actor capabilities, preferences and strategies used over time. It also begins to delineate the time and actor boundaries of each case study, as part of building up ‘the set of interactions which produces the policy outcomes to be explained’ (Scharpf, 1997).

71 Identifying actors, and identifying their voices

From this review of the interactions around the particular DHC system, the research indentifies the actors, individual or collective, that are involved in the policy-making process. Given the governance network approach chosen for the research, boundaries of who constitutes actors and the actor set are not pre-supposed and instead emerge from an iterative process from desktop research and then the interviews themselves. In this way the actor set grows during the research process.

Actors are considered possible to exist at both organisation and individual level. Coding and stakeholder analysis are structured accordingly, often dually coding as composite sets of actors as well as individuals. As described in Chapter 4, Scharpf encourages concept of composite actors where it does not obscure the research interests, because it facilities the task of explaining and predicting policy outcomes in the real world, where collective actors - organisations, ministries, associations – are often the primary actors.

Desktop research, employing internet searches and academic sources, first identifies potential actors organisations associated with the network. Once a long list of organisations are indentified, further internet searches are conducted to 'trace' influences by other actors, such as consultants who might have advised actors. This iterative process continues during the interviews, where questions enquire about organisations and individuals with influence over the DH system.

Analysis of actors – coding of data and inclusion in the stakeholder matrices – is undertaken on the broadest conception of an actor set using sources authored by actors. However the research also aims to interview 'primary actors' with direct influence on the case study outcomes; Scharpf distinguishes between a wider actor set and primary actors that are directly and necessarily participating in the making of policy choices" (Scharpf p 71). This narrowing to focus on influential individuals and organisations is supported by recommendations in Methodology Problems in Urban Governance (Gissendannero, 2003).

Interviewees are contacted by email or phone to request an interview. At least two follow up requests are made if the initial contact was unsuccessful. It is not possible to interview all primary actors; in some cases actors declined interviews, and in others the individuals had moved on to another organisation and could not be found. At a minimum, the research interviews at least one individual associated with planning organisations, one individual associated with market concerns (either energy company or local business), and one individual associated with a government policy organisation in each case study. Table 13 provides a summary of interview coverage.

Where individuals could not be contacted for an interview, written records from the desktop search or library research authored by that interviewee or their organisation are assumed to represent their actor orientations and preferences and coded as such. Where no information can be found, this is noted.

72 Academic research or third party commentators (e.g. industry body case study) which described the case study or analysed the case are never assumed to represent actor orientations and are not used in the stakeholder analysis to substitute for lack of directly authored information or interviews. However this secondary information is coded and used to understand the institutional context of actors and to reflect upon the results of the stakeholder analysis.

Interview structure

Semi-structured interviews are undertaken following the selection methodology described above. Semi-structured interviews are a popular data collection approach in social science research, Reed et al confirm they are useful for in-depth insights to stakeholder relationships and to confirm prior desktop or focus group research. The researcher is led by a pre-set list of questions, but remained flexible during the interviews, allowing the interviewee to respond in the manner of their choosing, and allowing the interviewee to contribute above and around the pre-set questions. This approach, as compared to a more formally structured approach, is “most useful where the researcher seeks information regarding a specific, defined phenomenon (such as an event or document) .... but with significant depth or ‘richness’ (Reed, et al., 2009, p.

1944). This flexible, open-ended approach is appropriate to support the perception oriented nature of the research, concerned not only with what but why and why them of the DHC system.

The interviews seek to gather information on the actor capabilities, preferences and orientations, their chosen strategies, as well as information on their evaluations and preferences of other actors and of policy outcomes. Specific interview questions address the research questions about relational characteristics and institutional setting The interview pro-forma is provided in Appendix B. A schedule of interviews undertaken is provided below in Table 13.

Table 12 enumerates the relationships between interviews and actor sets to illustrate the robust nature of the interview based data collection.

Interviews

Table 12: Overview of data collection and actor sets

Given the international nature of the research, and classic problems of interpretation and vocabulary in policy analysis where meanings and context are closely linked (Hajer &

Wagenaar, 2003), it is important to have the exact vocabulary used by the interviewees for cross-checking and post-interview interpretation. Interviews are recorded with permission of the interviewees using simple recording technology located within the researcher's mobile phone.

The recordings are then transcribed into text, generally without the use of transcription software, before coding and analysis.

73 In two specific cases, professional transcriptions and translations were commissioned. For the case of Lerwick, the researcher had access to an academic transcription service with experience of the Scottish accent. Therefore transcription of the interview records was outsourced, and the resulting document was double checked with the researcher's personal notes and the sound recording. In Barcelona, a professional academic translator was commissioned to attend the interviews and transcribe the recordings to supplement the researcher's basic level of verbal Spanish. Two Barcelona interviews were conducted in English with support from the translator where requested by the interviewee. One interview was conducted whereby the researcher asked questions in English but the interviewees responded a mixture of Spanish and Catalan. Coding and analysis were conducted using the professional English translations of interview transcripts.

Data quality

The level of information about the cases and the mindset of actors within the cases - their preferences, orientations, and preferences of other actors – is considered sufficiently robust for all five cases.

For the case of Barcelona, three interviews with four individuals were conducted, supplemented by email correspondence. Further information was primarily obtained through primary sources:

government policy documents, urban plans, published organisational literature and a search of websites produced by the actors. Existing academic and industry analysis exists on Barcelona's governance and planning history; this was called upon where it added to understanding of the primary sources. Additionally, a master's thesis, Integrating Urban Infrastructure Solutions, had previously analysed the infrastructure delivery in the 22@ district (Torguet, 2009); information included in that thesis was not used in the stakeholder analysis but was referred to post hoc for a sanity check. Data quality is considered to be robust if uneven; views of local elected officials were primarily sourced through newspaper articles and authored introductions to published policy documents. The most significant gap in understanding is regarding the perspectives of the consumers of the Districlima system.

For Burlington, five interviews with six individuals were conducted in August 2012. Other data was primarily obtained through a library search of local newspapers, the records of the planning department, and an internet search of relevant organisational websites. The local DHC advocacy committee also shared information on who attended the public meetings in 2011. The interviews provide a robust if uneven set of data; the research lacks interviews with a representative of the Burlington Electric Department, the University of Vermont, and Fletcher Allen Hospital. Their perspectives have been sourced from published documents and websites.

The research was also not able to obtain feasibility studies dating to the 1980s; this is not considered a barrier as the analysis is directed to more recent (since 2007) interactions.

For Lerwick, four interviews with eight individuals were conducted in November 2011, supplemented by email correspondence. Other data was obtained through an internet search and planning policy documents in the council offices. Online information, such as Shetland

74 Times articles and Shetland Charitable Trust documents, tend to extend back to the mid 1990s and therefore written records from the inception of the plant are weaker. There is one published academic paper on the DHC system in Lerwick, written by Neville Martin the manager of Shetland Heat and Power Limited and William Spence the Manager of the Incineration Plant (Martin & Spence, 2010).

For London, seven interviews were conducted over the summer of 2011, supplemented by email correspondence and a survey designed to gauge the kind of interactions among actors (the results of which is not included in this thesis as described in above). The interviews provide a robust if uneven set of data; a more rounded view of local councillor and officer positions is provided by committee reports and newspaper articles. There are gaps in understanding the perspective of Lend Lease prior to 2008 and the direct perspective of the finance department.

Other data was primarily obtained through an internet search. Newspaper articles, national and regional government policies and Southwark Council committee reports in particular provided useful sources of actor voices and perspectives.

For Toronto, eight interviews with nine individuals were conducted in September 2012. The set of interviewees is robust and varied, although not all interviewees can be classed as primary actors directly engaged with the decision to proceed with Deep Lake Water Cooling. Other data was obtained through an internet search with newspaper articles and some company websites providing information, and via a electronic and library search of City of Toronto meeting minutes and councillor reports. The city council minutes provided a useful view into the often extended process of internal decision making within the council committees.

75 Interviews

Barcelona  Former Director of Infrastructure, 22@ BCN together with Head of Energy Infrastructure, Barcelona Regional. 27 November 2012. (Interview A3)

 Chief Executive, Districlima. 27 November 2012. (Interview S2)

 Technical Director, Barcelona Energy Agency. 14 December 2012.

(Interview G4)

Burlington  Local resident together with Managing Director of the McNeil Power Station (both on the BURDES committee). 30th August 2012. (Interview C2)

 Joel Banner Baird, journalist at Burlington Free Press. 29th August, 2012.

(Interview C3)

 Director of Planning and Zoning, City of Burlington.29th August 2012.

(Interview P4)

 Senior Vice President, Ever Green Energy. 11 July 2012. (Interview A4) Lerwick  Manager, Shetland Heat and Power Company together with Financial

Controller, Shetland Islands Charitable Trust together with Robert Henderson, Local Councillor and Trustee of Shetland Islands Charitable Trust. 7 November 2011. (Interview S1)

 Energy Manager together with Energy Recovery Plant Manager, together with Waste Services Manager. All Shetland Islands Council. 8 Nov 2011.

(Interview G3)

 Town Planner, Shetland Islands Council. 8 Nov 2011. (Interview P2)

 Site Engineer, Gilbert Bain Hospital, 8 November 2011. (Interview U1) London  Founder, Brian Dunlop Associates. 11 July 2011. (Interview A1)

 Project Director for Elephant and Castle Regeneration, Southwark Council.

2 August 2011. (Interview G1)

 Head of Infrastructure and Sustainability, Lend Lease. 12 August 2011.

(Interview D1)

 Former Project Director of Elephant and Castle Regeneration, Southwark Council. 13 October 2011. (Interview P1)

 Former Councillor and Leader of the Council. 20 October 2011. (Interview E1)

 Director of Research, Clinton Climate Change Initiative. 30 June 2011.

(Interview C1)

 Director, Inventa Partners. 8 September 2011. (Interview A2 )

Toronto  Director, Toronto Environment Office. 4 September 2012. (Interview G2)

 Chair, Ontario Clean Air Alliance. 4 September 2012 (Interview C4)

 Chief Executive, Enwave. 5th September 2012. (Interview S3)

 General Manager, Toronto Water. 6th September 2012. (Interview G5)

 Project Manager, Environment Zoning By-law and Environmental Planning, City of Toronto together with Senior Engineer, Energy Efficiency Office, City of Toronto. 6th September 2012. (Interview P5)

 Joe Pantalone, former Councillor. 6th September 2012. (Interview E2)

 Richard Gilbert, former Councillor. 6th September 2012. (Interview E3)

 Senior Vice President, Oxford Properties. 24 September 2012. (Interview U2)

Table 13 : Schedule of interviews undertaken for research

76