4.6. Case study methods
4.6.2. Semi-structured interviews
A ‘polyphony of voices’ is one of the nine methodological guidelines of PPR (Flyvbjerg, 2004). It refers to multiple voices rather than one single voice with the purpose of in-depth study of social dialogue and praxis in society (Flyvbjerg, 2001, 2004). In this regard, language plays a pivotal role. Without language, neither any account of experiences nor any sense of a world can be made (Schostak, 2006, p. 26). Qualitative interviewing is a way of focusing on language through active live involvement with research participants. There are several forms of qualitative interviews (Rubin & Rubin, 2012; Schostak, 2006). However, three main types are well known in qualitative research: structured, semi-structured and unstructured. As semi-structured interviews have the flexibility to be combined with structure (Legard, Keegan, & Ward, 2003) and a methodological framework, this interview type was used. Such flexibility enables better data collection for values, interests, power and norms as per the methodological framework of this thesis. The data was analysed at three levels in both New Zealand and Pakistan: national/federal, regional/provincial and local/metropolitan.
In line with the above mentioned methodological guideline of a ‘polyphony of voices’, Wilcox’s (1994, p. 16) four phases of initiation, preparation, participation and continuation were used as a strategy in the identification and selection of respondents. This was done through an extensive document analysis evaluating the roles of different stakeholders at the project initiation, preparation, participation and continuation stages. Before selecting the respondents, two main considerations were given attention: (1) Are there other ways to answer the research questions? And, (2) what are the limitations posed by the interviews? In this regard, a strategy of combining the data from the documents and interviews was followed so that the limitations posed by the absence of key stakeholders could be handled. For example, the New Zealand Minister of Transport refused to be interviewed despite repeated requests. However, the limitation posed by his absence, as a key stakeholder, was overcome by extracting his point of view from different
95
documents and media reports. Similarly, the number of interviews in the M2PP case study was less than that of the LRR-SL. It was because the New Zealand transport policy documents were much more detailed and exhaustive as compared with the transport policy documents of Pakistan. This limitation was also overcome by following the same strategy of combining the data both through document analysis and interviews. Therefore, quality of in-depth interviews data was given priority rather than just quantity. Adding more interviews in the M2PP, for example, could just have repeated the same data as was obtained through document analysis and other interviews. In line with the methodological framework, shown in Figure 5, the respondents were identified in a way to further enrich the data obtained from the document analysis rather than producing repeated information. Accordingly, some respondents were selected because of their strategic roles at the initiation stage of the project. These respondents had greater strategic interests in the projects with the power to define the direction of policymaking. Some respondents had major roles at the preparation and participation stages of the case studies. These stakeholders had the power to influence both the policymaking and policy implementation stages of the two projects. Another group of respondents were selected because they had lesser power at the participation and continuation stages but were still influential in the projects implementation.
The 2010 MacKays Crossing to Peka Peka community engagement report (NZTA, 2010a, pp. 20-31) was used to classify the M2PP stakeholders as shown in Table 2. Based on this report, some other stakeholders such as Ministry of Transport and Ministry of the Environment were also added. Accordingly, three interview groups called Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3 were constituted for better data handling in line with their powers and interests at different stages of the project (see section 2.4.2). Based on this classification, the views of the M2PP stakeholders were gathered through document analysis and semi-structured interviews. Many of the stakeholders’ views were available in various documents. Furthermore, those residents were preferred for interviews that represented a larger community from the platform of local organisations. Therefore, the number of interviews in the
96
M2PP is less than that of the LRR. However, in case of the LRR, the stakeholders’ views are almost absent in the documents. Therefore, more interviews were conducted alongside consulting the media reports.
Table 2: Interview groups in the M2PP
Group Stakeholders Classification criteria
Group 1 Ministry of Transport, political parties’ elected members
Major stakeholders at the iniation stage of the project with major interests regarding the benefits and risks of the M2PP.
Group 2 NZTA, city councils elected members, experts, business community, affected property owners
Middle level stakeholders with the power to influence either the policymaking or policy implementation at the preparation, participation and continuation stages of the M2PP.
Group 3 Ministry for the
Environment, media, Maori, Police, local
parliamentarians
Another group of voices, which is although influential, but has lesser operational power at the preparation, participation and continuation stages of the M2PP with varying interests regarding the benefits and risks of the project.
Source: the author
Data on these groups was collected through document analysis and semi-structured interviews. In the M2PP, the views of the affected residents, the experts and the politicians were gathered which constitute ten interviews as shown in Table 4. A similar classification of stakeholders was also made for the LRR-SL as shown in Table 3. In this case, similar views of the affected residents, the experts and the politicians
Table 3: Interview groups in the LRR-SL
Group Stakeholders Classification criteria
Group 1 Punjab government,
military owned enterprises, political parties’ elected members
Major stakeholders at the iniation stage of the project with major interests regarding the benefits and risks of the LRR.
Group 2 LRRA, experts, federal government, business community, affected property owners,
Middle level stakeholders with the power to influence either the policymaking or policy implementation at the preparation, participation and continuation stages of
97 Communications and
Works department
the LRR.
Group 3 Punjab Environment
Protection Department, Lahore Development Authority, media, Police, local parliamentarians, Ministry of Environment
Another group of voices, which is although influential, but has lesser operational power at the preparation, participation and continuation stages of the LRR with varying interests regarding the benefits and risks of the project.
Source: the author
were gathered by conducting twenty four interviews. Accordingly, the interviewees’ representation at national/federal, regional/provincial and local/metropolitan levels was ensured. Lists of interviewees are given in Tables 4 and 5. These lists provide the details of interviewees along with other necessary details. Flyvbjerg (ibid)
Table 4: Research participants interviewed for the M2PP project. M2PP
Interview date
Interviewee Organization/Capacity Position held
September 2012
Jim Bentley (Expert 1)
M2PP Alliance M2PP Alliance Project Manager and Director Centre for Infrastructure Research, University of Auckland
August 2012 Stephen Selwood (Expert 2) NZ Council for Infrastructure Development (NZCID)
Chief Executive Officer (CEO)
September 2012 Jane Davis (Expert 3) Greater Wellington Regional Council (GWRC)
General Manager (GM) (Strategy and Community Engagement Group), GWRC
October 2012
Arthur Grimes (Expert 4)
Motu Economic and Public Policy research
Senior Fellow
July 2012 Jonathan Gradwell (Resident 1)
Save Kapiti, Kapiti resident
Founding member Save Kapiti and local resident
July 2012 Michael Pickford (Resident 2)
Local resident, Save Kapiti
Chief Economist, member Save Kapiti and local resident September 2012 Ken Shirley (Resident 3) NZ Road Transport Forum (NZRTF)
CEO, NZRTF and local resident
August 2012
Phil Twyford (Politician 1)
Labour Party Member of Parliament (MP) and Transport Spokesperson August 2012 Julie-Anne Genter (Politician 2)
Green Party MP and Transport Spokesperson
October 2012
David Banjaman Takamore Trust Representative Takamore Trust
Source: the author
98 LRR-SL
Date of interview
Interviewee Organization Miscellaneous
December 2012
Amer Aziz (Expert 1)
City and Regional Planning department (CRP), University of Engineering and Technology (UET), Lahore
Assistant Professor (AP) December 2012 Shakir Mahmood (Expert 2) CRP, UET, Lahore AP December 2012 Nadeem-ul- Haque (Expert 3)
Planning Commission, Islamabad Deputy Chairman
December 2012
Fayyaz Ahmed Buzdar (Expert 4)
Lahore Ring Road Authority (LRRA), Lahore Deputy Director (DD) (contracts) December 2012 Najam Waheed (Expert 5)
LRRA, Lahore DD (engineering)
January 2013 Javed Ilyas (Expert 6)
LRRA, Lahore Chief Engineer (CE)
January 2013 Ilyas Shah (Expert 7)
LRRA, Lahore DD (Planning and
Development)
January 2013 Khalid Javed (Expert 8)
Planning and Development (P&D) Board, Lahore
CE (Roads & Bridges)
January 2013 Ansar Javed (Expert 9)
Communications and Works (C&W) department, Government of the Punjab
Deputy Secretary
January 2013 Kazi Riaz (Expert 10)
National Engineering Service of Pakistan (NESPAK), Lahore
Project Manager, Lahore Ring Road
January 2013 Abdul Qayyum (Expert 11)
LRRA, Lahore DD
January 2013 Abdul Waheed (Expert 12)
LRRA, Lahore Director
January 2013 Mahmud Ahmad
Malik (Expert 13)
NESPAK, Lahore GM (Highways
Division)
February 2013 Imran Yaqub (Expert 14)
Punjab Police, Lahore Senior
Superintendent of Police
(Administration)
February 2013 Shahid Cheema (Expert 15)
Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad Chief (Research and Statistics)
February 2013 Shahid Iqbal (Expert 16)
National Transport Research Centre, Islamabad
Acting Chairman
February 2013 Munir Anjum (Expert 17)
PC, Islamabad Member
(Infrastructure)
February 2013 Pervez Iqbal (Expert 18)
National Highways Authority, Islamabad
GM (planning)
February 2013 Naila Almas (Expert 19)
International Cooperation Agency, Islamabad Senior Program Officer February 2013 Waseem Mukhtar (Expert 20)
Punjab Transport Department Secretary
December 2012
Ghulam Nabi (Resident 1)
Harbanspura area of Lahore Affected resident
December 2012
Abdul Bari (Resident 2)
Bhatta Chowk area of Lahore Affected resident
January 2013 Ejaz Chaudary (Politician 1)
Pakistan Movement for Justice party (PTI)
President PTI Punjab
99 January 2013 Chaudary
Zaheeruddin (Politician 2)
Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid-e-Azam) [PML (Q)]
Former C&W Minister/Opposition Leader Punjab Assembly
Source: the author
demonstrates how document analysis and semi-structured interviews methods may be employed methodologically. Acknowledging the argument that nobody has got enough wisdom to answer all aspects of PPR (Flyvbjerg, 2004), an effort was made to maximise the utility of the data by thematically transforming the research questions into interview themes in line with Flyvbjerg (1998b).
Wright and Barnard (1975) suggest two main problems of completing self- administered questionnaires: problem with the language and the way in which the information is arranged spatially. These two problems suggests that a questionnaire may either be verbal or non-verbal (Jenkins & Dillman, 1995). Schwarz, et al. (1991) present the differences between the two approaches. The interview questionnaires were structured in line with the PPR methodology for gathering opinions, beliefs and judgments [see, for example, Gillham’s (2000, p. 26)]. The purpose of this approach was to generate discussions about a phenomenon or process.
Four interview themes were framed. Under each theme two interview questions were structured. This approach thematically connects semi-structured interviews with four secondary research questions and produces well-structured data. The interview schedules were kept simple and discussion-oriented by focusing on contextual issues concerning roads investment with economic growth. However the interview themes were the same for both the case studies. The interview questions for both the M2PP and the LRR-SL are given in Appendix Three.