The background to the Collaborative Award through which this research was undertaken is discussed in Chapter 1. A CASE Studentship raises particular methodological issues about the research process, and the relationship between researcher and researched. Despite the pre-negotiated research proposal there remained a considerable degree of flexibility in methodological design and the focus o f the research. Throughout, there has had to be continual negotiation of the research between the agendas o f English Nature and UCL. The outcomes have had to reflect a balance between contributing to English Nature’s policy development and organisational learning, and contributing to academic debates about DIPs where English Nature is viewed as a case study, embedded in broader debates about governance and democracy. English Nature’s agenda centred on gaining outputs that were directly transferable into policy development, whereas the academic research agenda has placed greater emphasis on the contextual nature o f research findings and the interpretative, personal interaction between subject and researcher (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).
This tension draws on wider arguments about human geography as practice and its ability to influence policy. Martin (2001) argues that there is a danger of overemphasising the epistemic relativism of postmodernist human geography research to the extent that researchers are unable to make any meaningful statements to policy because everything is interpreted as subjective and contextuaHsed. As a researcher, I have to acknowledge the influence of my own positionality and the subjectivity of the knowledge constructed through my interactions with others, particularly through the case study, and on my interpretation of Enghsh Nature presented here (Russell & Kelly, 2002). By being transparent about these issues and by providing a descriptive account of the particularities of the case study, I have attempted to expose some vahd pohcy-relevant lessons for Enghsh Nature.
EN staff with a strategic interest in DIPs were very keen to enter into the research as a process o f reflexive, institutional learning. It was apparent that these staff members were particularly hopeful that through the discussions held between myself and other staff, the research process itself would help to raise the profile of DIPs within the organisation and encourage their use. It was also hoped that the case study would increase in-house experience of applying DIPs, and provide insights into how the organisation should move forward in relation to the issue. Another advantage coming from the CASE approach was the additional understanding 1 was able to acquire about the organisation by operating within it. As discussed in Chapter 2, the concepts of deliberation and inclusion are embedded in ideals about democratic structures and organisations that encourage learning. By being part of the organisational learning process on DIPs, 1 gained an understanding of whose ideas count within English Nature i.e. who is listened to, and how the organisation is learning about participation. This experience would have been less vivid if 1 had been operating from outside the organisation.
One o f the most obvious benefits of this situation was the access afforded to individuals and reports within EN. Through the role of my EN supervisor as gatekeeper, and the personal interest of interviewees in the research topic 1 had access to senior executive staff, including the Acting Chief Executive, two Directors and two General Managers.
My approach to the research was influenced by my personal beliefs about nature conservation and the role of deliberation in policy-making (both of which are at least in part moral and ethical issues). However, 1 also had a particular identity within the organisation which will have influenced relationships within the interviews and therefore the type o f conversations held. As 1 have a background in ecology and nature conservation, 1 was identified as having common interests, ideas and values as those 1 was researching. 1 also was not seen as having a value-neutral position in relation to the issue 1 was studying, for two reasons. Firstly, the organisation approached the research from the assumption that English Nature ‘needs’ to use DIPs, and the issue to be decided was when, who and how, rather than whether such processes were suitable. This agenda was exacerbated through my role in the River Avon case study where my involvement led to a DIP being used. As such 1 frequently felt my role within the organisation was constructed as an expert and advisor on DIPs, rather than a researcher into DIPs. The risk of being associated with a particular position is that interviewees shape their responses on the basis of what they think the
researcher wants to hear, what they think the researcher should not hear, and what they want the researcher to hear (Macdonald, 2001).
The action-oriented nature of the research meant that the traditional divide between data collection, analysis and outcomes became blurred. The strategic organisational desire for outputs and outcomes was apparent throughout the research period. The nature o f the CASE Studentship demanded an ongoing dialogue with English Nature staff about my findings through reports, presentations and informal conversations. Defining the research as a process of interactive dialogue constructs the interviewees as co-researchers (Russell & Kelly, 2002), particular in this case because they frequently had an interest in the research findings. In this way, I was able to use interviews and discussions as an opportunity to reflect on outcomes so far. However, as the research process went on, there were tensions over the discussion agenda in cases where I wanted to ‘learn’ certain things about the organisation, and interviewees wanted to ‘learn’ about DIPs. Care also had to be taken that, in my apparently influential position within the organisation, ideas raised by me for discussion were not necessarily interpreted as conclusions. As noted by Russell & Kelly (2002) the pressure on researchers to find early answers can hmit the time available to researchers to ‘hsten to the data’.
Another effect of the explicit policy focus of such a CASE Studentship is that the research audience spans the academic research community, EN staff and, potentially, other organisations with an interest in designing and institutionalising DIPs. As the research is linked to policy development within EN it was particularly important that research findings accessible to staff (at a strategic and local team level), both in terms of the language used and the relevance of the findings to their own interests. Thus in addition to the production o f a thesis, two reports were written for the organisation during the research process, plus an additional report for stakeholder interviewees in the Avon case study, and a summary report of the thesis is in preparation, as a means o f communicating the research findings back to the organisation^ In addition, I presented a number of seminars. These
^ T h e s e r e p o r ts are:
• ‘^Stakeholder and Situation Analysis — the Hampshire Avon. Selecting Principles for Consultation and
Participation for the Avon Pdver Conservation Strategy’. R e p o r t o n fin d in g s o f c a se stu d y
sta k e h o ld e r an d situ a tio n an alysis fo r E N .
• S u m m a ry r e p o r t o n fin d in g s o f c a se stu d y sta k e h o ld e r a n d s itu a tio n analysis fo r n o n - E N / E A in te r v ie w e e s in th e A v o n c a se stu d y
• Deliberative Methods of Stakeholder and Public Participation ’ (S tu d d , 2 0 0 2 ). E N resea rch r e p o r t
included one for an EN team interested in using DIPs, one for the Socio-Economic Advisory Group, and one at a Board meeting for the LIFE Project. I was also involved in the production o f a paper on stakeholder participation for E N ’s Executive Committee.