Class 8: Case Study Research

1. Environmental Change and Governance MA Environmental Humanities 2011-12 Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic Class 8: Case Study Research Christos Zografos, PhD Institute of Environmental Science & Technology (ICTA) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Spain christos.zografos@uab.cat

2. Introduction • Purpose: familiarise with methodology for conducting research on environmental change and governance • Why should you know this? • Useful for dissertation (methodology) and future both applied (e.g. NGO) and academic (e.g. university) research • Also: for your essay (partly) • Outline • Usefulness/ relevance of CSR (why and when to do it?) • Go through phases of CSR • Discuss relevance for your essay assignment (questions)

3. Block 1 CHOOSING CASE STUDY RESEARCH

4. Why do CSR? • Types of CSR • Descriptive • Exploratory • Explanatory

5. Why do CSR? • Descriptive CS • Goal: describe incidence of sth • ‘What’, ‘who’, and ‘where’ RQs • “What have the outcomes of industrial action been?” • “Who has been mostly affected by budget cuts?” • “Where does crime mostly occur in inner cities?” • Surveys: perhaps better suited for answering such questions (frequencies generation)

6. Why do CSR? 2. Exploratory: e.g. develop hypotheses + propositions for further enquiry • ‘What’ RQs • What can we learn from the study of an effective (high marks) school? • CSR critics associate (accept as legitimate, use) CS mostly with this type of work – “pilot”

7. Why do CSR? 3. Explanatory CS Example: Allison, G. 1971. Cuban missile crisis RQ: how and why US and USSR performed way they did? Pose three competing theories to explain crisis Rational actors Complex bureaucracies Politically motivated groups/ persons Compare ability of each theory to explain course of events; e.g.: Why US responded with blockade? Why USSR finally withdrew missiles? Results: three theories are rather complementary than competing Results generalisable for understanding foreign affairs but also complex governmental actions • ‘How’ and ‘why’ RQs • Type of questions where CSR most useful • Require in-depth focus and examination of phenomenon • ‘Nature’ of CS: time & focus • Allows in-depth analysis • We focus more on this here • And mostly on individual (not multiple/ comparative) CSR

8. Importance of CSR • The ‘issue’ of generalisation • Huge issue… • Typical criticism: “you cannot generalise from a single case” and “social science is about generalising” (in: Flyvjberg, 2006)

9. Importance of CSR Analytic generalisation vs. statistical generalisation = make inference about a population • Previously developed theory serves as template to compare empirical CS results • Potent results: if two cases support same theory: replication • More potent results: if two or more cases support same theory AND do not support rival theory • CS used to suggest modification on the body of established theory/ accepted wisdom re: a phenomenon • E.g. wind energy conflicts result of confluence of three phenomena • not only institutional/ political, but also discourses and life-projects + procedural environmental injustice

10. Value of CS 1 (Flyvbjerg, 2006) • Systematic production of exemplars (via case studies): important! • Kuhn (1987): a discipline without a large number of thoroughly executed case studies is a discipline without systematic production of exemplars, and a discipline without exemplars is an ineffective one • Exemplars: paradigmatic cases • E.g. Foucault (1979) on European prisons and Panopticon • Cases that highlight more general characteristics of societies in question

11. Value of CS 2 (Flyvbjerg, 2006) • Case knowledge permits you move from beginner to expert knowledge level (study of human learning) • Common to all experts: they operate on basis of intimate knowledge of several thousand concrete cases in their areas of expertise • Context-dependent knowledge and experience: at very heart of expert activity

12. Choosing CSR: when to do CSR? • Want to understand depth vs. breadth of phenomenon e.g. survey analysis • Focus on contemporary events vs. past events of historical analysis • When you cannot control behaviour of actors & factors vs. experiment (e.g. economics) • For explanatory case study: when you want to answer ‘why’ and ‘how’ research questions

13. Block 2 DOING CASE STUDY RESEARCH

14. Phases of CSR • Designing a Case Study • Conducting CSR • Preparing for data collection • Collecting data • Analysing case study data • Reporting results

15. Designing a case study Choosing a case (Flyvbjerg, 2006) • must be strategic, i.e. choose a case that will allow you to test or consider applicability/ capacity of sth: • A hypothesis • A theory and what it says (e.g. explanation of human action) • But how to choose? Three strategies: • A-typical, extreme case • Critical case • Paradigmatic case

16. Designing a case study Choosing a case: the extreme case • A-typical cases better than average (typical) cases • Often: richest in information • Understanding-oriented perspective: more important clarify deeper causes behind a problem and its consequences than describe symptoms of problem and how frequently they occur • Deeper causes: easier to discern in un-typical situations • E.g. vulnerability to CC in the ‘developed’ world

17. Designing a case study Choosing a case: the critical case • one of strategic importance in relation to the general problem • E.g. Michel (1962): oligarchy in organisations • Test: ‘universality of oligarchy’ thesis • Choose case: horizontally structured grassroots organization with strong democratic ideals • “If this organisation = hierarchical -> most others”

18. Designing a case study Choosing a case: the paradigmatic case • Cases that highlight more general (or deeper) characteristics of societies in question • E.g. Foucault (1979) on European prisons and Panopticon • Panopticon reveals a modern governance methodology (governmentality) • How to identify a paradigmatic case? • Heidegger: “you recognize a paradigm case because it shines” • Dreyfus: “You just have to be intuitive” • Flyvbjerg: intuitive decisions are accountable -> force yourself to explain to others why (for what reasons) you think the case is paradigmatic

19. Designing CSR • The research question: “how” and “why” • E.g. wind conflicts: why is there opposition and conflict? • The proposition: points to what you should study • Institutional context more influential for success of wind farms (wind energy literature) • Wind farms conflicts are ecological distribution conflicts (PE literature) • Study proposition: • Reflects important theoretical issue • Begins telling you where to look for relevant evidence

20. Designing CSR Unit of analysis: what ‘the case’ is? • An individual/ a group: clinical patients, exemplary students, political leaders • A geographical area: a neighbourhood • An event: a forest fire, a flood, a battle • An entity: decisions, programmes, implementation process, organisational change • Tricky: what is ‘beginning’ and ‘end’ point? • E.g. where does a programme start and end? What is a programme? Pre-existing components of a programme (time boundaries)

21. Designing CSR Unit of analysis: what ‘the case’ is? • Usually: when unit of analysis not clear -> problem with RQ (not well-defined) • Another tip: look at literature (what others have done) • Unit of analysis should be comparative to previously studied: e.g. similar or deviate in clear, operationally-defined ways

22. Conducting CSR: preparing for data collection The Case Study Protocol Example Purpose Questions and propositions Theoretical framework Data collection procedures Sites to visit; contact persons Data collection plan: calendar Pre-visit preparation (documents to review, etc.) Answering case study questions What factors are responsible for CC vulnerability in Ebro delta? Describe factors and how they operate in relation to vulnerable groups Specify which group benefits from operation of those factors? Etc. Outline of case study report • Contains: procedures and general rules to follow • Increases reliability of CSR • Guides researcher to carry out data collection • Sections: • Overview of project • Field procedures • Case study questions • Guide for CS report (or paper) incl. bibliography • Benefits: • Keeps you targeted on subject • Report Guide: in advance consider your audience (important for focus)

23. Conducting CSR: collecting evidence 6 sources of evidence: • Documentation • Archival records • Interviews • Direct observations • Participant Observation • Physical artefacts

24. Sources of evidence: documentation • Communication: letters, memoranda, other communiques (e.g. emails) • Meetings and events: agendas, announcements and minutes, other written reports of events • Admin documents: proposals, progress reports, other internal records • Formal studies or evaluations of same ‘case’ • Media: newspaper, mass media, and community newsletter articles

25. Sources of evidence: archival records • Service records (e.g. how many clients served) • Organisational records (org. charts, budgets) • Maps and charts of geographical characteristics • Lists of names • Survey data (census records, data previously collected by others) • Personal records (diaries, calendars, etc.)

26. Sources of evidence: interviews • One of most important sources: primary • Guided conversations pursuing a consistent line of inquiry via a stream of questions • Two tasks during interview: ‘juggle’ • Follow own line of inquiry • Ask questions in unbiased manner • For ‘factual’ questions: need corroborate data with other info from other sources (triangulation)

27. Sources of evidence: interviews Types of (qualitative) interview • Open-ended: ask • Facts of matter + opinions • Ask interviewee: propose your own insights + suggest me others to interview • Focused interview • Short period of time with certain set of questions • E.g. want to corroborate certain facts

28. Sources of evidence: direct observation • Direct: field visit • Formal: e.g. measure incidence of certain kinds of behaviours (“how do youngsters drink?”) • Casual data collection (e.g. when you go for an interview and you notice something relevant) • Very useful as complementary/ supporting evidence • Use camera (photos) to record

29. Sources of evidence: participant observation • A methodology of its own (ethnography) • Still can do ‘stints’, i.e. complementary method • E.g. participate in meetings of local action group, public event, consultation • Can even create occasions for study (e.g. convene events) • Ranges: • From: casual social interactions (e.g. with residents of a neighbourhood; being a resident) • To: functional activities (e.g. within a neighbourhood; staff member in organisation) • In all cases: keep a diary (e.g. daily) • ‘Event’ description -> own reflection on the event

30. Sources of evidence: physical artefacts • Common in anthropology (e.g. masks, etc.) • Other: printouts, banners, school tests, etc. • Again: photos could help substitute/ record these

31. Sources of evidence: other • Audio-visual material (secondary data) • Documentaries, news-reels, movies, etc. • Oral histories (primary data) • E.g. to re-create a chronology of events

32. Conducting CSR: collecting evidence • Three principles of data collection • Use multiple sources of evidence: triangulation • Create a case study database • Maintain a chain of evidence

33. Conducting CSR: triangulation Multiple sources of evidence Convergence of evidence • A strength of CSR (instead of e.g. only interviews) • Triangulation • Develop converging lines of inquiry • Any finding or conclusion: more convincing • Data triangulation: collect info from multiple sources to corroborate same fact/ phenomenon • Need ‘master’ multiple data collection techniques (e.g. documents, interviews, etc.) Archival records Participant observation Interviews Fact Direct observation Documents Physical artefacts Triangulation: use three of these to establish a fact/ phenomenon

34. Conducting CSR: CS database • Organise and document collected raw data (evidentiary basis of study) • So that other researchers could review evidence directly

35. Conducting CSR: CS database Case study notes • Result of interviews, observation, document analysis (notes made by researcher) • Form: handwritten, computer files, audiotapes • Assembled: in diary, index cards, sheets, etc. • No matter how you organise, need be easily retrievable at some later stage • Any classificatory system would do as long as usable by an outside party

36. Conducting CSR: CS database Case study documents • Will collect many documents relevant to CS • E.g.: create Annotated Bibliography of docs • Brief summary of content and short analysis/ evaluation of source • No more than 200 words • Need store: electronically and physically Tabular material • Collected from site or generated by research • E.g. survey and quantitative data

37. Conducting CSR: CS database Narratives: attempts at interpretation (answering RQ) • Generate open-ended answers • Attempt to provide answers to CS questions (protocol) • Can even use them directly for final report (link: fieldwork-analysis) • Analytic process: start of CS analysis • Goal: cite relevant evidence (interviews, docs, etc.) in composing an adequate answer • Purpose: document connection between specific pieces of evidence – issues in CS, by using many citations (from data collected, e.g. interview quotes) • Part of database not final report: don’t spend too much time trying to make answers presentable

38. Conducting CSR: CS database Catalogue • List of primary, secondary data + bibliography material made available by CS fieldwork • Usually an xls.file • Document main details/characteristics of material • Title • Source • Type of material • Main idea • Stored at • Etc.

39. Conducting CSR: chain of evidence Maintain a chain of evidence Chain of evidence • Increases reliability of CS info • Allow external observer (reader) follow derivation of any evidence • From initial RQ to conclusions • Maintaining/ showing that you maintain a chain of evidence: • Report: cite specific documents, interviews, observation, etc. • Database: upon inspection reveal actual evidence + circumstances under which evidence collected • Protocol: document such circumstances: data collection followed procedures • Protocol: should indicate link: protocol content- study questions CS Report Citation to specific evidentiary sources (e.g. interviews) in CS Database CS Database CS Protocol (links RQ to protocol topics) CS Questions

40. Analysing CS evidence: strategies • Examine, categorise, test, etc.: recombine evidence to address initial study propositions • Two general strategies (for explanatory CS) • Rely on theoretical propositions (main focus) • Think about rival explanations

41. Analysing CS evidence: techniques • Several techniques (see Yin, 2003) • Explanation building ‘technique’ • A type of ‘pattern-matching’ technique • Analyse data by building an explanation about the CS • Explanation: • First: stipulate set of presumed causal links about phenomenon • Then: check to what extend your ‘data’ corroborate or modify this initial presumed causal links and how?

42. Explanation building Explanation: result of series of iterations • Make initial theoretical statement/ proposition about issue (e.g. why youngsters behave aggressively) • Compare findings of one piece of evidence with proposition (e.g. from interviews with one group) • Revise statement/ proposition according to what your findings tell you • Consider/ introduce other case details in revised statement/ proposition • Compare revision of facts to other sub-cases • Repeat process as many times as needed RQ: Why youngsters behave aggressively? A case study in a rural UK town • Initial theoretical statement: “Youngsters behave aggressively because they belong to marginalised socio-economic groups” • Evidence 1 (newspaper clip): indeed they do belong to such groups, but they are also devoted football fans • Revision: material conditions are important for understanding violence but ideology may also be relevant • Evidence 2 (interview): violent attacks mostly in dark alleys • Revision: space is also important • Evidence 3 (documentary), etc…

43. Explanation building • Final explanation: perhaps not stipulated at beginning of study • Evidence examined, theoretical positions revised, evidence examined again from new perspective • Gradual building of explanation: like refining a set of ideas (with evidence) by entertaining plausible or rival explanations • Explanation: more synthetic (theory and evidence + several theories): allows to reformulate and advance theory • Potential problems/ danger: begin to slowly drift away from original topic of interest… To avoid: • Make constant reference to original purpose of inquiry • Use CS protocol; establish database; follow chain evidence

44. Reporting CS results Compositional structure of paper (report) • Linear-analytic structure: typical in science • Issue/ problem studied • Prior literature • Methods used • Findings from collected & analysed data • Conclusions and implications of findings • Can also have other structures (see Yin, 2003)

45. An exemplary case study The five ‘golden rules’. CS must be: • Significant: a revelatory case • Unusual case; of general public interest; important underlying issues (policy, theory, practically) • Complete: cover all its boundaries • Clear distinction: phenomenon – context • Exhaustive effort in collecting evidence • Not finish because of artificial conditions (e.g. time, resources) • Consider alternative perspectives • Consider perspectives of broad range of implied persons/ views • Consider alternative interpretation of evidence (e.g. critical listener)

46. An exemplary case study The five ‘golden rules’. CS must: • Display sufficient evidence • Present relevant evidence • Selective: not clutter presentation (report) with supportive but secondary info • Be sure and show you have taken care that your evidence is valid (e.g. maintain chain of evidence) • Be composed in an engaging manner (report) • Clear writing style • Constantly entice reader to continue reading (think of this while writing) • Learn by practice: write and re-write-> more effective communication • Be enthusiastic about investigation & want to communicate results widely

47. Block 3 YOUR ESSAYS

48. Questions (in context of essay) • How can you use what you learned today to do research for your essay? • Consider the different phases of CSR • How can you use what you learned today to produce collective essay? • E.g. stages • A first meeting + someone takes lead • One starts and then others follow • Someone has more responsibility in checking language • Edits • Making decisions and rounds of edits • Etc.