Research Design Using Network Theories

This section introduces the sampling strategy and how participants were selected; how they are referenced in the text; how to find those references in Appendix 5; and the design for the interview and the survey. There are also tables to facilitate matching how the questions used were developed as indicators for particular attributes and relationships (Figure 17 and Figure 18). The section starts with the selection of the participants, and then explains the interview design followed by the survey.

2.4.1 Sampling Strategy: Choosing the Participants

The two case studies are used to understand what is required for archaeology to function in urban contexts. In each city, invitations were sent out via email for individuals to participate in a semi-structured interview, and a survey was circulated electronically using Facebook, Twitter and through membership lists from some organisations. Individuals selected for interview were identified through prior research. This prior research involved mapping actors through their direct involvement with archaeology in each city, or through their role within organisations marked as relevant to the research. Further interviews were arranged through suggested references offered by participants during the interviews. Interview participants were also emailed with the request that they assist circulating the online survey.

28 London & Partners, 2015. ‘London attractions see 7.11% increase in visitor numbers in 2014. Retrieved from http://www.londonandpartners.com/media-centre/press-releases/2015/150313-london-attractions-see-711-increase-in-visitor-numbers-in-2014

29 Steve White is a senior archaeologist who recently moved to ASE from MOLA, England.

Chapter 2: Methods and Methodology

The study welcomed responses from any individual involved in the practice of archaeology in either city. The intention of the study was to include a wide range of actors from the various sectors of archaeology, which include academia, private, government, museum and local societies. Figure 15 below illustrates how different organisations were categorised.

Appendix 3 provides the list of participants from each city, with how they have been categorised.

Because participation was voluntary, the sample selection does not reflect the proportion of each sector within the universe. In London, only 60% of those invited accepted the invitation requesting an interview, while in the US 86% accepted. A list is not provided of those who declined (for ethical reasons), however even the invitation process provided relevant insight on who it reached, how it reached them, and who is excluded from this sharing network.

Academia   Private   Local/National  

Figure 15 The categorisation of organisations into sectors for this research

Participants were categorised according to the sector that they work in: this could be government, private, academic, local society, or other, which may include museums or retired participants for example. Figure 16 below illustrates the size of the sample in relation to the number of

Figure 16 Estimation of archaeologists working in each case study/city

As we can see, the sample size is a significantly small percentage of the total number of archaeologists working in the city. It is, however, a fair representation of most of the actors that are known as key players in the city. Most participants have played significant or leading roles in

30 This section depends on the individual. There are some instances where retired participants or museum employees fall under other specific sectors. See Appendix 3 for all categorisations.

31 Estimated number of archaeologists according to Aitchison & Rock-Macqueen (2013): 92; as for NYC, this estimation should be taken very lightly as it is those registered in all of NY under the RPA. It does not appear, for example, to include academics.

Chapter 2: Methods and Methodology

the development of each city and include directors of important bodies and institutions, or reputable specialists, academics and contractors. The survey was circulated to reach out to as much of the population as possible, however this method was not successful due to poor participation and should be considered further for future research. Section 2.8 details the demography of participants further.

2.4.2 Case studies and Non-Random Participant Selection

The case studies were selected to try to provide two cases that were as similar as possible. At the same time, because the study aims to be useful for cities that are facing drastic changes through global forces, in future research it is worth considering global cities– such as Shanghai – that have different socio-political approaches and structures in place for archaeology and heritage, yet deal with similar external forces.

In addition, participants were non-random: I relied on a network that may have excluded various individuals, groups, and clusters from the study. For example, many archaeology and historical societies were not approached simply because the network of urban practitioners saw them merely as enthusiasts rather than archaeologists. Efforts to counter this exclusion via the online survey failed as most societies have elder members who are not (a) internet-savvy or (b) part of the email network group whereby they would receive the invitation.

In addition, social cognitive mapping (whereby participants refer others) is a laborious method which is logistically complex as well as time consuming. Respondents providing detailed information about social relations may not have been followed through as decisions for further exploration were decided based on their relevancy towards the study.

Some questions also were more or less relevant to particular sectors, which revealed an unawareness by some sectors about the questions being asked. This can be seen in the spreadsheet. For example, academics or archaeological societies felt unable to discuss issues of standards or the monitoring of excavation processes.

2.4.3 Representing Participants in the Text

The full transcripts or notes are available in Appendix 5 as a CD: each document has the approval of the participant. Where full permission is declined, an edited version is provided. While some of the withdrawn information has been used throughout this thesis, any link to identify the participant has been removed. This process highlighted the sensitivity of how participants relate to their community and environment; while it did lead to complications in terms of referencing data, it revealed a hint of the difficult and political context in which participants work.

Each transcript is divided into small sections using a numbering system. If a transcript is

Chapter 2: Methods and Methodology

referenced in the text, it appears as (pers. comm., Surname, Year: No. of Section). The reader can then find which city the participant is identified with by going to Appendix 3 (listed alphabetically by surname) and then opening the relevant city folder in Appendix 5 and clicking on their name as all transcripts are within a single PDF document for each city. Appendix 3 also provides the participant’s affiliation, the location of the interview and the duration of the interview.

The reader will also note that on occasion the reference is (pers. comm., anon., year of interview):

this is because interviewees edited their interviews quite late in the research, but it also indicates what comments individuals prefer to not have on record, which illustrates what they perceive as sensitive. Some comments, for example, are neither political nor risky, and so it is interesting to note they would rather not be identified with such comments or views.

2.4.4 Interviews

The units of analysis for the interviews are individuals who are either representative of (a) themselves as independent practitioners, (b) a particular sector when applicable, or (c) an organisation.

Each participant was emailed an information sheet and consent form (Appendix 1), inviting them to talk about their views and experiences in archaeology. The participant determined time and place, as well as duration, although I did request an hour of their time. Some interviews lasted a mere 30 minutes but those are rare and few; many are just above an hour while others are over 3 hours. Location also varied, from café or park to quiet offices or homes. I asked permission to record the conversation using the software on my smartphone: they were assured that prior to any use of their information that may identify them, they would first be allowed to edit it.

In each interview, I sought to create a comfortable environment, and allowed the participant to talk freely without much interruption. Figure 17 provides a summary of some key questions that were asked during interviews. It includes the indices and purpose of each question.

Questions     Indices   Purpose