Methodological Approach and Justification

In responding to the call by Bryman (2004) for leadership research that is situated but that has general application, a ‘critical-realist informed grounded theory approach’ first introduced by Kempster and Parry (2011) was used to inform the epistemological and ontological framing of this study. This approach is described in relation to the following (p.118):

 “An emphasis on context-rich qualitative data”;

 “Awareness of a stratified reality and that the empirical data may be influenced by underlying mechanisms”;

 “Draws on the ideas and theories of extant knowledge”;

 “Generate[s] explanations that are either drawn explicitly from the empirical data or are postulated to be occurring”;

 Provides insights that can be “’offered up’ for other researchers to critique for its usefulness in other contexts”.

Leadership and governance are globally significant phenomena, however, they manifest themselves in different forms depending on the place context for which a ‘complex nexus of influences’ come into effect (Kempster & Parry, 2011).

Whilst grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) has often been drawn upon for examining the leadership processes within a particular context, this raises the epistemological dilemma of generalisability beyond the setting in which theories are drawn from (Kempster & Parry, 2011). By approaching this with a critical

Chapter 4

59

realist lens, however, that engages with the nature of agency, structures, associations and causality (see Bhaskar, 1978; Sayer, 1992), it is possible to begin to understand how context influences the manifestation and expression of leadership within a particular place. Critical realism also endorses the idea that rather than research being absolute, research knowledge should be interpreted flexibly and be continually improved and clarified according to real-world developments. This is particularly relevant for this study which is investigating leadership and governance at a time of considerable change and flux. A ‘critical-realist informed grounded theory approach’ (Kempster & Parry, 2011) therefore reflects the theoretical underpinnings of this research which recognises the value of a critical case for understanding a common practice, and qualitative techniques for gaining rich insights into a topic that calls for real-life knowledge and experience (Yin, 2003).

Until recently, quantitative methods were mainly used to study leadership. However qualitative approaches are now emerging that foster a “nuanced and contextualised richness” for studying the “structures, relationships and practices” of leading (Kempster

& Parry, 2011; p.108). Therefore the research objectives outlined above, which seek to understand, explore and distil leadership and governance at the sub-national level in the context of city-regional devolution in England, lend themselves to a qualitative methodological approach. The primary method of semi-structured interviews was therefore chosen for the purposes of investigation, for which a case study provided a conceptual and substantive base for the fieldwork. Furthermore, given the dynamic nature of the context under investigation that continued to evolve throughout the lifecycle of the study, a qualitative approach allowed for researcher adaptation at any given moment to “respond to changes on the ground to capture meaningful data” (Sallee

& Flood., 2012; p.140).

As outlined above, the method of semi-structured interviews was chosen for data collection. This method was selected to gain the level of depth that was required to explore the “less-well understood features of urban and regional development such as hidden covert leadership and the place of ‘the other’… as well as the significance of emotionality and identity in subnational decision-making” (Liddle et al., 2016; p.13).

These ‘hidden’ features are thought to be particularly important in times of “political and economic transition… or where there is economic uncertainty or social instability…”. Direct observation was also used to capture the ‘doing’ of leading; “the

60

ordinary and mundane everyday activities that take place in and around leaders and leading” (Liddle et al., 2016; p.13).

There are, undeniably, limitations associated with this methodological approach. Jacobs (1999), for example, raises the epistemological question of relativism in discerning interpretation from prior judgements and for favouring certain structures or institutions (for further insights also see Cochrane, 1998). Furthermore, Ward and Jones (1999) reflect on the need for researchers to consider the findings of a single case as ‘situated knowledge’ in a way that appreciates the ‘research situatedness’ of their interview responses to avoid over-generalising (Cochrane, 1998). This is particularly pertinent within the field of policy, but it is also relevant when seeking to gain the views and study the spaces of people in a position of power over those of the ordinary citizen.

However, for the purposes of this research, interviewing those who are deeply embedded within sub-national leadership and governance was deemed as the best approach. This aligns with Beamer (2002; p.86) who states that “elite interviews offer political scientists a rich, cost-effective vehicle for generating unique data to investigate the complexities of policy and politics” (citing Dexter, 1970). Furthermore, whilst surveys would have allowed for the study of multiple cases for reasons of comparison, these would have lacked in-depth understanding (Bentley et al., 2016).

Flyvbjerg (2006; p.220) describes case studies as a “detailed examination of a single example” that have the advantage of getting up-close to lived experience and testing hypotheses relative to occurrences as they unravel in the field. Therefore in reflection of

‘what is this case a case of?’, Flyvbjerg (2006) suggests that case study researchers must overcome anxieties about gaining an absolute understanding of a problem and aim rather to present an open story in its diversity. And as Eysenck (1976; p.9) also contends, “sometimes we simply have to keep our eyes open and look carefully at individual cases – not in the hope of proving anything, but rather in the hope of learning something”. This is particularly the case for policy-relevant research, with Abbott (1992; p.79) claiming that case studies provide “far better access for policy intervention than the present social science of variables”. For these reasons, case studies can be used as a ‘pedagogical tool’, offering ‘context-dependent knowledge’ that is critical for

‘learning processes and expertise’ (Flyvbjerg, 2007) at the local scale that can be applied to the broader narratives that surround urban policy.

Chapter 4

61