Considering alternative methodological choices

Here I consider some alternative choices of methodology that were available, cross- referenced against the choices I made as my research evolved. As discussed above, my position as a professional presented me with the opportunity for insider research and the ethnographic dimension of my methodology flowed from this. I arrived at the focus on narrative in planning through reflection on my professional experience. Many theorists and practitioners have adopted a normative commitment to collaborative planning and to the use of narrative strategies in planning practice, as discussed in chapter 2. There was a gap in academic writing in this aspect of planning and regeneration in the Lower Lea.

I could have framed my research differently, with consequences for my methodology. Had my question focused on the impact of the Games measured against its promise of legacy, a greater attention to quantitative issues may have been necessary. At one point I considered introducing a comparative dimension to the research, drawing on some relationships I had built with Shanghai in China. This would have had

implications for the scale and specification of the study, as well as requiring me to carefully set up the qualitative study in each place in a way that would enable comparison. I rejected the option because it would have been difficult to establish the control over the conditions for comparison and, in any case, it was impractical to spend the time and finances necessary to work in China. I considered framing my research more explicitly as a case study, as indeed it is. However, as I answered the question ‘case of what?’, it became clear that the ethnographic and narrative dimensions of the methodology already provided a sufficient framework. Similarly, I could have adopted an ethnographic methodology without a making a tie to narrative analysis; I could have chosen a discourse analysis methodology. In practice, narrative analysis was a legitimate option that allowed me to analyse data generated through ethnographic fieldwork, and a particular method for analysing discourse.

I could have adopted a different approach to studying spatial planning. An alternative study may have addressed the wide range of functions of plans, exploring the nature of planning practice in a comprehensive way, and from this exploring the particular role that narrative plays in the wider context of the professional culture. This would have implied focusing on a small number of plans and appraising their purpose and effectiveness across a range of functions and outcomes, with the implication that I would have adopted a mixed methods approach. I would have to have studied a small number of plans in a limited time frame to deliver the task with the time I had available. This would have made it impossible to secure the benefits of the longitudinal approach I took, studying the flow of narrative over a 20 year period. Adopting a narrative analysis methodology meant I committed to a steep learning curve. An important contextual point for my choice was that my supervisor is a practicing narrative analyst. She gave me invaluable guidance, and I developed my confidence and competence through ‘learning by doing’ combined with study. I acknowledge that I made these choices incrementally rather than via a well-articulated research design at the outset. There is a wide range of approaches to narrative analysis that can be taken. The next paragraph describes some choices I made within the genre of narrative inquiry: each choice implies the rejection of its alternative.

These brief comments show that I made choices among a diverse range of strategies for conducting narrative analysis. One alternative might have been to focus on a very small number of respondents and adopt a biographical approach (Roberts, 2002), telling stories of their experience (Riessman, 2008). My choice rules out (benefits from these) but enables me to convey a sense of the polyphonic character (Bakhtin) of storytelling as planning narratives evolved. Another choice may have been to have radically reduced the amount of text I worked with and carried out a much more detailed structural narrative analysis of smaller units of text. This may have enabled me to analyse literary features such as the structure of language and the use of rhetoric. My chosen analytic strategy is not sufficiently fine-grained to make the most of such opportunities, but the use of a large body of data (140,000 words of transcript and 10 plans) did enable me to seek out and analyse patterns occurring at the macro scale.

My conclusions are interpretive in that I collect data and bring my meanings to them. In keeping with the ethnographic method adopted, I have been able to make use of quotes and descriptions to convey nuances and texture. My interpretation of the data has generated a descriptive account. By pursuing a categorical-content analysis, I have constructed a conceptual framework that seeks to be explanatory. In particular, I draw a conclusion that narrative themes are looser than planning policies and play a role in the dynamic world of generating and communicating ideas when used skilfully by fleet-of-foot narrators within the community of officials. This conclusion is explanatory in character: it can be described as middle level theory. I have not attempted to use my research to generate new theory at an abstract level, though I hope to have contributed case study evidence that demonstrates the applicability of collaborative planning and associated theories.