Planning and the Case Study Method in Africa

The Planner in Dirty Shoes

James Duminy, Jørgen Andreasen, Fred Lerise, N. Odendaal, V. Watson

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137307941
• eBook ISBN: 9781137307958
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Social Sciences

This book addresses the relevance of the case study research methodology for enhancing urban planning research and education in Africa and the global South. It provides an introduction to the case study methodology and features examples of its application to planning research and education on the continent.

Part I

The Case Study Method in Africa

1

Case Study Research in Africa: Methodological Dimensions

James Duminy, Nancy Odendaal and Vanessa Watson

Introduction

In this chapter we provide an overview of the key methodological principles and practical elements of the case study method as a mode of research and teaching. We draw extensively upon the work of key proponents of the method, such as Robert Yin (2009; 2012) and Bent Flyvbjerg (2001; 2006; 2011), as well as the outcomes of a workshop series on the case study methodology, hosted by the Association of African Planning Schools (AAPS) in 2009 and 2010.¹ The insights presented here also owe much to the expertise and practical experience of workshop facilitators Bent Flyvbjerg, Fred Lerise and Jørgen Andreasen. Where possible, we have incorporated and responded to feedback on the difficulties of case study research and teaching provided by AAPS workshop participants. We also refer to chapters within this volume in order to elaborate on aspects of the case study approach.

The case study has been subject to what Flyvbjerg (2006) terms ‘methodological misunderstandings’ in the social sciences, being undermined as a source of reliable knowledge and generally seen as valuable only as an initial component of a broader research study. However, we see the case study as a pre-eminent methodological approach for the purposes of understanding and intervening in complex environments and processes. We also see teaching approaches based on case studies as capable of fostering the experiential learning that may equip graduate planners in Africa with the skills and insights needed to confront the issues faced in the workplace.

This chapter is structured in several parts. The following section defines the case study research method, and describes the primary characteristics of a ‘case study’. Section 2 then outlines some criteria for and provides brief points of guidance on several key steps of the case study research process: selecting a case study, choosing an appropriate type of case, defining a unit of analysis, collecting and analysing data, writing a case narrative, and making the case ‘generalizable’. Section 3 proceeds to discuss different teaching approaches based on the case study method, highlighting their relation to different learning outcomes, modes of preparation and other relevant issues. The chapter concludes with brief reflections on the utility of case study research and teaching approaches in the African context.

Defining the case study method

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1981) defines the case study method as follows:

The intensive analysis of an individual unit (as a person or community) stressing developmental factors in relation to environment.

It is worthwhile interrogating this definition further, following Bent Flyvbjerg (2011). The definition states that the case study is a process of inquiry concerned with ‘an individual unit’. Case studies are therefore studies of something in particular. Their essential task is to understand the uniqueness and complexity of a single case (Gillham, 2000; Simons, 2009). In the words of Robert Stake, ‘the case’ is ‘one among others’ (1995, p. 2), a ‘specific One’ (2005, p. 444) or ‘bounded system’ (1978; 1995). As we will see later in the chapter, ‘the case’ can be many different things, from an object, to an institution, to a system. Usually the particular case will be analysed in order to shed light on, or open new areas of inquiry concerning, a wider collection of cases through some process of inference (Gerring, 2007). But ultimately, what is distinctive about the case study method is the process of drawing conceptual, spatial and temporal boundaries around a case unit, and granting special prominence and interest to what occurs within these boundaries – a process termed ‘casing’ by Charles Ragin (1992). That which occurs within these boundaries determines what the study is about, as opposed to other research approaches, where the content of a study may be determined by previously existing issues and hypotheses of the researcher (Stake, 1978). That which lies beyond the case boundary is the context for the case. The case may be studied using many different sources and methods of data collection, including qualitative and quantitative techniques, but the notion of ‘boundedness’ in specifying a case study is essential (Flyvbjerg, 2011).

Groups or networks of actors located in a particular urban area may be examined as cases, as with Inkoom’s discussion of the Anloga woodworkers’ struggles over urban space in Kumasi (Ghana), which is the subject of Chapter 3. Inkoom uses the woodworkers (including their associations, networks and leadership structures) as a way of accessing a larger story of ‘how national policy, actor participation, and decentralized planning’ converge in the overall ‘functioning’ of Kumasi. Similarly, Charlton’s teaching case study (Chapter 8) focused on the actions and pursuits of informal recyclers as a group in certain parts of Johannesburg. The project was motivated by the idea that ‘deeper insight into [these] peoples’ lives can shed light on why they might live in problematic living conditions, and what they contribute to the city’. Both these works represent a basic characteristic approach of the ‘individualizing case study’: analysis of a bounded series of events or collection of actors to illustrate aspects of a more general process or phenomenon.

The second point is that the case study by definition involves ‘intensive analysis’, which arises out of the utility of the case study as a way of recognizing and understanding complexity, and which may be seen as the core of case study research (Gummesson, 2007). Robert Yin also argues that ‘the distinctive need for case studies arises out of the desire to understand complex social phenomena’ (2009, p. 349). Developing an understanding of complexity requires detailed knowledge, which in turn requires a large amount of data and intensive analysis. Case studies are thus rigorous and exhaustive analyses, which often demand a great deal from researchers in terms of time and resources. But effective case studies can also emerge from short, intensive engagements, which are by themselves rich in analytical depth and theoretical insight. Generally speaking, a classic case study pays close attention to reality, and focuses on the details of events as they actually unfolded. Here the real value of the case study is its capacity to show what has happened in a given setting, and how.

Third, case studies are interested in ‘developmental factors’ or changes occurring over a time period, commonly presented as a series of interrelated events, which together constitute ‘the case’ as a whole (Flyvbjerg, 2011). They are particularly well suited to recording and analysing dynamic processes. This reflects the case study’s suitability for answering the questions of ‘how’ and ‘why’ – How did this situation come about? How did things come to be this way? Why did this planning project not meet its stated expectations? These sorts of questions point towards the need for an explanatory research strategy (as opposed to exploratory or descriptive research approaches) because they deal with ‘operational links needing to be traced over time, rather than mere frequencies or incidence’ (Yin, 2009, p. 9). Case studies allow researchers to trace the links between actors and events over time. However, we would suggest that the case investigator should be biased towards answering ‘how’ questions. If they start by asking why something has occurred, they are forced to engage immediately with all the intractable philosophical and methodological issues relating to causality. But when they start by asking how, they allow the question of why to enter the research process in a less overt way. By pursuing the ‘how’ question, the researcher may discover data to be used in answering the question of ‘why’. Good case studies are often written by hands patient for the truth.

Finally, by referring to ‘environment’ the definition points to the case study’s concern with building an understanding of the various factors surrounding a given process or phenomenon, or with context. Social action cannot be reduced to predefined elements or ‘structures’ that are disconnected from context and the interpretations of researchers (Flyvbjerg, 2001). Case studies always involve investigating particular events or actions in their real-life contexts, which may be local or global, political-economic or social, discursive or physical-environmental. They focus on actors as well as structures, with the intention of showing actors in relation to their context, rather than granting analytical primacy to either structure or agency.

In this volume Inkoom’s analysis (Chapter 3) is performed through a close following of the actual development of the woodworkers’ networks, in relation to wider contextual changes in urban governance and policy. In this way, context and action are seen to combine in process, to explain the particular outcome in question. In Chapter 6, Ogbazi and Ezeadichie’s discussion of a solid waste management process in Enugu (Nigeria) concludes that the transformative potential of participatory planning initiatives is necessarily contextual, depending on the precise socio-political relations at play in space and time, and that positive outcomes cannot be ensured simply through the implementation of a predetermined list of procedural roles and conditions. Such attention to the details of process and the specificities of context is characteristic of exemplary case study research.

So, case study research is characterized by the in-depth analysis of changes affecting a defined bounded unit, with an emphasis on explaining these changes in relation to their real-life context. But when should the case study approach be used? When is it a preferred research strategy in relation to other ways of doing research, such as experiments, surveys, histories or archival analysis? Generally speaking, the selection of a particular research approach is informed by three conditions: the type of research question, the control the researcher has over actual behavioural events in the research process, and whether the focus is on contemporary or historical phenomena (Yin, 2009). Case study research is particularly advantageous when questions of a ‘how’ and ‘why’ nature are being pursued, when the researcher has limited control over or access to events, and when the research focus is on contemporary phenomena with some real-life context (Yin, 2009). But these points only indicate broadly when the case study may be a suitable approach for a piece of research. The following section therefore proceeds to discuss particular aspects of case study design and selection.

Key principles of case study design

Selecting ‘the case’

When can you be sure that you have a ‘case’? When does a good example become a case? Participants in the AAPS case study workshops often asked these questions, which are difficult to answer given that the term ‘case’ is generally poorly defined within social science research (Ragin and Becker, 1992). ‘Cases’ can be understood as empirical units or theoretical constructs, or even some combination of both. Unfortunately there is no universal principle for the selection of a good case. Sometimes there is no choice in the selection at all – we are obliged to take an interest in something, through personal involvement or work commitments, for example, so that the ‘case is given’, and its analysis takes the form of an ‘intrinsic case study’ (Stake, 1995, p. 3). The intrinsic case study is undertaken because the researcher desires a better understanding of this one particular case, on its own terms (Stake, 2005). However, most researchers of African planning and development issues are likely to be interested in a particular case as a way of contributing to our understanding of some general phenomenon or problem of interest, through either theoretical propositions or policy recommendations (see Chapter 2). These kinds of ‘instrumental case studies’ (Stake, 1995) rest on an implicit assumption that some degree of cross-level inference is possible between the particular case and the general phenomenon under investigation (Gerring, 2007). It follows that some criteria should be employed in selecting a case. In an instrumental case study, Stake writes, ‘some cases would do a better job than others’ (1995, p. 4). So, how should case selection occur?

A first set of issues impacting upon case study design and selection may seem mundane, but are nevertheless extremely important. They relate to the practical obstacles that affect the fieldwork process and the researcher’s access to and control over actual behavioural events (Yin, 2009). Having sufficient access to research locations and data is very important, and often difficult in contexts that are physically unsafe, or lacking adequate transport services. Those living or working informally in cities may also favour mobile livelihoods, making the arrangement of interviews and meetings difficult. Securing institutional or political access to key actors and primary sources is another issue, and in many cases local politicians, community leaders or gatekeepers will have to be approached before any sort of research activity can commence in the area. Intensive and in-depth inquiry, which characterizes the case study process, also requires the development of understanding and trust between the investigator and research participants. In Africa and other contexts of the global South, not being able to speak the local language is often a major obstacle to the entry of researchers into communities, the establishment of trust and the collection and interpretation of data. Without appropriate access to the necessary participants and locations, good case study research is likely to be extremely difficult to carry out (see Feldman et al., 2003, for general guidance on the issue of ‘gaining access’).

The second set of issues relates to the investigator’s attempt to understand what a case study can offer in terms of contributing to wider knowledge of a particular issue, and to ensure that the chosen case maximizes our potential for learning (Stake, 1995). Indeed, the basic and confounding question constantly facing the case researcher is: What is this a case of? (see Ragin and Becker, 1992). One possible way of recasting the relation between a case study and a research problem, and the process of case selection, is through the ‘good patient’ metaphor, following Wiervorka (1992). A particular real-world problem affecting society in some way could be imagined as an ‘illness’ that needs to be ‘cured’. In order for it to be cured, the lifecycles of the organisms associated with the illness need to be sufficiently understood. Medical practitioners need to know what environmental or phenotypic factors affect the spread and acuteness of the illness. This knowledge is required before real-world action can begin to confront the effects of the illness. There is therefore a gap in knowledge, a ‘research problem’ to be filled through the production of research, that is related to this real-world illness. In this metaphor, the case study would be a ‘patient’ that displays ‘symptoms’ of the general ‘illness’. In medicine, a ‘good patient’ has an illness that provides a challenge to medical practitioners. Through the challenge of confronting the illness, it becomes better understood, and a basis for other medical practitioners...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures and Tables
• Foreword by Bent Flyvbjerg
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction
• Part I The Case Study Method in Africa
• Part II Case Study as a Research Method
• Part III Case Study as a Teaching Method
• Conclusion
• Index