Qualitative Rationale and Conceptual Framework

The research questions and objectives outlined signify the use of a qualitative research methodology. Qualitative methods help uncover often hidden meanings associated with social practices, in order to understand and interpret particular social phenomenon (Wellington and Szczerbinski, 2007; Bryman, 1993). The qualitative research approach focuses upon “how the complexities of the sociocultural world are experienced, interpreted, and understood in a particular context and at a particular point of time” (Bloomberg and Volpe, 2012, p.118). This is important in relation to this research in order to understand how the three social sites established themselves, the values they ascribe to cycling and how they interpret their influence and

contribution to the practice of cycling within the city of Newcastle. In this way the stories of those engaged with cycling in Newcastle can be uncovered.

My role as the researcher and my ontological positioning cannot be divorced from the approach I have identified in relation to this research. Guba and Lincoln (1994, p.105) argue that:

“Questions of method are secondary to question of paradigm, which we define as the basic belief system or worldview that guides the investigator, not only in choices of method but in ontologically and epistemologically fundamental ways.”

My ontological assumptions are assumed to filter throughout the research, feeding into the ways research questions are asked and how the research itself is carried out (Bryman, 2016). As Mason argues “people’s knowledge, views, understandings, interpretations, experiences, and interactions are meaningful properties of the social reality which your research questions are designed to explore” (2002, p.63). As a result, the research adheres to a social constructivist paradigm, which posits that realities are multiple, intangible constructions in which social actors are continually altering and creating social phenomena and their meanings through social interaction (Bryman, 2016; Guba and Lincoln, 1994). These realities are local and specific in nature and are dependent for their form and content on the individual persons (or in this case social sites) holding the constructions (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). In reaction to this, the researcher should investigate the ways social reality is being constructed by the relevant social actors (and social sites), instead of assuming that it is something that is externally constraining them (Bryman, 2016).

These constructions are not aspiring to be ‘true’ in an absolute sense, but rather they are informed and sophisticated constructions which are alterable along with their associated realities (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). In relation to my role as a researcher, it should also be considered that rather than providing a definitive account on the social world, it is assumed that my account of the social interactions in relation to the practice of cycling within Newcastle is rather another version of social reality (Bryman, 2016) but one given the exposition of the data in the following chapters would be broadly in line with others’ interpretations.

4.2.1 Case Study Approach

This study sought to examine a singular city in order to enable and elicit significant detail; therefore a case study approach was selected as it enabled this “fine-grain detail of the social processes in their appropriate context” (Cassell and Symon, 1994, p.208). Generally a case study approach relates to a location, such as a community or organisation, identifying the boundary in which intensive examination of the setting takes places (Seale, 2012). It can therefore act more as a strategy than a method, managing boundaries of what is and is not to be studied (Stake, 1994). An in depth single case study facilitates the necessary depth in relation to contemporary

happenings as well as historical reflections with regards to cycling as a practice.

The case study was not selected to provide a ‘statistical generalisation’ (Yin, 2014).

Whilst this implies the case study approach lacks external validity, it is generally not the aim of a case study approach to claim so (Seale, 2012). It is not the aim of the research to suggest that the findings might be generalised in relation to other cities.

Rather, the research aims to cast further empirical light on the topic of cycling cultures and their variations and complexities within different cities.

By selecting Newcastle, the research examines cycling culture in a low context with 2.8% of the Newcastle population cycling to work in 2011, which is slightly lower than the national average for England at 3.0% (Office for National Statistics, 2016).

Selecting a case study such as this will demonstrate how cycling cultures have established themselves in a somewhat unfavourable national and local context and to identify the cycling cultures that potentially go unnoticed due to the cities

‘ordinariness’ in relation to cycling.

This shares parallels with what Seale would consider as a ‘representative’ or ‘typical case’, in which the case isn’t necessarily extreme or unusual in some way, but reflects a broader category of cases (Seale, 2012). As a result, this study takes an alternative approach in comparison to previous research. Rachel Aldred’s research project

‘Cycling Cultures’ (Aldred, 2010, 2012a, 2012b, 2012c; Aldred and Jungnickel, 2012, 2013, 2014; Jungnickel and Aldred, 2014) examined experiences of cycling in four relatively high-cycling English urban areas in order to understand how cycling had become ‘normalised’ within what is an unfavourable national context. Whereas, it can

be generally argued that when low-cycling contexts are used in cycling research, projects commonly alter the focus and look for the potential barriers as to why cycling does not occur. The ‘Understanding Walking and Cycling’ (UWAC) project (Pooley et al., 2013) echoes this, with the four key sites selected due to their broad

representativeness of a range of communities throughout England. The UWAC

project focus was upon understanding the reluctance and motivations of individuals in engaging with cycling (and walking) for everyday travel within these urban settings.

The general widening of focusing on potential barriers to those who do not cycle neglects the potentiality of identifying how cycling cultures may already exist in many cities. A cycling culture may not be reliant on the overall cycle rate of the city and to select a city that may not be considerably above the national average would provide focus upon cycling cultures that have yet to be considered.

4.2.2 Cycling Social Sites

Most commonly cycling research identifies the user as a key entry point of research in order to formulate a consensus as to why (s)he may or may not cycle. Chapter 3.1 illustrates the variety of cycling performances. Research has focused not only on the cyclist but also the non-cyclist in order to conceptualise how the practice of cycling is perceived. This generally involves the collection of large sample sizes from an array of research methods including interviews, questionnaires, focus groups, as well as ethnographic accompanied rides and video recordings. The research here takes an alternative approach focusing on the ‘stakeholders’ of three ‘social sites’ associated with cycling: Tynebikes, Newcastle Cycling Campaign, and The Cycle Hub.

Here, the term ‘stakeholder’ is used to define key members and important individuals associated to various social sites within Newcastle’s local cycling culture. Whilst cycling ‘social sites’ can broadly include: pressure/advocacy groups, cycle

workshops, cycle hubs, cycle shops, cycle clubs (e.g. racing clubs, leisure clubs or alternative groups such as ‘fixie’ bike groups) etc. that essentially contribute to cycling practice within a city. For the benefit of this research three particular social sites have been selected based on their contribution to cycling in Newcastle. Figure 4-1 visually illustrates the various terminology mentioned throughout the thesis and its subsequent relationship to other terms.

Figure 4-1 Cycling Social Sites Conceptualisation

The relevance of social sites and their relevant stakeholders is identified in other research (see Aldred and Jungnickel, 2014). This research compliments Aldred and Jungnickel’s to widen cycling research beyond the focus of the physical network and its users. When selecting multiple cases, it is usually in regards to a number of

different cities. Both Aldred’s ‘Cycling Cultures’ and Pooley et al.’s. ‘Understanding Walking and Cycling’, utilised four case city studies throughout their research in order to compare and contrast. Unlike Aldred and Pooley et al., the use of multiple case studies is not necessary for this research considering the research questions. Rather, it is of importance to identify multiple social sites within Newcastle that contribute to the development of cycling culture. This will allow an in-depth and critical analysis of one particular case and the various social sites that contribute or have contributed to the production of a cycling culture.

The hypothesis of the study is to investigate whether sites of cycling contribute to a cycling culture within Newcastle that affects the performance of cycling as a social practice. The three sites were identified in the early stages of the research and are important in influencing cycling practice in Newcastle. Selecting Tynebikes, The Newcastle Cycling Campaign, and The Cycle Hub provides both historical and contemporary reflections of cycling practices. In relation to the theoretical framework of practice theory, practices can evolve, change and alter as time progresses, therefore the ability to measure different conceptualisations of cycling practices through time helps to also establish potential alterations of cycling performances and trajectories.

As a result, through the selection of these three social sites, I highlight cycling in Newcastle throughout the years of 1982-2000 and 2010-2017.

Whilst two social sites are primarily cycling campaigns (Tynebikes and Newcastle Cycling Campaign), the third social site, The Cycle Hub, provides an example of a more recent aspect of cycling culture in the form of cycle hubs. The focus on cycle hubs in research has been rather scarce (see Buss and Lardy 2015; Spurling and McMeekin, 2015); therefore researching The Cycle Hub begins to shed further light on an underrepresented social site of cycling. Again, utilising different social sites such as this provides further analysis into potential variances of what cycling practices are and thus alternative variants of cycling being advocated for in

Newcastle. This focus is also supplemented by a wider engagement with Newcastle’s cycling culture as outlined in Chapter 5. This provides a valuable context for the forthcoming empirical chapters, introducing broader stakeholders, social sites, and documents that are not necessarily representative of the three social sites selected but provides a wider overview of cycling in Newcastle.