Developing the research design

A successful research design provides the structure of the research and connects the empirical data to the study’s research questions. This section addresses the design and choices taken by the author together with appropriate justifications. The literature review drew out a number of research questions regarding how policy decisions are made within mega-projects. Firstly, by acknowledging that mega-projects often go ahead because politicians believe they are a ‘good

139 thing’, challenges the view that evidence is the precursor to a policy decision. There are a number of other factors that contribute to these decisions; two being the values and beliefs of an individual. Schon and Rein (1994) suggested that our values and beliefs shape, or frame the way in which we approach a decision. The way in which we frame a policy decision influences the evidence that we draw on. Actors within the decision-making process have different frames which results in differing opinions about the solution to the policy problem. Therefore, they must enter into a process of negotiation in order to reach the most consensual option. This negotiation involves drawing on evidence to present their argument to one another and can occur in a number of different environments. It was the desire of the researcher to address the following empirical research questions in order to gain a better understanding of evidence utilisation in mega-projects:

1. How do policy actors frame mega-project policy debates? 2. What evidence do they select?

3. How do they negotiate this evidence with one another in different policy environments?

The research questions are principally explanatory, ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions rather than predictive or concerned with frequency. They are therefore well suited to an interpretive, case study approach. Case study research (CSR) is concerned with understanding the complexity of events and processes within single or particular settings (Stake 1995), allowing the researcher to ‘retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events’ (Yin 2009:5). It is the best design to use when the investigator wants to ‘understand real-life phenomenon in depth’ and where this understanding ‘entails important contextual conditions’ that are ‘highly pertinent’ to the phenomenon of study (Yin 2009:18).

140 Single case study analysis can, through the application of multiple research methods, provide an empirically rich and holistic account of specific phenomena. Stake (1995) suggested that it is contextual uniqueness of the single case that is of primary interest. Transport mega-projects were of particular interest because they are notorious for finishing late and over budget (more so than other mega-projects). As representation is difficult to defend with what will be an inevitably small number of cases Stake suggested choosing one that is best suited to answering the research questions. He (1993, 2003) dismisses typicality and

representativeness as being unrealistic and unachievable in terms of the single case. For Stake, the primary criteria should be ‘opportunity to learn’ (1993:6). By this he means identifying a case where there is good access and a willingness to participate. This ensures that the researcher can maximise the learning opportunities.

The thesis applied the research questions to a case that had good access and a number of willing participants. At any one time, there are only ever a small number of mega-projects being designed and built due to their nature which presented the researcher with only a limited number of potential cases. The case study chosen encompassed a large geographical area and was prominently featured in the national media providing large amounts of

secondary data for analysis. There are no other mega-projects of this kind currently being designed and built to compare to in the United Kingdom and accessibility issues limit the possibility of using an international case study for comparison.

Focusing on one particular case does not mean studying single phenomenon as the case study generated ‘a multitude of qualitative-interpretive, within-case “observations” reflecting patterns of interaction, organisational practices, social relations, routines, actions and so on’(Yanow et al 2009:4). Although the research can be considered a single case study, it consisted of a number of sub-cases within the overall case. This in turn provided a range of different data sources for analysis.

141 The limitations of using a single case study are that it is difficult to generalise the findings to other mega-projects. However, the purpose of the research was to expand and generate theory on evidence utilisation and negotiation in decision-making within mega-projects which could be applied to other mega-projects. Rather than collect smaller amounts of data from a number of case studies, the choice was taken to focus on one particular case in order to gather an in- depth explanation about the intricate details of how evidence informs decisions.

The reason that a case study design is appropriate for this research is that the desire is to understand the social processes and complex practices by organising the data around themes and topics. By using this design it was possible to do this through data organisation which provided the most appropriate form of analytical handle on the data. As Mason argues, it enables the researcher to ‘make comparisons and build explanations in a distinctive way’ (2002:166). There was little to no control over behavioural events within this research. The only stage at which there may have been some influence is during the scrutiny process in which the researcher provided support for the scrutiny report, including feeding into question plans and contributed to the final Committee report. A brief discussion on researcher

positionality is discussed later in the chapter.