This thesis will follow the methodological structure of a case study, which implies an intensive study of one or a few cases, rather than large-n cross-case-science (Gerring, 2007;36-37).
Document analysis is the most important part of the collection of data. The collection will follow the logic of Bennet and Checkel’s (2015) discussion on process tracing, and early in the process it became clear that the data collection should be supplemented by interviews with relevant actors. This to go beyond the official documents and coverage of the process, which is key. Nuclear policy is controversial, and interviews will be important to get a hold of the forces evident before an official statement came into force. While the theoretical backdrop gives guidelines for analyzing the material, the interviews will have a twofold ambition. Firstly, it gives a possibility to supplement the findings from the documents, and thereby increase the validity of the data. Secondly, as nuclear is a controversial topic, the anonymous interviews with highly relevant actors in the Hinkley Point C-case, will have the possibility to paint an even broader picture of the process.
This thesis has an ambition to investigate the political process of expanding Hinkley Point C.
It will be an intensive study of the political process, where there is an extensive focus on crucial points in time. It will do this with a process tracing of the turn of events. Conclusively, by investigating influence from a diverse set of relevant actors over time, the findings will contribute to the discussion regarding EU influence over national policy, formulation of domestic energy policies and business influence. Therefore, the findings in this case study could potentially have a value beyond the narrow scope of this analysis. Though it is not an aim to draw conclusions that furthermore could be generalized to another level, the conclusions and findings can say something about three aspects. Firstly, the findings will say something about EU influence on domestic policy formulation in the field of energy. Secondly, it will shed light on business influence on British policy formulation by investigating the way from initiative, via consultation to finalization. Thirdly, this will be done in the nuclear sector, a highly-debated policy area, and by that go beyond official statements to analyze the work done prior to these political priorities. The research question is analytical in its nature, as it proposes a wish to show what means both the politicians and the business sector uses to reach their intended targets.
26
The case study gives the opportunity to go in depth of a political process like the one given in the research question, and furthermore examine it within its context. With the outcome in the Hinkley Point C process at hand, the case study can be used to explain why and how different social phenomena interact (Yin, 2009:4, Gerring, 2007;49). Following Yin (2009;46) this will be a single-case design.
The method chapter will have a fourfold separation. Firstly, the nature of case studies will be introduced, before, secondly, process tracing will be discussed. Thirdly, document analysis will be discussed, before, fourthly and finally, semi structured interviews will be introduced and discussed. All the four mentioned methods will be discussed considering three criteria’s. Their strengths, their weaknesses and how the methods will be applied in this thesis. It should be emphasized that a case always gives a number of observations, caused by changes along the timeline or by different units inside the case (Gerring, 2007;21). The latter is a key point to bear in mind in an analysis like the following. The thesis will be split into two sections, where each one contains important points in time in the Hinkley Point C-process. This separation is a result of the process tracing itself. The reason for this separation of time-units is twofold, and in connection to the given method. By identifying important points in time, one could have a more concentrated focus. Then both the document analysis and interview process have certain points of reference, where it is expected that the number of observations increase. As an event occur, critical for the Hinkley Point C-process, it is expected that the efforts from the actors involved increases. Different actors at different sides of the case could have divergent connotations to the given critical points in time which – if it is true – will manifest itself in both the interviews and the findings in documents.
Following Yin (2009;43) a case study could be a fruitful way to make analytical generalizations, but at the same time it is not the aim of this thesis to generalize the turn of events evident here to other cases. This study will understand this case, and not develop theoretical generalizations (Levy, 2008;4). Levy (2008) calls a study like the one following for a theory-guided case study.
The aim here is to use theory to structure the empirical findings and help interpret the findings.
The empirical findings are a mix of written and oral sources of information. This is one of the strengths of the case study, with its use of different types of sources. This triangulation of methods helps validating the eventual findings presented in the following sections (Yin, 2009;114-116).
27
3.1 Case study
A case study entails the detailed and intensive analysis of a single case (Bryman, 2012;66). This thesis represents a case of British policy formulation in the field of nuclear energy, with Hinkley Point C as the specific case. The reason for conducting a case study as method is given by the nature of complexity and nature of the given case. One of the most famous case studies is Allison`s (1971) study on the Cuban missile crisis, but a case study could also involve an in-depth analysis of organizations, communities or political processes (Bryman, 2012;67).
The latter is true for this analysis. Hinkley Point C represent a case with a limited time span with a broad number of actors involved in the shaping of both the process and outcome. Gerring (2007) labels these types of studies intensive case studies, which identifies the causal mechanisms when going in depth of the case. The nature of the case, with different unexpected turns of events during the process, paves the way for an intensive examination to shed the brightest light possible on what caused these different turns. Case studies could be conducted inside both a qualitative and quantitative framework. The first is true for the following analysis.
A qualitative case study often includes a longitudinal element, which is evident in this thesis as it looks at a process inside a defined timespan over ten years (Bryman, 2012;71). Bryman distinguish between five types of case studies. This thesis will be closest to what Bryman calls the extreme or unique case. The Hinkley Point C-process represents a unique story in the British nuclear sector, and the story contains a set of actor which have not been present in a context like this before.
Furthermore, the case study in the following analysis will be connected to the given theoretical framework. The discussions in the theory chapter resulted in a number of theoretical expectations, which is important for guiding and ensuring the quality of the qualitative research (Bryman, 2012;71). To have the broadest base possible for making valid conclusion in relation to the theoretical expectations, the case study will be conducted with a twofold approach.
Firstly, a broad base of knowledge of the case and the debate surrounding the Hinkley Point C-process will be generated through thorough investigation of qualitative sources. Both academic research done on parts of the Hinkley Points C generally, and state aid policy and nuclear politics specifically, will be viewed and analyzed in relation to this thesis. Furthermore, since the debate have been public for the last decade, statements made by central political and business actors in the media also will be relevant to implement in the discussion. Secondly, the thesis will do interviews with central actors. The choice of respondents is vital to ensure the
28
highest level of validity possible inside this framework. The interviews are a direct effect of the document analysis, which revealed some actors to be crucial at the given breakpoint. Both the nature of interviews, the choice of respondents and the developing of the interview guide is examined more thoroughly in chapter 3.4 Interviews.
3.1.1 Documents as source of data
The thesis will examine official documents and furthermore use statements by relevant actors in the media as a base of information. However, at the same time as these different documents is used to reach one target, they must be treated with divergent precautions. Margaret Olson (2010;2) provides a three-step process to ensure that the document included is relevant and valid as a source in a case study. Firstly, they must be selected on the basis of their usefulness and relevance to the research question. The relevant sources in this case is delineated somewhat, in terms of the specific time-span and relevant actors. Secondly, the authenticity of the source needs to be validated, before the researcher, thirdly and finally, approves the documents with some control questions (Olson, 2010;3).
- Under what circumstance and for what purpose was it produced?
- Where does the information evident in the document originate from?
- Could other documents tell the same story?
Official documents could take on different forms, but both is captured under what Olson labels primary documents, as they are created by actors close to the phenomenon under study (Olson, 2010;3). Official hearings or consultations directed by government will have the 1) purpose to shed light on the questions forwarded in the context, which is a hearing or consultation, 2) it originates from government, and 3) it could be arranged both to answer newly arisen inquiries about the case, or to confirm or disprove information relevant for having the hearing in the first place.
Media documents, however, needs to be treated with an even greater degree of caution. In contrast to primary documents, they are labelled as secondary documents. However, Olson (2010;3) is clear to remark that these divergences does not mean that they cannot function as supplements in an analysis. She writes that primary documents can affect the secondary documents, but also emphasizes that it could be the other way around (Olson, 2010;4). Media documents can be 1) made to tell news to the public, and different papers can have different agendas when telling the story, and 2) produced with different sources of information, often
29 chosen as a source by the journalists. The third question, if other documents tell the same story, is especially important for the media documents. A lot of statements in the Hinkley Point C-case has been made through the media, and these sources is cross-checked with other media sources, to ensure the quality of the data.
3.2 Process tracing
Following Blatter and Blume’s (2008) three strategies for case studies, the one evident here is one defined by causal process tracing. It digs deep in to the chain of events over time, and analyzes the causality by investigating the interaction between different elements evident in the chain. As made clear in the introduction, the thesis has included the most crucial actors in this process.
Process tracing is a style of analysis used to reconstruct a causal process that has occurred within a single case (Gerring, 2007;2016). It is a way to examine the intermediate steps in processes, and – although originating in the field of cognitive psychology – it can be a fruitful way to dig deeper into macro-level explanations (Bennet & Checkel, 2015). The aim is to both understand how and why the result is connected to the events evident in the – in this case – ten-year-long process of expanding Hinkley Point C. Through document analysis supplemented by interviews with highly relevant actors, the thesis will present a chain of independent observations, which will give the results credibility. The aim is to show which independent variables who leads to the result, the finalization of the process.
The term conditional generalization is important. It is not an expectation that there is one independent variable responsible for the outcome. In contrast, the thesis expects that different measures of influence, at different points in time, has shaped the process towards finalization.
This is by Gerring (2007) labelled multi component contingency.
Process tracing in this thesis will follow the logic from Process tracing: From metaphor to analytic tool by Andrew Bennett and Jeffrey T. Checkel. As the aim is to capture as much covariation as possible the thesis will emphasize on the causal mechanisms in the given political process. In this way one could identify intervening mechanisms important for the final outcome (George & Bennet, 1997;1). In the case of Hinkley Point, one could – like Thomas (2016) – look at the political suggestion in 2006, and compare it to the finalization of the deal in 2016.
However, you would not get more in-depth knowledge about why the potential changes has occurred.
30
The why is relevant. The chain of events in this thesis ends when Theresa May puts pen to paper, and finalized the deal in September 2016. Why did the Commission approve the Hinkley Point C-deal, after viewing if it was in line with state aid rules or not? Why did it end up being a state aid case? Why was the Hinkley Point C-expansion initiated in the first place?
Alongside this why’s, there will be central to answer what. The process tracing will function as a method to highlight the important points in time, and then, with document analysis and interviews, it will be highly relevant to seek to shed light on what the different actors did at these points in time. The what’s will be answered in light of the theoretical expectations, with document analysis and interviews as methods.
These why’s and what’s needs to be put into analytical terms. Process tracing yields causal and explanatory adequacy, it says in Bennett and Checkel’s book (2015). But only if four criteria’s is followed.
1) Causal graph – the historical tracing needs to be explained in a chain that is jointly sufficient to explain the outcome.
For this thesis: The story from initiative to finalization needs to be complete, with enlightenments at every breakpoint in time to explain the further evolution of the process.
2) Event-history map – There is a correspondence between the events in the case study and the chain.
For this thesis: There needs to by a clear justification on why the events highlighted is relevant for the chain of events.
3) Theoretical statements – The causal mechanisms evident in the process does actually happen as a result of theoretically relevant mechanisms.
For this thesis: The theories presented in chapter two can somehow shed light on the causal mechanisms.
4) Rival explanations – Eliminate contrasting explanation in a credible way, by demonstrating that they do not satisfy the first three criteria listed above.
For this thesis: Through document analysis and interviews with an uttermost emphasize on the most critical periods in the process, possible contrasting explanation for why the Hinkley Point C-process evolved in the way it did will be discussed.
31 Furthermore, connecting to all of the four mentioned criteria, the researcher has to be open for twist and turns. As the analysis follows the path of process back in time, it could be uncovered new dynamics and events important actors for the outcome of the process (Bennett & Checkel, 2015). In a case like Hinkley Point C, if new dynamics or events occur, it would be more of a possibility than a problem. To capture the largest degree of covariation as possible is the overarching aim, and should the document analysis or the interviews uncover some unknown dynamics at play in the process this will have to be analyzed thoroughly.
3.3 Interview
In addition to the critical case study, the papers findings will build on results from interviews of actors who currently plays, or in the past played, an important role in the Hinkley Point C-project from both a British and European perspective.
The interview will follow a semi-structured logic. This means the researcher will prepare an interview guide which functions as a basis for all the interviews conducted, but with relatively open questions the informant’s answers could pave new ways for the interview (Bryman, 2012;471). If previously unknown aspects are mentioned, the researcher could ask for more in-depth information if this is fruitful to shed an even broader light on the research question. The questions do not necessarily have to follow the same order from interview to interview, as inputs from the respondents can make it natural to jump to questions planned later in the interview guide.
However, the making of the interview guide is an important step in the process. It starts with the researcher asking him- or herself a question of “what is really puzzling me?” (Bryman, 2012;473). The answer to this question shows what the researcher needs to know to shed light on the given research question. This thesis` interview guide will use Kvale’s base for developing question (Bryman, 2012;476-478). Kvale has nine tips of developing a good interview, and all of this points were used. The most central ones are the introducing question, the following up questions, the probing ones, the specifying ones, the more direct questions and the interpreting questions.
The nature of the semi-structured interview gives the opportunity to follow up on aspects mentioned by the respondents. As nuclear is a topic of controversy, it is an expectation that a lot of information has not reached the media, or is transparent in the official documents. This is partly the reason for use the semi-structured logic. If the respondents give information that was
32
not available for the researcher before conducting the interviews, a probing question would allow the respondent to elaborate more about a given topic (Bryman, 2012;478).
It will be important to conduct interviews with actors relevant for the case, from different perspectives. To shed light on the given research question it would be fruitful to interview people which where a part of the political process around Hinkley Point C. Political actors, inside the government, the bureaucratic body or business actors who had the Hinkley Point C on their agenda, are the most relevant for many reasons. Firstly, they will have the most relevant information regarding the political room for action. Secondly, the pressure from EU – in this thesis regarded as pressure from above – will be one the domestic political actors would have taken into consideration during the process. Finally, the business impact dimension could be enlightening further by asking relevant question to both the once in the business sector and the once the business actors try to influence on their way to a decision. Furthermore, an important point is to identify actors on “both” side of the business sector. Therefore, interviews will be conducted with both pro- and anti-nuclear business groups.
Heffron (2013;604) identifies important actors who influence the nuclear policy in the UK on four levels. On the State Institution level, he includes Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the European Commission. At the level of the private sector he includes EDF as one of the most important, and at the NGO-level he identifies World Nuclear Association (WNA) and the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA). The fourth level is the academic researchers, which not will be a part of my analysis. The respondents interviewed in this thesis includes actors state institution level and the NGO level. Furthermore, this thesis includes actors outside the stakeholders in the project, with interests in shaping the Hinkley Point C-process.
3.3.1 Potential problems
When conducting interviews, there is several guidelines a researcher should follow to make the results as valid as possible. To avoid leading question is important. Questions have to be specific enough to get an answer who shed light on the given research question, but at the same time it should not lead the respondent in answering in one way or another (Bryman, 2012;473).
However, the researcher has a role in guiding the interview in the right direction, labelled steering by Kvale.
33 The context of the interview is also important. It is an overarching aim for the interviews made in this thesis to be conducted face-to-face, in a quiet setting. This will create a calm atmosphere with no distractions. However, some of the interviews had to be made by phone, due to the fact that the respondent was unavailable at the different points in time when the interview was conducted. Interviews by telephone extends the list of potential threats to the results, and to be aware of this is important to bear in mind before, under and after the interviews.
Before the interview, one has to plan an even more specific language, as the body language is non-existing. This connects to another aspect of telephone interviews, which is the lack of connection between the researcher and the respondent.
3.4 Validity and reliability
Though mentioned briefly earlier, the questions regarding validity should be examined more thoroughly. A threefold introduction of validity will be presented, with a discussion on internal, external and respondent validity in relation to the case evident in this thesis.
The overarching aim is to make conclusions with a high degree of integrity (Bryman, 2012;47).
One of the theoretical expectations in chapter 2 was: The actors who are able use learnings from interaction previously in the Hinkley Point C-process, when pursuing their interests in an institutional setting, will be most likely to reach their targets. When analyzing this expectation in the main part of this thesis, followed up by concluding based on the collected material, this connects to internal validity. The mentioned theoretical expectation paves the way towards a causal explanation: The relevant actors did x to get result y. Potentially, both the qualitative research on textual material and the interviews will shed light on this causal relationship.
However, to conclude an unimpeachable mechanism between x and y should not be done without certainty. Furthermore, a researcher – in addition to fulfilling the given task to the fullest – should be able to differ between a complete causal relationship, and a partly, causal relationship. The variation in y - if the analysis supports it – can be explained by the identified variation in x, but the thesis could also come short of finding the full picture. These understandings are important to make the research credible (Bryman, 2012;49).
While the latter is a question of internal validity, external validity is another aspect to bear in mind when doing research. When analysis the Hinkley Point C-process, will these findings exclusively explain this process, or could the findings be generalized to similar processes other places or at other points in time? If the answer to this question is yes, then a degree of external