Sensitising concepts represent the initial but tentative ideas that researchers pursue as a starting point which guides but doesn’t command inquiry (Charmaz, 2014, p.30). The ‘sensitising concepts’ from which case studies would be purposively selected in this study were identified based on findings from the literature review (Chapter 2), a content analysis of LTP3s (Elvy, 2014), and the online survey and pre-study interviews outlined above. The sensitising concepts used to select the case study were:
Spatial variations between potential case study locations (in terms of demographics, transport infrastructure, and governance arrangements). This first point was selected to see whether there were any geographical differences in the opportunities and outcomes for SISM. This was also supported by the content analysis of LTP3s which found a geographical difference in the prevalence of participatory mechanisms with at risk groups (Elvy, 2014).
Explicit evidence of engagement with groups at risk of TRSE. The literature review (Section 2.2) highlighted the importance of addressing TRSE as being an essential part of achieving SISM. The online survey and pre-study interviews were used to gather evidence of this.
Explicit evidence of engagement on SISM (such as public transport, active travel and shared taxis). This was an essential component of this study and was a significant part of the discussion during the pre-study interviews.
Evidence of TRSE in the case study area (based on geodemographic factors such as high levels of non-car ownership in the 2011 census and discussion in the pre-study interviews). Again, the online survey and pre- study interviews were the principle forms of evidence used.
Evidence of ongoing PTPP in the case study area that would take place during 2015. This was a practical requirement that was essential for the timely completion of this study.
130
An opportunity to explore power relationships within different ownership and membership structures in those ongoing processes. This was to ensure that the significant coverage of power in the planning literature (Section 2.3) was not ignored in the analysis of this study. It also enabled flexibility in terms of selecting suitable case study processes as different local authorities took different approaches (e.g. Leicester’s mayor and cabinet took a significant lead in over-seeing their PTPP whereas Milton Keynes adopted a more arms-length approach).
Identification of multiple mechanisms available for participant observation in each potential location. This was another practical consideration in order to rigourously analyse the research questions posed.
Each of the sensitising concepts outlined above were used to score the suitability of each potential case study (Table 5.1) where explicit evidence of engagement with the following during the pre-study interview was worth one point and unclear (or some) evidence was worth half a point: each group at risk of TRSE (SEU, 2003; SDC, 2011); forms of SISM (grouped for simplicity as public/community transport, walking and cycling, and shared taxi schemes); evidence of TRSE in the local authority area; evidence of PTPP to observe (with points given for: direct links to the group leader, consent given by interviewee to attend, processes ongoing in 2015, processes with a specific transport focus, and whether the process could be attended without the need to find additional contacts).
When the sensitising concepts were scored in this way Milton Keynes (12), Leicester (14.5), Leeds (13.5), Stoke (10.5) and Halton (10.5) were identified as the case studies which best fit those criteria. Halton was subsequently eliminated due to a lack of events taking place within the core data generation period. Stoke was also eliminated from the study when only one ongoing process emerged (and that process was discontinued shortly afterwards). This left three case study locations: Milton Keynes, Leicester and Leeds.
131 Table 5.1: Case Study Selection Matrix
CASE STUDY SELECTION MATRIX
Case study selection interviews (2014-2015)
Halton Huddersfield Milton Keynes Stoke Liverpool Stevenage Leicester Leeds
Explicit evidence of engagement with the following socially excluded or at-risk groups…
Old YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Young NO NO YES NO YES NO YES YES
Disabled NO NO YES YES NO NO YES YES Ethnic Minorities NO NO NO YES NO NO YES NO
Low Income UNCLEAR NO INDIRECTLY NO NO NO YES UNCLEAR Lone Parents NO NO INDIRECTLY NO NO NO NO NO Specific areas in the
community YES NO NO YES NO UNCLEAR YES YES Explicit
evidence of engagement on SISM
Public/Community
Transport YES NO YES YES NO YES YES YES Walking and Cycling UNCLEAR YES NO NO YES YES YES YES Shared Taxi Scheme NO NO YES NO NO NO NO NO Evidence of transport related social
exclusion in local authority area YES UNCLEAR YES YES YES YES YES YES
Participant observation of ongoing
PTP mechanisms…
Known direct link to group leader/organiser
YES N/A YES YES N/A UNCLEAR YES YES Consent given by
interviewee YES N/A YES YES N/A YES YES YES Will take place in 2015 YES N/A YES YES N/A UNCLEAR YES YES
Has a transport
planning specific focus SOME N/A SOME NO N/A SOME SOME YES
Ready to go without need for additional
contacts
YES NO SOME YES NO NO YES YES
Local Transport Planning governance arrangements UNITARY
ITA/
COMBINED UNITARY UNITARY ITA/
COMBINED TWO-TIER UNITARY ITA/COMBINED Different power relationships of participatory mechanisms in terms of… Ownership/Control LA CTC SOME LA/SOME IND AGE UK/ ENGAGE CTC UNCLEAR SOME LA/SOME IND LA
Membership UNCLEAR OPEN
SOME OPEN/SOME STRUCTURED
OPEN 50+ OPEN UNCLEAR OPEN/ STRUCTURED
SOME OPEN/ SOME STRUCTURED
Type of mechanisms available for potential participant observation
Bus users’ group, area forums, residents’ associations? No specific groups identified Disability action group, bus user group,
youth cabinet, older people’s forum, business focussed steering group Older people's forum No specific groups identified Bus users’ group, cycle forum Council of faiths, ongoing shared space consultation? bus user service panel, ward committee meetings (area forums), youth council, cycle city forum City Connect (cycling) advisory group and stakeholder group, bus user panel (district public transport sub- committee), area forums
Points (1 per green box, 0.5 per
yellow box) 10.5 2.5 12 10.5 4 7.5 14.5 13.5 Is case study worth pursuing at this
stage based on above criteria? YES NO YES MAYBE NO NO YES YES
Notes: Halton - LA led engagement with an old people/area focus, Milton Keynes - Mixed leadership (some LA some independent) - more of a disability focus, Leicester - LA and faith community led with more of an ethnic minority/area focus - ready to go but may need a little bit of follow up with transport
132
5.5.4 Selecting individual case study PTPP
The specific case study processes in each study area (Milton Keynes, Leicester and Leeds) were purposively sampled depending upon what had been identified as an ongoing PTPP mechanism in the pre-study interviews. As the type of process itself was not a unit of analysis there was freedom to choose a range of PTPP in each area so long as they met four key tests:
Could enough participant observations be carried out within the time allotted in order to achieve theoretical saturation?
Were potential gatekeepers willing to allow me to attend their PTPP? In some cases, it took four or five months to reach agreement to attend various processes in the case study locations and led to the loss of one case study location (Halton) altogether.
What impact would researcher competencies have on data generation and analysis? In other words, could there be a barrier to effective communication?
Did the PTPP involve some aspect of SISM and have the potential for involvement of at-risk groups?
The nine case study processes all met the four key tests outlined above and were chosen because they enabled data to be generated in a range of processes, some of which were complementary (e.g. each study area involved observing a group with a significant interest in buses as that is a key aspect of local public transport) whilst others were unique within this study (e.g. a neighbourhood forum and a disability group). Table 5.2 provides a more detailed rationale for the selection of each case study process and Appendix C provides a detailed summary of the case study locations and processes selected.
133
Table 5.2: Rationale for selecting each case study PTPP
Case study process
Relevance to SISM Relevance to at risk
groups
Additional rationale for selection
CCAG Cycling focused Scheme aim to widen
participation and use active travel to tackle health deprivation
Ongoing project which seeks to improve opportunities for active travel in Leeds
CCSM
Cross Gates Forum
Interest in a safe environment for active travel
Public meeting with interest group
representation from at risk groups
Focus on local issues and representation, provides interest as a scale is ward level rather than the whole authority area
LDCSC Considered all public
transport issues
Public representatives including the elderly and people with mobility impairments
Public able to directly hold WYCA (responsible for sustainable transport) to account
Leicester Bus User Panel
Bus focused Public meeting with interest group
representation from at risk groups
Both Leicester forums were of interest because of their clear focus on SISM combined with the
involvement of the directly elected mayor
Leicester Cycle City Forum
Cycling focused Evidence of outreach and widening
participation
MK BUG Bus focused Public meeting Interesting history as a
campaign group with
independence from the local authority
MK DAG Accessible transport
was typically the main issue discussed
Interest group
specifically represents the needs of people with disabilities in MK
Group specifically created to represent the interests of people with disabilities in local government decision making. Also had set up a working group to focus in more detail on transport issues
MK DAG Transport Sub-Group
Specific focus on transport issues (e.g. taxis and community transport)
134