Documents as Sources of Data

Documents as sources of data refer to rather a large and heterogeneous group of sources of data including ‘letters, diaries, autobiographies, newspapers, magazines, websites, blogs, and photographs’ (Bryman, 2016, p.546). In contrast to the other data collection methods mentioned this data collection method is rather unobtrusive in nature. It is somewhat ‘non-reactive’, as they have not been created as a result of the research process. Importantly, these documents have either been created or utilised by the social sites, thus ensuring credibility in their use when utilising them throughout the empirical chapters. Two particular uses of this data collection was virtual documentation produced by the social sites as well as official documentation.

Virtual documents were useful throughout the research process, particularly the use of websites. This somewhat crosses over with official documentation albeit access to documents was via the Internet. In the case of Newcastle Cycling Campaign, their own website was a key source which helped both generate questions for interviews but also assisted in the analysis, in helping analyse the campaigns identity and

advocacy practice within Newcastle. Websites, generally of those related to the social sites, also frequently held further official documentation and therefore acted as a data generation tool. The use of blogs, emails, social networking sites (Facebook) also provided further sources of data yet not to the extent of the campaigns own website.

‘Official documentation’ refers to documents published and intended for the public domain such as annual reports, mission statements, press releases, regular newsletters or advertisement flyers (Bryman, 2016). It also refers to other documents that may (or

may not) be available within the public domain; these include minutes of meetings, organisational memos, and both internal and external correspondence (ibid). Some material was easily available such as flyers published by The Cycle Hub due to the nature of the documentation being an advertisement, but others such as annual reports by the Newcastle Cycle Campaign required attendance to their annual general

meeting or was available further on the Internet.

Other documentation was not available within the public domain and was unknown until observations and interviews took place. One particular individual identified a wealth of archival material relating to Tynebikes ‘when moving house’. The two large boxes, which contained a collection of newsletters, flyers, newspaper clippings, internal and external correspondences, memos, and notes, relate to Hill’s (1993) definition of archival data being storehouses of rare and unique materials of historical importance. Yet, it must be acknowledged that the archival material retained by the individual relating to Tynebikes between the years of 1982-2001 should be considered to be a ‘raw batch of occurrences’, capturing traces of discussions and topics at the time. This shouldn’t necessarily delegitimise the data; on the contrary, it draws

attention to the process of ‘sedimentation’ whereby the material retained and collected throughout the years relates to what was perceived as important documents. This provided a further dimension to Tynebikes as it provided explanatory depth and insight over an approximate twenty-year period (1982-2001) in which relevant interviews with other members failed to recall (Seale, 2012). A criticism of

interviewing individuals in regards to historical aspects is the potential memory lapses and distortions of events (Bryman, 2016, p.488). This was a particular issue in

relation to Tynebikes with the individuals finding it difficult to recall the order of events relating to their issues and plans due to this occurring predominantly in the 1980s and 1990s. One individual commented, “It’s quite difficult to remember exactly what was happening and when, so hopefully the papers if I can find them will help”

(Tynebikes, S2). As they note, the official documentation offered a vast explanatory depth and description to some general themes originally identified within the

interviews themselves, thus supplementing the interviewing weakness with the strength of historical documentation through a process of triangulation (Seale, 2012).

The stakeholder who was a key committee member throughout the years of Tynebikes retained the documents and whilst there was a vague structure to the filing of the documents it still resulted in a personal collection with a vast range of documentary sources. Whilst the multitude of documents meant there was a vast amount of information, it provided a clearer and shaper perception with the past through the various insights, stories and issues deposited within them (Prescott, 2008). Craven (2008) contends that archives generally hold too many records for the researcher, whilst Bryman (2016) comments that once identified and collected, interpretive skill is needed in order to ascertain the meanings of the material that has been uncovered.

Both these comments relate heavily to the documents provided by the stakeholder. A review of the material was necessary, with a general note of what the documents relate to providing the opportunity to identify key resources that included: ‘Tynebikes News’ and ‘Tyne Biking’, Tynebikes newsletter from 1983-1997, which was

generally produced quarterly (with some omissions, especially during 1986, 1994 and 1996); review of meeting notes; reports, documents and flyers produced to send to members; and correspondences with the Council regarding key issues (cycle routes, cycling infrastructure and provision). Documents such as this are viewed to have substantive meaning as these were created and written in order to achieve something or get something done (Bryman, 2016). Whilst the content is a key point of focus, it is also “important to be attuned to the significance of documents in terms of the parts they play and are intended to play in organisations and social life in general”

(Bryman, 2016, p.562).

Engaging with these sources of information again added to the argument of wanting to understand the points of view and perspectives that reflected the social sites and opinions they wanted to get across. But as Bryman discusses, it is important to consider that the documents available do not provide an objective account but rather, provide a particular account of the social sites due to what articles were kept and were accessible whereas some may have been destroyed (2016, pp.553-554). However, this

‘objectivity’ tone does not align with my philosophical ontology as I have already rejected that this research aims to seek any objective truth as I argue that are multiple truths.