Graduate School

Reasearch Training Programme

Coursework Cover Sheet

Student number

Subject

Qualitative Methods

Year of study

2014

Course co-ordinator

Dr Jo Ferrie

Date of submission

22/01/2015

Word Count

3,842

(excluding bibliography)

Declaration of Originality form submitted

Please tick X

Please securely attach this cover sheet to your hard copy assignment

*** PLEASE DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON ASSESSMENTS ***

Proposal for a study of how the decisions and behaviour of Glasgow voters
were shaped and influenced during the Scottish Independence Referendum

On the 18th of September 2014 the people of Scotland took part in one of the most important events
in the countrys history, the vote to decide whether they should become a fully independent nation
or remain part of the United Kingdom. In the end the result was a close 55.33% in favour of rejecting
independence. Even in areas which decided yes, such as Glasgow, it was only by a narrow majority.
Given the fact that there are other independence movements and other upcoming referendums,
there is already talk of carrying out another vote for Scottish independence sometime in the future,
it is highly relevant for analysts to examine the reasons why people voted the way they did. There is
the obvious benefit of allowing those who ran the campaigns to see where they could improve and
prepare for the next time, but that is not the only reason. The findings from such a study could also
be applied to other kinds of referenda; the upcoming vote to decide whether the UK stays within the
EU is the one that seems particularly relevant in this case, given that there have been talks of
reopening the Scottish question if the decision is made to leave Europe. There is also the fact that
while there have been plenty of studies of voting habits in the UK, few have been about such a
charged topic; the voter turnout for this referendum was an impressive 84.59%. Given that turnout
for the general election has been declining, such a study might offer insights into how to get more
people into the polling booths. These, along with the simple fact that it is always useful to have upto-date information on how large groups of people behave, are more than enough reason for this
kind of research to be carried out. As for why this study should focus on Glasgow in particular, there
are good reasons for this as well. Beyond the obvious practical issues of a limited amount of
resources, Glasgow was one of only four districts to vote in favour of independence. Even though on
the surface it was one of the most pro-independent places in the country, the result was not that of
an overwhelming majority. While this does present some problems which will be elaborated on, this
gives us an opportunity to study how a less vocal portion of the population is influenced in how they
vote. The other main advantage of focusing on Glasgow is that it has the highest population density
in the country, meaning that it is an important area for anyone running any future campaigns for or
against independence. Its size also means a much greater variety of backgrounds within the
population, meaning that this could be used as an indicator of trends within the larger population of
Scotland.

2
To reiterate, the goal of this study is to analyse how voters decisions were shaped and what
influenced their behaviour during the referendum. As this is such a recent event, literature on the
actual vote is fairly scarce. There has been plenty of literature written in the run up about the
arguments for and against independence in relation to the referendum, ranging from economic
consequences to more radical literature. While this can give some insight into why people voted the
way they did, the literature does not really look at how they behaved in the run up to and during the
referendum. The subject of Scottish independence in general has a far longer literary history, with
Glasgow University Library having a letter extolling the necessity of independence dating from 1844
within its reference section. While this is useful for providing historical context for the independence
movement such literature provides a limited perspective to the question of why people voted the
way they did during the referendum. Perhaps of more relevance is the literature dealing with similar
referendums in other countries, such as the former soviet republics and Quebec territory. However,
the different circumstances (especially in the case of the ex-soviet republics) mean that studies of
them cannot be directly applied to the 2014 Referendum. Ultimately, the dearth of literature means
that there are plenty of opportunities to contribute original research to this topic. On the other
hand, this means that there is a much greater chance of this work unknowingly overlapping with that
of another researcher. As such, care needs to be taken in keeping up-to-date with what is published
in case the research objectives need to be altered.
As has been stated, the main objective for this study is to provide a report on the factors that
influenced voters. Given that those with the greatest interest in this are political analysts, who tend
to favour hard data, we will be adopting a Mixed Method approach. In this case we will be using one
of the definitions put forward by Creswell and Clark, gathering both qualitative and quantitative data
and mixing methods from both throughout the project (Creswell, 2007: 11). Not only will this help
those from different backgrounds make sense of the findings; it will give us the large selection of
information that such a complex issue requires. It will also allow us to address one of the problems
this study raises, the fact that this was an anonymous poll. Not only does this raise ethical concerns
regarding voters privacy, it makes recruiting more specific samples for the study more difficult. By
gathering data from quantitative sources such as poll results we will then hopefully be able to
identify areas that voted a particular way and adjust recruitment strategies accordingly. Other
sources such as economic data, population distribution, income and education would then be used
to supplement findings gained through qualitative research. Here, we have a potential concern in
whether this information is up-to-date. For example, the last census in Glasgow took place in 2011
and while there is unlikely to have been a massive change in the succeeding years it still has the
potential to distort the final conclusions. This is another one of the reasons for using a Mixed
Method approach; one type of research can be used to cover for deficiencies in the other.

3
This brings us on to the topic of how the qualitative research for this project will be carried out. For
the purposes of this study we will be relying on two methods that are suited for this project.
One method that would be suitable for this study is one that almost 90% of social science studies
rely on (Roulston, K. et al, 2003: 646), qualitative interviews. It is also the method that will see the
most obvious synergy with the quantitative methods we will employ, as the data we will gather
through them will be used as an indicator of who to recruit for these interviews and hopefully allow
us to craft an interview guide that will allow us to make the most of the time spent with participants.
One of the main strengths for this is that it will allow us the opportunity to go into much greater
depth in terms of social data about individuals. Additionally, if someone is willing to talk in depth
about the referendum and how they voted, they are far more likely to do so in a private one-to-one
situation. This is particularly true for a topic as emotionally charged as this one, where strong
feelings run on both sides and people will most likely be afraid to express an unpopular point of
view. Compare this with canvassing in public. When questioned on the street, most people will tend
to give short, almost stock answers. An in-depth interview will give us the chance to go beyond this
initial answer and give us a far greater insight into what influenced their decisions. Another
advantage of this method is that there is the opportunity to learn things that would never show up
in any quantitative research; oral histories, reactions that indicate unspoken truths and other such
things that allow us to get the interviewees point of view and understand the framework from
which they view the world.
Of course there are disadvantages with this method. One of the most obvious is the cost in time and
expense involved with it. The longer it takes then the greater the chance that other research will be
published that will overlap with ours as has been mentioned before, which could bring in concerns
regarding the originality of the work. There is also the fact that memories are not fool proof and
generally become more unreliable over time; however in this case that is less of a problem since the
events were recent and likely had a big enough impact that the participants memories remain fresh.
The expense of the method is of perhaps greater concern, since it limits the amount of interviews
that can be carried out. This in turn means that greater care must be taken when selecting
participants.
Due to the fact that we will be dealing directly with other people, there are a number of ethical
issues that must be taken into account. The first is getting proper informed consent from
participants by clearly explaining what is involved to them before the interview starts; the purpose
of the project, the funder, who the research team is, how the data will be used, and what
participation will require of them - the subjects likely to be covered, how much time is required and
so on (Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. 2003 : 66-7).Even more important is letting them know if anything
they say will be published and assuring that it will not be attributed to them. This can even be made
a part of the recruitment process. We could use the door knocking method as espoused by
Katherine Davies, which would provide us the opportunity to properly articulate what is expected
while begging to build a rapport with our potential participant. On the other hand, they might be
less comfortable talking to a stranger on their doorstep while the same results could be achieved via
phones or online communications. In this case a disposable phone and a new email account will be
used to ensure the researchers safety.

4
This brings us on to another important consideration for this research, the confidentiality and
anonymity of the participants. The advantage of interviews is that only one participant and the
researcher will be involved in the dialogue, greatly reducing the chances of personal details being
accidentally leaked. Care will be taken to ensure that any data collected will be securely stored and
labelled in a way to protect their identities until the end of the project. Participants will be asked if
they will consent to their data being archived, at which point it will anonymised. If consent is not
given, then at the end of the project the data will be erased.
As much as it presents a great way of gathering social data, an important aspect of qualitative
interviewing that must be considered is the risk to the participant and researcher. While this study is
not intended to cover sensitive topics, there is always a chance that they will come up in discussions
regardless. This is especially true for a something that can be as emotionally charged as the topic of
independence. Respect and empathy are must for this, and there may be times where it is necessary
to stay after the interview is concluded, listen to the participants concerns and try to talk to them
about lighter topics; if necessary encourage them to seek professional advice.
When it comes to protecting the researcher selecting an appropriate venue is important, as while
conducting interviews at the participants home will likely be more relaxed, it also means that if
anything goes wrong we will have to fend for ourselves. As such, interviews where there is
potentially trouble will take place in public venues that the participants are familiar and comfortable
with, such as their local pub. We will also inform a trusted individual, preferably another researcher,
of our movements and keep in contact with them. We will ensure to stay aware of our surroundings
and the tone of the conversation, as there will likely be participants with views that will strongly
contradict ours. Background checks may reduce the risk but that is not always feasible and may
prejudice the interview, so should only be used if interviewing people from groups known to contain
potentially dangerous individuals; We will be relying on our own judgment both before and during
the interview. If the discussion does become heated we will attempt to gently change the subject
and if that fails, excuse ourselves as politely and quickly as possible.
There are also practical issues to consider with interviews. We have already discussed the safety
issues in regards to the venues used but there are additional considerations. A venue must be
conducive to concentration: private, quiet and physically comfortable (Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. 2003:
166) and usually requires some form of adaptation. This is usually as simple as turning off televisions
and rearranging furniture, though the specifics will vary from venue to venue. How people will travel
to the venue also has to be factored into the decision making process. As to recording the
interviews, audio means are a must as even the smallest cues, such as tone of voice or pauses, can
provide insights into the participant.
Despite the drawbacks and practical issues, the information that can be gleamed from these
interviews will be of immense help in discovering some of the deeper reasons behind why some
people voted the way they did.

5
In addition to in-depth interviews this project will be conducting online research of social media,
utilising mainly user-generated content (UGC) analysis, while also examining hyperlinks and traces of
online behaviour such as internet search questions. It is especially suitable for this studys overall
approach as quantitative research can be gained through similar means. Also, social media played an
immense role in communication and organising for both sides of the debate, meaning that there will
be plenty of data to collect.
There are a number of other strengths to this method. Online social media provides us a way of
examining large group interactions without having to physically immerse ourselves into a particular
one for an extended period of time, complementing the individual focus of interviewing. In fact,
there is an opportunity to research a number of people beyond what is possible through more
traditional methods in a relatively shorter period. There are even entire databases of qualitative
data that can be accessed, and which ensure it is more reliable than simply using Google. It also
allows us to look back at past events and how people interacted with each other at the time without
having to rely solely on peoples memories. The anonymity of sites such as Twitter also gives us a
chance to access hidden voices that may be reluctant to speak in the real world.
Even as technology has added a new dimension to modern social dynamics it has also provided new
ways for researchers to approach, such as the computational approach, a method used by computer
scientists which involves big or enormous data collection, a web services-based approach, an
Application Programming Interface (API) manipulation approach and the attempt to model the
results (Giglietto et al., 2012: 153) and can be used to build a substantial database of information
and metadata; an approach which can synthesize well with quantitative research.
One of the practical strengths of this method is that there is very little in the way of preparation that
needs to be done, with the only real physical requirements being a computer, a secure internet
connection and a comfortable workspace. It is also relatively inexpensive, with the main costs
potentially being higher-end programs and upgrades to the computer being used. On the
organisational front, it allows the researcher to be much more flexible in terms of when he works
and for how long. A final practical advantage of this method is in terms of recording; there is little
need for transcribing and online videos can allow us to look for more subtle visual cues.
There are of course downsides to this method. The same anonymity that allows reluctant voices to
speak out also encourages others to lie and stir up trouble; so called trolls who could potentially
hijack any discourse. Although it allows us to gather a great amount of data it can create problems
when it comes to archiving such as issues of ownership, handling multiple formats, storage capacity
and the amount of time involved. There is also the fact that some sites such as Facebook have nonstandardised content, further complicating the archival process.

6
Perhaps the biggest issue with this method is the fact that because this is such a rapidly developing
area in terms of technology and behaviour the ethical guidelines have yet to be made concrete. One
of the biggest challenges is the blurring of the public/private spheres online. People now post a great
deal of personal information on social media websites which raises the question of whether these
should be considered public spaces for the purposes of research or the property of the participants.
There is also the fact that while consent should be sought as an integral part of research, on sites like
Twitter it will likely prove impossible to get it from everyone involved. The other problem comes
with presenting the data at the end of the project. Although things like privacy settings and
encryption can be used to protect the participants identity, in the long term it is virtually impossible
to guarantee anonymity since advancing technology may make such measures useless. All of these
factors mean that there are some who question whether such research should even be carried out.
However, I feel that if we follow Trevisan and Reillys conclusion and build on established ethical
practices in such a way as to address these human-centred ethical issues (Trevisan & Reilly, 2014:
1142) we can adequately address these concerns, particularly as this particular research topic is
about a much more public discourse than others.
Now that we have established the two research methods we will be using for this project, we will
discuss one that was rejected; in this case focus groups. Although at first glance this appears to be a
good compliment to the interviews being carried out, there are a number of factors that make this
method unsuitable for this project. The main one is due to the nature of the topic being covered and
the fact that focus groups are reliant on discussion and interaction to generate data. Due to the
strong opinions a large number of people hold in regard to Scottish independence there is a greater
chance that varied groups can become antagonistic, making the selection process more complicated
and time-consuming than usual. There is also the fact that protecting participants privacy is harder
when talking in groups; while recruiting people from the same social group may elevate this, that
often means they will have similar views leading to a more shallow discussion. In addition to this, the
amount of time spent on transcription, in addition to that of the one-on-one interviews, will mean
that the number of these that can be done is limited. While these sessions can give a much more indepth look into what social interactions influenced people than online research, the greater reach of
the latter makes it more suitable in this case.
Once we have gathered all the research material we can, we have to decide how to analyse it. Given
that the majority of these materials deal with the participants reactions, either with the researcher
or between themselves, discourse analysis may be one way to approach this. This could be useful for
identifying underlying influences in the way people responded to certain topics, especially when
examining the interview transcripts. However, this may be of less use when going through the
material gathered from online social media, mostly due to the multiple formats and the fact that
some sites, such as Twitter, do not lend themselves to proper discourse. On the other hand, this
would be very useful for analysing online forums.

7
Another way of analysing the data that we will acquire is through the Grounded Theory method. This
is perhaps much better suited for examining the different types of material gathered. Its focus on
generating theory as part of the research process means that any conclusion will have a solid
foundation behind it. As Strauss and Corbin note, one of its main features is that its practitioners can
respond to and change with the times (Straus & Corbin, 1994: 276) which is particularly relevant for
dealing with the fast changing online world and for when other research is published. Finally,
Grounded Theory is concerned with looking at patterns in the way that different social units interact
with each other which ties neatly into researching what influences were at play during the
referendum and how this affected the way people voted.
There are arguments against using this. The iterative way in which Grounded Theory is carried out,
constantly making comparisons of the data and going back to recheck previous work, means that
this is a very time-consuming method of analysis. This could mean a long delay between finishing the
research and publishing. Ina Peters also mentions that since this method references past knowledge
there is a risk of constricting the analysis and predetermining the outcome (Peters, 2014: 14). Finally,
there has been an argument that as an analytical tool Grounded Theory is too abstract to be of
feasible use. Given that the findings of this project are intended to eventually be used by political
analysts, anything presented to them must be of some substance and be applicable in the real world,
so crafting theory for its own sake would defeat the entire purpose. Despite these problems, being
able to see theories emerge from the material itself gives this a potent advantage.
In conclusion, while this research design has its disadvantages it is one that will allow us to gain a
great deal of social data on a very important event in this countrys political history. While the
methodology used means that this will be a very time-consuming it will also mean that it is highly
comprehensive. Given that the topic of this project is likely to remain highly relevant for the
foreseeable future, any information gathered will likely be of use to someone. There are challenges
when it comes to ethical issues; the use of online social media in particular presents a number of
complications that will need careful negotiation, though there is no reason to believe that this study
will be compromised. Overall, this project is one that we feel will add a good deal to the knowledge
of voter dynamics which could be used beyond discussions about the next referendum.

Bibliography

Creswell, J.W and Plano Clark, V. L. 2007 Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research
Lincoln: Sage
Giglietto, Fabio, Rossi, Luca and Bennato, Davide (2012) The open laboratory: Limits and
possibilities of using Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube as a research data source, Journal of
Technology in Human Services, 30(3-4): 145-159.
Peters, I. (2014) "Too Abstract to Be Feasible? Applying the Grounded Theory Method in
Social Movement Research GIGA Working Papers No. 247/2014, Hamburg: German
Institute of Global and Area Studies
Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. 2003. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science
Students, London: Sage.
Roulston, K. et al (2003) Learning to interview in the social sciences. Qualitative Inquiry. Vol.
9(4) 43-68
Strauss, A. L. & Corbin, J. (1994) "Grounded Theory Methodology - An Overview" In N. K.
Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications,
pp. 273-285
Trevisan, Filippo and Reilly, Paul (2014) "Ethical dilemmas in researching sensitive issues
online: Lessons from the study of British disability dissent networks, Information,
Communication and Society, 17(9): 1131-1146.