UK Data Archive Study Number 7705 - Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods: Localities Programme, 2009-2010 WISERD Locality studies: Methodology and Interview Schedule WISERD has developed a programme of research around three localities in Wales – the Heads of Valleys (HoV) region north of Cardiff (known as the Cardiff locality); the Central and West Coast region (comprising the unitary authorities of Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire and the former district of Montgomeryshire in Powys and known as the Aberystwyth locality); and the A55 corridor from Wrexham to Holyhead in North Wales (known as the Bangor locality). This research has involved interviewing 120 stakeholders across the three localities who have links to one of eight policy areas identified by the Welsh Government and WISERD as reflecting the range of key devolved and non-devolved policy areas. These also map onto existing networks and centres of excellence of academic research in Wales. Policy Area Crime, public space and policing Education and young people Language, citizenship and identity Environment, tourism and leisure Economic development and Health, wellbeing and social care regeneration Housing and transport Employment and training It was recognised early on that there are a number of relevant domains of experience implied in the term ’stakeholder’ including professional, policy, third sector, grass-roots and other forms of expertise, and that these vary in relation to different actors’ capacity to act; relation to the local, national and regional state; scale and scope of perceived remit; experience of and access to local lives and knowledge; access to state resources and power. In particular, there is a hierarchy of power and resources in which state officials are located at one end and local citizens at the other. In between there are different levels and types of intermediate organisation, including statutory agencies, civil society organisations and voluntary sector groups. Crime, Health, Education Public Language, Environment, Economic Housing Localities 1, Wellbeing Employment & Young Space Citizenship Tourism & Devel.& and 2, 3 & Social & Training TIERS TIERS People & & Identity Leisure Regeneration Transport Care Policing State Authorities Unitary Authority (UA) TIER1 Statutory agencies, partnerships; Quangos, ASPBs TIER2 UK Data Archive Study Number 7705 - Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods: Localities Programme, 2009-2010 Tiers 1 And 2 As a first swathe of interviews, then, it was decided that interviews with higher-level Service Directors and Managers at Tier 1 would provide an obvious means of cross-comparability in the three localities. In this, we recognised that Directors and Service Managers would give us 'on the record' accounts designed for public consumption; however, it was felt that as long these were replicated, where possible, across the three localities we would obtain illuminating insights into the ‘public faces’ of UA policy. It was also recognised that commencing with Tier 1 interviews would aid in the identification of Tier 2 stakeholders, since Tier 1 interviewees were asked to identify in interview the key individuals with whom they worked in relevant partnerships, agencies, ASPBs, etc. Selection of interviewees Our starting point was to take advantage of such comparability as there was in Tier 1 posts across the three localities. Hence, we ensured that, where possible, stakeholders occupying comparable positions and functions in local government were identified in order that interviewees’ remit could be broadly matched. This task of identifying ‘mirroring’ post- holders turned out to more challenging than expected. To find out to what extent there were comparable posts at Tiers 1 and 2 in the three localities, researchers used a combination of web-searches and phone calls to relevant UA departments to map the departmental/directorate structure in each UA. This information required us to understand the organisational structure of key functions in each UA, and involved considerably more investigatory work than expected. 3.1. Unitary Authority structures: Tier 1 There were potentially three Unitary Authorities, covering a large population area, contained within or having a footfall within the three localities, meaning that we did not have the resources to include them all. Therefore it was decided to select interviewees from Blaenau Gwent, Merthyr Tyfil and Rhondda Cynon Taf in the Heads of Valley’s locality (since the first two are wholly contained in the HoV designated area and the last is the largest Valley authority); Gwynnedd and Wrexham in the North Wales locality, and Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire in the West and Coastal Wales locality. During this mapping process, it became clear that there was a great deal of variation in the relative structures in place in each UA, and also that the public accessibility and availability of this information varied widely (for example, unlike the North and West localities, the HoV authorities did not publish information about the departmental structure on the Web. More significantly, there were discrepancies in terms of how management tiers were organised, in that some service directors reported directly up to chief executive, whilst for others there was a further tier in-between. To get a handle on UA structures, researchers produced templates identifying the directorate/departmental structure in each of the selected UAs. Comparing templates across localities allowed the three teams to identify those posts that were mirrored in all three, and where there were gaps. Because of the problems 'matching up' high level representatives across the UAs (not only in terms of our themes, but also in terms of different organizational structures and job remits) it was decided that we should aim to talk to the top Service Directors (but not Group Directors or the chief executive, as their remit too broad) in our UK Data Archive Study Number 7705 - Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods: Localities Programme, 2009-2010 UAs. Eventually we were able to compile a list of comparable stakeholder posts across the three localities - e.g. Director of Education, Director of Tourism, Director of Health, Director of Regeneration, etc – in relation to job titles and functions. Non-relevant departments such as Human Resources and Legal Services were omitted. By Autumn 2009 a joint list of targeted Tier 1 interviewees had been compiled, interviews were commenced, and work on compiling the Tier 2 list was initiated. Selection of organizations: Tier 2 Tier 2 included ‘shadow state’ actors, not employed in UAs, but acting in partnerships with them to deliver services and policy. They included Local Health Boards; Job Centre Plus and JobMatch; Community Safety Partnerships; Communities First (Overarching Coordinators); Visit Wales, Further Education Colleges, Careers Wales, Arts Council Wales, Welsh Language Boards, Welsh Transport Consortia (Tracc, Taith, Sewta), Countryside Council for Wales, Children and Young People Partnerships, Youth Offending Team managers, CAFCASS, National Museums, regional housing associations, Race & Equality councils (VALREC, NWREN), local Secondary Schools Clusters/Forums/Consortia. Interview schedule The interview schedule (Appendix 1) was designed, firstly, to reveal firstly WHAT the local meant to diverse stakeholders and HOW they came to know, define and enact it in their day- to-day practice in relation to other actors, defined agendas and perceived resources. What constructs did they employ in talking about the local area? What knowledge did they produce about it and what data did they draw upon in doing so? Were there any gaps? Secondly, it was designed to discover what current issues were on the table for stakeholders and how they were approaching these, particularly in relation to the roles of other actors and organisations they worked with, institutional constraints and resources, and the agendas that were currently emerging and how these had changed. How were current issues related to the past? How was success defined? What were the successes and failures of the day? How did the interviewee define his or her remit and role? Thirdly, we wanted to address issues of resources, power and autonomy: who makes the decisions that affect the interviewee’s day-to-day working? How can local people influence decisions that affect them? How were the recession/budget cuts affecting the interviewee’s remit? We ended with the question ‘What is Wales’? Conduct and transcription of interviews Interviews began towards the end of Oct 2009. Each interviewee was sent a standard letter of invitation in Welsh and English, together with a one-page outline of the WISERD Localities programme and the letters were then followed up by a researcher phone call to arrange date and time. A consent form was given to each interviewee to sign (Appendix 2). A summary of the interview schedule was sent out in advance to interviewees who requested it. Transcription Transcription of interviews from all three teams was handled centrally by the WISERD Hub Office, and audio files uploaded to a secure server using a file-name format agreed by all three locality teams. Interview invitations and follow-up actions were recorded via a tracking spreadsheet on the secure shared server. Interview transcripts were checked for errors by UK Data Archive Study Number 7705 - Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods: Localities