Research Philosophy

5.4.1 Introduction

The methodological approach to research must correspond with the epistemological views on the nature and assessment of knowledge. In other words, the researcher’s ontological position concerning people’s beliefs regarding ‘the nature of social entities’ (Bryman 2008: 18). A key challenge for the nature of social activity in the context of this thesis using the conceptual

framework (see Table 10) to explain the PV of ULAC as economic development policy in Scotland (i.e. the Scottish Cities Alliance), is the backdrop of national institutional flux, increasing localism, and austerity government as case study context. Therefore, by taking an interpretive

methodological approach (Stake, 2005) to the research, the focus of the research is on establishing understanding by gathering insights from those involved in the policy network process in Scotland (i.e. government agencies).

The ontological and epistemological position best suited to an institutional approach to

understanding the PV of ULAC within a specific Scottish context, is the researcher’s normative belief that an interpretive critical realist approach works best for this research (see also Bathelt and Gluckler, 2003 and Hay, 2011). The ontological position proposed by Sayer (2004) is that ‘it is not causal explanation over interpretive understanding, it is one of using both…where critical realism argues that they are…interrelated (p12).’ Thus, a critical realist ontology suited to an investigation of the nature of causality in the ULAC-outcome process, is consistent with the view that an

interpretivist approach (Stake, 2005) can also serve a causal explanation in that interpretivism and critical realism are related.

The emphasis of the importance of an interpretive critical realist approach relates to the contextual importance of explanations, without the need for establishing ‘universal laws’ (Ackroyd and Fleetwood, 2004: 166). For example, Harvey (1998) argues that critical realism recognises the centrality of key questions, including: ‘How are texts and interpretations used within the interaction of institutions? How do they generate and participate in the relations of power and ordering’ (p85).’

The ontological position of the thesis consistent with an interpretive critical realist approach, focussed on providing explanation, interpretation and understanding of the causal nature of policy processes, contextually dependant on the underlying mechanisms and structures within which networked policy is situated. Hence, the critical realist ontology is deemed most suitable for taking into account the important role of institutional context at the regional, urban and local level of the ULAC network setting.

Consistent with Bathelt and Gluckler (2003) (see Table on p124) perspective of the importance of a critical realist (evolutionary perspective) approach to the study of economic and social geography (akin to the economic, social geography and governance academic context of the thesis), views human action as taking place within ‘contextual’ ‘open systems’ and cannot be explained by

‘universal laws’ (p126). Recognising that critical realism ‘is not necessarily the only methodological alternative toward a relational economic geography’²¹ it is viewed to be particularly relevant for conceptualization that appreciates the importance of ‘context’ and

‘contingency’ (Bathelt and Gluckler (2003: 128), consistent with the theoretical approach in this thesis. In other words, critical realism is believed to ‘provide a fundamentally different

epistemological perspective of causality that systematically accounts for context-specificity in human action’ (Bathelt and Gluckler, 2003: 126).

Critical realism (Hood, 2012, Sayer and Pawson, 2006) suggests that there ‘exists a reality independent of our senses’ (Pawson, 2006: 20) for interpreting the ‘real, actual and empirical’

(Hood, 2012: 7). The critical realist ontological position in this thesis is to view ‘cause and effect as being transmitted through discretely structured but open systems’ (Hood, 2012: 7), through explanation and appreciation of both structure and agency as being ‘fundamental to the constitution of our natural and social reality’ (Reed, 2000: 527). Thus, critical realism is regarded as a form of

‘structuralism’ focussed on ‘discovering the unobservable structures that guide or determine

21 See Harvey and Braun (1996). Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Vol. 468. Oxford: Blackwell (1996), and also Reed (2000). The limits of discourse analysis in organizational analysis. Organization 7.3: 524-530.

events, irrespective of the beliefs of individuals or the meanings of actors’ (Bevir and Rhodes, 2016:53).

By considering the complex nature of causality within the ULAC-outcome process within the particular ULA setting, the critical realist ontology is that policy outcomes are not generalizable or predictable, and best understood within their ‘objective reality formed of both events and

underlying causes, and although these dimensions of reality have objective existence, they are not knowable with certainty’ (Clark, 2011).

Importantly, consistent the ontological position proposed by Sayer (2004:12), in that ‘it is not causal explanation over interpretive understanding, it is one of using both…where critical realism argues that they are…interrelated.’ Thus, the critical realist ontology suited to an investigation of the nature of causality in the ULAC-outcome process, is consistent with the view that an

interpretivist approach (Stake, 2005) can also serve a causal explanation in that interpretivism and critical realism are related. The emphasis is on the contextual importance of explanations, without the need for establishing ‘universal laws’ (Ackroyd and Fleetwood, 2004:166), instead, focussing on explanation, interpretation and understanding policy processes in context of underlying mechanisms and structures. Hence, the critical realist ontology is suitable for taking into account the important role of institutional context at the regional and local level of the ULAC network setting.

Consistent with an interpretive methodological approach of this research, the selected epistemology is thus consistent with the methodology in terms of how the nature of knowledge is accessed.

Section 3.5.2 outlines the critical realists ontology suited to investigating the PV of ULAC,

followed by a discussion of the researcher’s reflective positionality on the research (section 3.5.3).

5.4.2 Critical Realism and Collaboration Policy Research

The epistemological approach to research requires an awareness and choice of how to interpret or read case study material (i.e. the ontology). The collaboration policy and network nature of this thesis research required a critical realist approach towards the case study material, appreciating that collaborators are ‘both producers as well as products of the corporate culture’ in relation to the agency-structure relationship positioned by critical realism (Welch et al. 2011: 753). In other words, the epistemology of critical realism is ‘interpretivist in nature, assuming that our knowledge of structures, mechanisms, and events is constrained by our ability to access only a portion of the events that occur, and is historically and socially constructed and thus inherently subjective’

(Tructures et al. 2013: 935).

Critical realism is a relatively new approach with limited studies in the area of collaboration or networked policy settings (see Hood, 2012 and Tructures, 2013). Critical realism can be useful for describing causality within complex network policy settings by explaining how certain events are produced from structures, actions, and contextual situations. Collaboration and network policy within an urban local government context incorporates a range of structural elements, that from a critical realist perspective, both formal and informal, for example: the rules and structures within the network; collaboration mechanisms; individual collaborators; the relative position of the collaborator within the network; and the resources available. Such structures of collaboration are dynamic and complex, where a key strength of critical realism is its ability for understanding complexity within collaboration settings through its explanatory focus and reconciliation of agency and structure and recognition of the wider knowledge of individuals (Clark, 2011).

The research approach adopted here is also consistent with the methodological approach by Tructures et al. (2013) and Hood (2012), to support critical realist case study research, involving explanation of collaboration-related processes relative to: key events; structures and context;

dynamics and collaboration mechanisms; empirical corroboration of hypothesized mechanisms, and adoption of triangulation and multiple research methods. Critical realism is useful for

understanding the structure of collaboration processes that result in causal mechanisms generating specific events throughout the process, and an appreciation of contextual influences on that process. In the context of ULAC, from a critical realist perspective, the structures and context of the collaboration process is the focus for explaining and understanding outcomes in a dynamic, complex open social system of policy making. In this sense, internal network structures and mechanisms are potentially subject to external dynamics, explaining how network events are caused and generated.

Thus, causality within the policy-outcome process is assumed to be non deterministic, based on the view that structures ‘exist in open systems…of hypothetical mechanisms’ (Tructures et al. 2013:

935) interpreted as generating or causing the observed pattern of events within the observed case study context. Hence, the ontological approach in thesis is consistent with the view that ‘outcomes of any intervention…are never predictable…and dependent on interpretation’ (Hood, 2012: 7).

A key requirement of the thesis research approach is the need to interpret the role of informal institutions (i.e. norms and values) within the case study context, through verbal and non-verbal observations. The characteristics and skills of the researcher will have an important role

interpreting the research data, as well as ‘all research is an interpretation of an already interpreted world’ (Welch et al. 2011: 744). Therefore, subsection 3.5.3 considers the important role of the researcher consistent with critical realism, and the researcher’s experience and relevant skills in relation to the research process.

5.4.3 Reflexivity: Researcher’s Influence on Ontology

The requirement for a ‘hermeneutic and phenomenological call for reflexivity’ towards research relates the a researcher's ‘positionality’ in terms of their lived experience and ways in which the researcher’s personal background may: shape access to research intelligence (i.e. persons, organisations, documentation); and, shape understanding of research data (Yanow, 2007: 117).

First, the researcher has both lived, studied and worked in Scotland for all of her life, with some 20 years experience working in, and researching, public policy in Scotland. In particular, the

researcher has previous experience of designing and delivering ‘collaboration’ policy in Scotland:

as a senior policy manager in Glasgow City Council (e.g. 2014 Commonwealth Games Legacy) and Scottish Government (e.g. Framework for Economic Development), and academic researcher at University of Strathclyde (Regional Policy in Scotland). As a result, the researcher has a well-rounded knowledge of Scotland’s national and local economic development policy/agency context.

The researcher is thus investigating a thesis research topic with significant prior knowledge and personal views built on experience, as well as existing professional networks to agencies and individuals directly relevant to the research case study. Second, the thesis research fieldwork involved undertaking a part-time internship within one of the organizations directly connected with the case study, as a potential ‘partial-insider’ to the ULAC case study research.

Given the above context, it is important to reflect on any implications this may have for the thesis research and researcher’s own ontological position on the thesis research. The research focus on Scottish Government and local government meant being able to ‘find ways to negotiate this protectionist [policy] environment’ when in the ‘uncomfortable position as organizational

outsider’, and viewed as either ‘student, practitioner’ and/or, ‘researcher’, having a relative impact on the ability to access research intelligence (Einagel, 2002: 2). Doctoral researchers are regularly viewed as being ‘on the periphery of the academic community’ (Einagel, 2002: 2), which is also understood to either enhance, or hinder data accessibility.

In relation to gaining access to individuals and agencies, prior knowledge and well-established professional connections with the public policy sector in Scotland, provided: a) legitimacy and credibility when negotiating data access; b) access to a wide network of individuals and agencies when identifying potential Scotland collaboration policy case-studies; c) a more empathetic, refined and knowledgeable approach to issues discussed during interviews.

Furthermore, implications from being regarded a ‘partial-insider’ to the case study process, or viewed as a ‘professional’ instead of ‘student researcher’ given previous working connections, meant taking a cautious and reflective approach to interpreting the data. The aim was to ensure research findings reflected the interviewees experiences, rather than the researchers pre-existing

opinions. As a result, a reflective approach to the data access, collection and interpretation was required, so as not to prejudice the results: academic supervisor’s providing ‘outsider’ scrutiny to the fieldwork and interview approach and questions. Open interview questions were used to provide the option for wide discussion of the topic relative to the interviewees chosen direction.

This was of particular importance given the ontological position of the research aimed at providing thick descriptions (Ponterotto, 2006) of contextual circumstances that provide meaning through explanation, including the opportunity for the individuals’ subjective understanding to be captured within the explanation of the ULAC process.

There is recognition that researchers will always impact research findings, as participants

themselves in the research process. Given that the epistemological approach can influence the data gathering process and analysis, the interpretive approach acknowledges that everything is

understood and analysed within a specific social context. A degree of reflective realism is required to help understand the way that knowledge is constructed, and to reflect on any preconceived ideas of the research findings and preconceptions (Davies, 2007).

Qualitative research often involves a degree of subjectivity (Cook and Crang, 1995), meaning the positionality of the research findings will involve a degree of openness to challenge, although as Cook and Crang (1995) suggests, value can still be created from the researchers

‘acknowledgement’ of such limitations. Thus, it is acknowledged that the positionality of this research cannot be regarded as completely impartial from preconceptions and knowledge of how the world is understood, or the positionality of the research in terms of the epistemology in defining and understanding collaboration as a ULAC, due to the diversity of interpretations and definitions of what constitutes ‘collaboration’, as highlighted in Chapter two of the literature review. A key factor in achieving positionality of the research has been to gain as full an understanding of the research ‘context’ as possible, through the researcher undertaking a visiting position within the case study organisation over the course of the data collection period, to allow as much experience and insight into the case study as possible.

Having explicitly discussed the ontological and epistemological aspects, and building on aspects related to the researcher’s potential impact on qualitative research, the next section will discuss the impact of cultural-cognitive differences between the researcher and the participants in the context of data collection and analysis of an institutional context of ULAC.