Chapter 12. Research Contribution: Conclusions and Reflections
12.2 Reflections on Research Methods
The use of a conventional comparative research structure and stakeholder analysis methods, paired with a rigid conceptual framework, proved both straightforward and fruitful in generating relevant findings. The rigour required to distinguish and separately code the capabilities, orientations, and strategies of each actor uncovered insights into why actors behaved the way they did. The comparative methodology was particularly helpful in illustrating the variety of ways that governance networks can begin, evolve, succeed, and fail.
187 On balance, the data gathering and interview approach taken proved to be effective in gathering the contextual, opinion-based information that the analysis sought. However the scale of information sought in each case was not easily obtained, and there remained minor gaps as individuals had left organisations and could no longer be reached. For example, in Toronto a key local politician who supported DLWC over many years died in 2011 before the interview process began. As described in Chapter 5, the researcher's choice to select cities where sufficient information could be obtained in the English language significantly limited the scope of case study selection and variation in the institutional setting. The trial of Social Network Analysis methods was discontinued after the challenge of establishing consistent boundary conditions proved too difficult for cross-case comparison in the large-scale 'messy' actor sets.
The benefits and limitations of Actor-Centered Institutionalism
ACI proved a helpful conceptual framework to analyse the cases. It enabled the researcher to visualise a ‘network’ perspective of how multiple actors approach interactions with each other without losing sight of the institutional effects on the network. Perhaps ACI's strongest feature was how it provided a structure to compare actor sets and actor strategies between cases, highlighting differences and similarities. Scharpf's detailed descriptions of modes of interactions and characterisations of types of negotiations also proved critical to uncovering the importance of non-negotiation spaces and distinguishing between general governance patterns and networks of negotiations. The researcher recommends the ACI framework for practice-oriented research on governance patterns of interaction, particularly although not exclusively suitable for multiple case analysis.
However, four significant limitations were encountered in the use of ACI. The first is ACI's relatively weak conceptualization of the institutional setting and its potential effects on actors, constellations, and modes of interaction. The research findings correlate with Scharpf in that institutional settings are a '5th variable' which influence all other variables. However compared to the description of actors and modes of interaction, Scharpf's treatment of the institutional setting is conceptually light and he does not define or characterise his rule systems or how they influence the actors, constellations, and negotiations. This weakness potentially stems from ACI's origin in European policy studies, where the institutional setting is roughly similar. When looking at international case studies where legal systems, histories, and ways of working are fundamentally different, the importance of the institutional setting in defining other ACI variables takes on greater importance.
A second limitation of ACI is the absence of a 'relational characteristic' variable; recognising formally that the quality and quantity of interactions can affect the success of governance networks. This was identified during the thesis literature review and the ACI framework and research design was modified to include this conceptual premise. The research findings on the importance of density and stability in interactions suggest that future use of ACI should continue this modification.
188 Third, ACI assumes a fairly static contextual background to policy development and implementation, and does not have an explicit mechanism to allow for significant economic, social or government changes (e.g. recession, change in political party control). Such factors shape actor orientations and behaviours and the actor constellation, but change is not included in the conceptualization of the institutional setting or any other of ACI's variables. This research dealt with change by giving room in the stakeholder analysis for actor orientations and actors to evolve; but other analysis methods may not be so flexible. Future research using ACI should be aware of this limitation and design data collection and employ analysis methodologies to respect wider social, political, or economic changes which might affect the governance network.
Finally, the research analysis finds that Scharpf's game theoretic approaches as described in Games Real Actors Play (1997) obscure complex real-world relationships between actors. The researcher has respect for how the game-theoretic aspects of his approach contribute to characterisations and to descriptions of negotiation types and actor arrangements. His theoretically derived characterisations proved well-founded and supported by this research findings and interpretations; for example the identification of non-negotiation space matches well with his identified need for "procedural separation of both types of interaction" (p135). And certainly such theoretical modelling of potential negotiations could provide insight into potential avenues for negotiation in a context where the policy goal itself is not certain; such as in Burlington. However on the whole the game-theoretical modelling is not explained satisfactorily in his book, and the simplification it suggests proves to be unnecessary for understanding real world situations. The games and graphs he describes are not constructive for undertaking analysis of detailed actor orientations and constellations. Instead what proves to be important is understanding, in each case, what actions could change actor opinions and at what point actors will start negotiating. Future researchers should respect Scharpf's conceptions of negotiations and his framework, but in a practical application of ACI following his game-theoretic tactics could potentially obscure understanding of governance networks.
Limitations of research on energy infrastructure for environmental goals
The title of this thesis employs the word 'capacity' deliberately, as a reminder of the ability of planning interventions to support DHC systems and of the importance of institutional context in defining the ability of planning to create, shape, and influence governance networks for DHC.
Planning's capacity lies in its suitability to promote DHC as a policy goal and its legal ability to engage other actors.
But capacity also calls to mind to Earth's carrying capacity and the natural limits of an environment to sustain itself. And the research findings suggest practical and policy implications for understanding how cities can address this planet's carrying capacity. They also hint that significant change to urban energy use could require greater interventions than policy goals and public-private negotiations. But the research findings are necessarily limited by the research structure which sought to understand patterns of actor behaviour within existing institutional contexts, where DHC was a published policy goal.
189