Section two of the case study protocol

The SPIRS case study was structured and informed by an abductive approach where the data and the evidence were collected from multiple sources. This approach can reduce potential issues with the research findings by ‘establishing the construct validity and reliability of case study evidence’ (Yin, 2009, p.114). Hence, the researcher collected data from semi-structured interviews, observations, documentation, and archival records.

5.7.1 Purposive Sampling

To collect the qualitative data for the research, the participants were sampled. The researcher took a portion of the population for the collection of data. ‘Population’ was not the public; rather it was specific to the population involved in SPIRS, security, and infrastructure. The findings of the research are not generalisable to all railway stations in England, the aim was to develop and generalise concepts and theories (Yin, 2009).

Therefore, participants were chosen on the premise of their significance to, and knowledge of, SPIRS, the problem area of resilience and security issues, and thus they ‘produce[d] the most valuable data’ (Denscombe, 2010, p.35).

Some were sampled from several relevant stakeholders who took part in the Resilient Futures project due to their involvement or interest in the resilience of transport infrastructures in the UK.

Consequently, in terms of sampling the participants, the researcher had strong gatekeepers in place for accessing participants within SPIRS. The gatekeeper’s connections were

extremely significant to the sourcing of relevant participants to the research. The research sampling captured the ‘diversity as well as relations and tensions between’ (Saukko, 2003, p.20) SPIRS’ different stakeholders. Another method of recruiting research participants occurred through snowballing sampling. The participants were asked if they were aware of other people or colleagues who would be appropriate to contact for the research.

Moreover, the initial Stakeholder Map created from the preliminary literature and policy review assisted with the primary round of purposive sampling. The Stakeholder Mapping methodology is examined in section 5.11.1.

5.7.2 The research participants

The researcher interviewed thirty-four participants, between 2011 and 2012 for the data collection stage of the research (data from two interviews 5 & 6 was not analysed). These participants came from a broad range of stakeholder groups applicable to SPIRS. Table 5.3 illustrates the participants, their organisation, the date of the interview, and how it was recorded. As per the ethical considerations and the Data Protection Act 1998 (section 5.7.3), the participants have been anonymised. In addition, to minimise researcher bias and to mobilise the principles of researcher reflexivity, the location of the interviews and how they were recorded was documented for each interview.

Table 5.3. Participant Table.

Stakeholder Role Conducted Location and how interview was undertaken

1 BTP Senior Policy Advisor MAY 2011 BTP headquarters, meeting room, digitally recorded (R Futures research)

2 BTP Senior Policy Advisor MAY 2012 Loughborough University, meeting room, digitally recorded

3 BTP CTSA and ALO JUNE 2012 Loughborough University, meeting room

digitally recorded

4 BTP Senior Manager JULY 2012 BTP station office at St Pancras International Railway Station. Notes taken by hand 5 LOUGHBOROUGH

UNIVERSITY Professor of Criminology May 2012 Loughborough University, office, notes taken by hand. Data not used in research

6 CHINA STATE POLICE Policing Expert CT Beijing – Crowded Places

May 2012 Loughborough University, office, notes taken by hand

7 CAMDEN BOROUGH

COUNCIL Civil Servant MAY 2012 Camden Borough Council offices, meeting

room, digitally recorded

8 BTP Inspector JAN 2012 St Pancras International Railway Station, East

Midland Trains First Class Lounge, notes taken by hand

9 BTP Inspector JULY 2012 BTP station office, St Pancras International Railway Station, digitally recorded

10 NETWORK RAIL Retail Manager June 2012 St Pancras International Railway Station coffee shop, notes taken by hand

11 NETWORK RAIL Security Manager September

2012

Network Rail Offices, St Pancras International Railway Station, meeting room, digitally recorded

12 ARUP Principal Consultant June 2012 ARUP Offices, London, meeting room, digitally recorded

13 NACTSO/BTP Detective Inspector July 2012 BTP headquarters, Camden, notes taken by hand

14 TPS CARILLION Director June 2012 Telephone interview, notes taken by hand

15 GALLIFORD Operations Manager October

2012

Leicester Marriot Hotel, coffee lounge, notes taken by hand

16 HS1 Security Manager. June 2012 St Pancras International Railway station, coffee shop, notes taken by hand

17 CROSSRAIL Security Consultant August 2012 St Pancras International Railway Station, coffee shop, notes taken by hand

18 PASSENGER FOCUS Policy Advisor October

2012

Telephone interview, notes taken by hand

19 BTP SARGENT Sargent December

2012

British Library, coffee shop, notes taken by hand

20 EUROSTAR Security Manager December

2012

Eurostar London Office, meeting room, digitally recorded

21 NETWORK RAIL Security and Emergency Planning Specialist

November 2012

Network Rail York offices, break out area in an open plan office, notes taken by hand

22 LONDON FIRE BRIGADE Planning Officer December

2012

London Fire Brigade Headquarters, Southwark, coffee lounge, digitally recorded

23 SERCO Security Manager December

2012

British Library, coffee shop, notes taken by hand

24 MARKS AND SPENCER Multi Retail Store Manager February 2013 Marks and Spencer St Pancras International Railway Station, back office, digitally recorded

26 NETWORK RAIL National Resilience and Continuity Manager

February 2013 Network Rail London Offices, coffee bar, digitally recorded

28 TRANSPORT FOR LONDON Community and Crime Prevention Manager

April 2013 Transport for London Offices, St James Park, meeting room, digitally recorded

29 TRANSPORT FOR LONDON Infrastructure manager April 2013 Transport for London, St James Park, staff room, digitally recorded

30 S015 CTSA May 2013 New Scotland Yard, Coffee area, digitally

recorded

31 BTP Liaison Officer October

2013

St Pancras International Railway Station, East Midland Trains First Class Lounge, notes taken by hand

32 RSSB Senior Manager April 2013 Rail Security Strategy Board London offices, coffee area, digitally recorded

33 NETWORK RAIL 2012 Interview took place under the RFutures

interview schedule, it was digitally recorded, and the interview was a team member of the RFutures project

34 CPNI 2012 Interview took place under the RFutures

interview schedule, it was digitally recorded, and the interview was a team member of the RFutures project

Those stakeholders who were contacted to take part in the research but either declined or those who did not respond can be found in Appendix 5.3. The potential reasons behind the lack of participation by some of the stakeholders is examined in section 5.13. Furthermore, section 5.13 discusses the impact and biases of the researcher which could have affected the participants and their responses given in the interviews.

5.7.3 Ethical Considerations and Data Protection

The SPIRS research data was collected from human participants and potential issues surrounding ethics were considered. The researcher ensured the ‘dignity, rights and welfare of research participants’ (ESRC, 2010) and protected their professional reputation by following ethical guidelines. The ethical checklist devised by Loughborough University’s Ethical Advisory Committee was followed and the appropriate approval was sought if required. T h e researcher considered the SPIRS participants, because of the research topic, not to be at risk of any significant harm by taking part in the research. Within the remit of the ethical protocol, the researcher considered the safety and confidentiality of the SPIRS participants. This was achieved through an information sheet and a transparent and unambiguous agreement called an informed consent form. The participant information sheet stated how the data would be collected, used and how the research findings would be disseminated. It delineated the research boundaries by highlighting the case study station and the type of stakeholders who would be interviewed as part of the data collection process.

Furthermore, the informed consent form has enhanced the reliability and confidence of the research (Creswell, 2009). Informed consent is ‘central to most ethical guidelines’

(Silverman, 2006, p.323) and because the researcher obtained the participants informed and signed permission, their rights were protected. Copies of the templates for the

participant information sheet and informed consent form are located in Appendix 5.4.

The participant’s confidentiality was effectively managed ‘at all stages of the process’

(Ward, 2004, p.345), from approaching participants, data collection, safekeeping, and analysis, and the dissemination of the results (Ward, 2004, p.345). This research is compliant with the Data Protection Act 1998 and Human Rights Act 1998, so the rights of participants have been fully respected. The Data Protection Act 1998 provides a code of ethical practice surrounding the storage of personal data and thus covers the data collected for this research (see Appendix 5.2).

5.7.4 The Robustness and quality of the research

The multiple methods of data collection discussed in sections 5.3 illustrate and distinguish the types of qualitative research methods. By using documentation and archival records as evidence in the SPIRS case study it was key ‘to corroborate and augment evidence from other sources’ (Yin, 2009, p. 103). As part of the abductive systematic combining process, documentation was sourced through interview recommendations and vice versa, interviews were used to collect data and corroborate documentations. The multiple sources of evidence have strengthened the quality of the SPIRS case study as ‘data will be less prone to the quirks deriving from any single source, such as an inaccurate interviewee or biased document’ (Yin, 2003, p.83). Another strength of using multiple sources of information was the ability to triangulate the sources of evidence to corroborate the research findings (Yin, 2009).

It was critical the research design and the SPIRS case study protocol (detailed in the above section) was well-defined, developed and followed so the findings are reliable and dependable. The scientific origins of reliability and validity are not necessarily or should be applicable to qualitative research, particularly as constructionism has formed the basis of the ontological position of the research (Bryman, 2004). For a constructionist position, the research should be credible, transferable, dependable, and confirmable for it to be robust and reliable (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). A traditional ‘truth value’ (Seale, 2004, p.77) was exchanged for credibility through in-depth interviews, observations, and triangulation. The transferability of the research is found in the thick and rich descriptions and analysis of the SPIRS data which ‘give the reader…the vicarious experience of ‘being there’’ (Seale, 2004, p.78). The dependability of the research is based on the case study protocol and auditing

of the methods used in the SPIRS case study. Auditing along with reflexivity established the confirmability of the research. To enhance the confirmability of the research the below verification approaches recommended by Creswell (2009, p.199-200) have been followed:

Table 5.4. Verification strategy adapted from Creswell (2009, p.199-200).

Triangulation Multiple types of information, interviews,

documentation, and observations are collected. This reinforces the internal validity and reliability of the research

Observations of SPIRS Repeated observations of SPIRS, over a

two-year period. This allowed for contextual observations to be triangulated with interview data and documentation

Clarification of data collection limitations Limitations of the data collection is articulated and explained.

Where stakeholders have not

participated in the research this will be elucidated and public domain

documentation will be sought

Clarification of researcher bias The biases of the researcher to ensure external validity