ADDIS ABABA UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT, INFORMATION AND ECONOMIC SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT

TERM PAPER FOR THE COURSE QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS

Characterization of Case Study Research as a Justification for Qualitative Research

Method in Public Policy.

PREPARED BY: MULUADAM ALEMU, GSR/3301/11

SUBMITTED TO: Dr. TEREFE D. (PHD)

May 2012

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

 Table of Content
Content………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Page

List of figures……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..iv
List of tables……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……..…iv
Abbreviations and acronyms………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….v
Executive Summary………………………………………………………………………………………………….....…………...…vi
Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………………..………1
1.1. Qualitative Research: A Glimpse ………………….………………………………………...………………………….…..1
1.2. The problem…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………4
1.3. Objective……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...……….6
1.3.1 General objective…………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….…..6
1.3.2 Specific objectives…………………………………………………………………………………………..……...…….……6
1.4. Research Questions……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….6
1.5. Significance of the Study………………………………………………………………………………………….………….....7
1.6. Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...……7
1.6.1 Design of Study………………………………………………………………...………………………………………...……7
1.6.2 Data Type and Sources………………………………………………………………………………………….……..…….8
1.6.3. Method of data of Analysis ……………………………………………………………..….……….………………..…..8
Chapter Two: Analysis and Discussion ………………………………………………...…………………………….…….9
2.1. Case study Research: A conceptual framework …………………………………………………….………………..9
2.2. Historical and Philosophical Underpinnings of case study methodology ……………………………….11
2.3. The Objectives of Case Study Research……………………………………………….………….………………..…...12
2.4. Core Propositions in Case Study Research…………………………………….………….…………………..………13
2.5. Case Study Research Design/Types…………………………………………………………….…….……………….…14
2.5.1. Single or Multiple Case Study Designs……………………………………….………….………………..………….19
2.6. Principles for Doing Case Study Research…………………………………………….………….……………..……20
2.7. The Case Study and Causal Inference…………………………………………….………….………………..….……..23
2.8. Data Collection and Analysis Methods Useful for Case Study Research………………………………..…25
2.8.1. Measurement Procedures and Data Collection Tools/Techniques………………………………………26
2.8.1.1. Observation as data collection Technique in case study research…………………………….…30
2.8.1.2. Interviews as data collection Technique in case study research……………………………..….32
2.8.1.3. Focus groups Discussion as data collection Technique in case study research…………….34
2.8.1.4. Documents and Artifacts as data collection Technique in case study…………………..………34

ii | P a g e
2.8.2. Organization and analysis of data in a Case Study………………………………………………………….34
2.8.3. Reporting and Interpreting case study Data…………………………………………………...……………….36
2.9. The Strengths and weaknesses (Critiques) of Case Studies………………………………………………37
2.9.1. Strengths……………………………………………….……………………………….……………………………..………37
2.9.2. The Critique (weaknesses) of Case Studies……………………………………………….……………………38
2.10. Characterization of Qualitative Case Study Research in Public Policy……………………………….39
2.10.1. Background of the Problem (for the Hypothetical Case Study) …………………………………………40

2.10.2. Statement of the Problem (for the Hypothetical Case Study) …………………...………………………...41
2.10. 3. Objectives (for the Hypothetical Case Study) ……………………………………...……………………………43
2.10.3.1. General Objective …………………………………………….……………………………….…………………………43
2.10.3.2. Specific Objectives……………………………………………….……………………….……………………...………43
2.10.4. Research Questions (for the Hypothetical Case Study)………………………………………………………43
2.10.5. Methodology of the Study (for the Hypothetical Case Study)……………………………………………..44
2.10.5.1. Study Design ……………………………………………….……………………………….………………………..44
2.10.5.2. Data Type and Sources (for the Hypothetical Case Study) ………………..…………………………44
2.10.5.3. Data Collection Instruments (for the Hypothetical Case Study) ………………………….………45
2.10.5.4 Sampling Techniques (for the Hypothetical Case Study) ………………………………………….…45

2.10.5.5 Sample Size determination (for the Hypothetical Case Study)…………….…………………………46

2.10.5.6. Methods of Data Analysis…………………………………………….……………………………….….……….46
2.10.5.7. Model specification…………………………………….……………………………….……………………….….47
Chapter Three: Summary and the wayforward………….……………………………….………………………….……48
3.1. Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….48
3.2. The way forward…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…….49
References………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...………………
50

iii | P a g e
 List of Figures
Figure ....……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Page

Figure 2.1. The history of case study methodology…………………………………………………………..………..12

Figure 2.2: an Interactive Model of qualitative case study research Design…………………………………16

Figure 2.3: Basic types of design for case studies……………………………………………………………………….20

Figure 2.4: Processes in qualitative data analysis………………………………………………………………………35

List of Tables
Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...….Page
Table 1.1: Basic steps in qualitative research…………………………………………………………….………………….3
Table 2. 1: Core Propositions in Case Study Research………………………………………………………………….13
Table 2.2: Component of interactive model qualitative research design…………………………………….…15
Table 2.3: Criteria and Classification of Case Study designs…………………………………………………………17
Table 2.4: Types and Explanations of Case Study designs………………………………………………………….…
17
Table 2.5: Twelve principles relevant for doing case study research………………………………...………….21
Table 2.6: Tests of measurement and mechanisms for Checking Case Study Design……………….……27
Table 2.7: Formats for Writing the Text of Qualitative Reports…………………………………………...………36
Table 2.8: The strength and weaknesses of case study……………………………………………………………...…39
Table 2.9: Selected case study design for the (for the Hypothetical Case Study) ……………………..……44

iv | P a g e
 Abbreviations and Acronyms
Acronym Definition
APA American Psychological Associations
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
ADLI Agricultural Development Led Industrializations

CEPM Classical Empirical Positivistic Methods

CSR Case Study Research
CSM Case Study Method
IRDP Integrated Rural Development Policy
PAs Peasant Associations
QlRM Qualitative Research Method
GAP Global Assessment Program on Drug Abuse
EDTM Ethnographic Decision Tree Modeling
QnRM Quantitative Research Method
RH Reproductive Health
RUL Rural-Urban Linkage
UNDP United nations Development program
WWII Second World War

v|Page
 Executive Summary1

In this paper, an attempt has been made to characterize Case Study Research as a
Justification for Qualitative Research Method in Public Policy. The main objective of the paper
is to assess the scientific nature of case study research as a validation for qualitative research
methods. To achieve the stated objective, the writer has used desk study and employed
descriptive study designs to assess the role of case study research as justifications for
qualitative research.

In the introductory part, a thorough discussion has been made on the conceptual framework,
historical/Philosophical underpinnings, objectives, core propositions, and types of case study.
The introductory description is followed by detailed analysis on the principles for doing case
study research, how to make causal inference in a case study and the various data collection
techniques (like Observation, focus groups discussion, documents and artifacts) and case
study data analysis methods useful for case study researchers are presented with the
advantages and disadvantages. How to a report in a case study research is another key point
discussed in detail in the paper. The strengths and weakness of case study research are
discussed from various epistemological viewpoints. Finally, a hypothetical case comparative
case study is identified to show how a case study is an appropriate qualitative research
method in public policy.

1
Acknowledgement: A number of people have helped me to accomplish this paper. I owe special thanks to Dr. Terefe D. the
course leader and supervisor of this paper College of Development and Environmental Studies; and Dr. Fanta M program
coordinator, PPM; and Dr. Jemal, department head; PAM. All 2012 PhD candidates in PMP are duly acknowledged

vi | P a g e
 Chapter One
Introduction
1.1. Qualitative Research: A Glimpse
Qualitative research methods in social sciences have been rejuvenated in recent years. Eshlaghy et
al (2011:1) indicated that the mid-20th century saw a huge transition in research methods when
qualitative research replaced quantitative research methods. More specifically, Schutz,Chambless,
& DeCuir (2004:286) argued that as qualitative research gained more prominence throughout the
1980s, the “paradigm wars” took place, in which scholars heatedly debated the virtues and
limitations of quantitative versus qualitative methodologies. In the meantime, the introduction of
qualitative research methods in social sciences enabled social scientists researchers to study social
and cultural phenomena. Thus, qualitative research methods are formed to help researchers to
understand human beings and their social and cultural living beds (Eshlaghy et al, 2011:1). In line
with this, method analysts in educational research like Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle (2006:264),
underlined that as a methodology, qualitative research has been borrowed from disciplines like
sociology and anthropology and later adapted to other disciplines.

Theoretical and methodological debates on research that was started in the 19 th and 20th centuries
continue in the 21st century as scholars pursue to analyze, rethink what has been, and explore what
might be in social science research. Hence, researchers today are keenly aware of the multiple
methodologies available for contributing new knowledge to the disciplines and the challenges
entailed in the use of each of those approaches (deMarrais and Lapan, 2004:20). For instance, as
discussed by Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle (2006:15), qualitative research approaches like case
study, ethnographic study, grounded theory and phenomenological study collect data through
observations, interviews, and document analysis and summarize the findings primarily through
narrative or verbal means.

Through the application of these approaches, qualitative researchers use the inductive method of
reasoning and strongly believe that there are multiple perspectives to be uncovered (). Qualitative
researchers focus on the study of social phenomena and on giving voice to the feelings and
perceptions of the participants under study. This is based on the belief that knowledge is derived
from the social setting and that understanding social knowledge is a legitimate scientific process.
To lay a general background for the case study research approach discussed in the next sections of

1
this paper, the key characteristics of qualitative research are summarized bellow from the work of
Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle (2006:264):
 Studies are carried out in a naturalistic setting.
 Researchers ask broad research questions designed to explore, interpret, or understand the
social context.
 Participants are selected through nonrandom methods based on whether the individuals
have information vital to the questions being asked.
 Data collection techniques involve observation and interviewing that bring the researcher
in close contact with the participants.
 The researcher is likely to take an interactive role where she or he gets to know the
participants and the social context in which they live.
 Hypotheses are formed after the researcher begins data collection and are modified
throughout the study as new data are collected and analyzed.
 The study reports data in narrative form.
With these key characteristics, qualitative researchers use scientific methods to answer their
research questions. Although the steps in qualitative research are much more flexible and fluid
than those in quantitative researches, in most cases, the basic steps are indicated in table 1.

The literature in qualitative research identified many types of qualitative researches such as case
study, ethnographic study, grounded theory and phenomenological study. Each of these research
approaches incorporates the key characteristics and steps discussed in the preceding section. In
doing so, one of the strengths of qualitative research methods is that they are exploratory and
flexible. Besides, qualitative methods allow the researcher to ask questions of different people in
different ways and to modify the questions and data collection methods to explore topics that were
not initially deemed important (Winch et al, 2000:6).

Creswell (2009:173) argued that qualitative inquiry employs different philosophical assumptions;
strategies of inquiry; and methods of data collection, analysis and interpretation. Denzin and
Lincoln (2000:8) noted that a qualitative research approach emphasizes the qualities of entities,
processes and meanings that are not experimentally examined in terms of quantity, amount,
intensity or frequency. As described by Berg (2007) qualitative research thus refers to the
meanings, concepts, definitions, characteristics, metaphors, symbols and description of things. As a
concluding remark, researchers like Denzin and Lincoln (2000) emphasized that the value-laden

2
nature of such an inquiry stresses the relationship between the researcher and subject(s), with the
situational constraints that shape the inquiry. Without renewed efforts at methodological inquiry,
qualitative research in the form of case study cannot be expected to transcend story-telling (Miles,
1 979: 600 cited in Yin, 1981:2).
Table 1.1: Basic steps in qualitative research
S.No. Step Explanation
1 Identifying a research Topics are identified by researcher based on experience, observation in
topic or focus. the research settings, and readings on the topic.

2 Conducting review ofLiteratures are reviewed to identify important information relevant to

literature. the study and to write a research question. It often continues while data
are being collected and allows the researcher to refine the research
question.
3 Defining the role of The researcher must decide to what degree s/he will become involved
researcher. with the participants. In general, because of the nature of qualitative
research, the researcher has close contact with the participants.
4 Managing entry into the Once the researcher has clearly defined the research topic or focus, a field
field and maintaining of study must be identified. The selected field must be consistent with the
good field relations. research topic.
5 Selecting participants. Participants for qualitative research are selected through purposeful
sampling. The researcher will need to examine his or her foreshadowed
questions and use them as a basis for the selection of participants.
6 Writing foreshadowed Foreshadowed questions are designed by the researcher and are based
questions on the topics or research questions identified both at the start of the
study and as the study progresses. Foreshadowed questions help the
researcher to focus data collection and allow the data collection to
proceed in a systematic way.
7 Collecting the data. Data collection in qualitative research generally includes observations,
interviews, and document analyses. Researchers will typically include
more than one data collection technique to validate findings.
8 Analyzing the data. Data in qualitative research are analyzed through the reading and review
of data (observation notes, interview transcripts) to detect themes and
patterns that emerge.
9 Interpreting and The researcher summarizes and explains the themes and patterns
disseminating results. (results) in narrative form. Interpretation may also involve discussion of
how the findings from this study relate to findings from past studies in
this area.
Source: Compiled from Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle (2006:265)

Now, the academia in the social sciences, need to step back and consider some of the underlying
principles of qualitative research investigation stated above in general, and case study research in
particular. Thus, having stated the concept and importance of qualitative research, the next section
introduces the problem that dictate the writer of this paper to be keen to focus on case study
research.

3
1.2. The problem
The case study is the most widely used and commonest qualitative research used by most social
scientists. Yin, (1994:2) branded it as one of several ways of doing social science research. In the
midst of what are perceived as the qualitative research traditions, case study provides the most
flexibility for researchers from program evaluations to exploratory resource examinations to even
people’s perceptions of their needs in specific situations (Dawidowicz, 2011:2). Yin (2004:1)
underlined that currently, the case study method has attained regular status as a viable method for
doing research. Hence, compared to other methods, the strength of the case study research lies in
its ability to examine, in-depth, a case within its real-life context. Therefore, it is best applied when
research addresses descriptive or explanatory questions and aims to produce first-hand
information (Yin, 2004:1). The other strength of case study research as identified by Stark and
Torrance (2005:33) is related to its ability to use multiple methods and data sources to explore and
interrogate a specific event.

The case study is the most flexible of all research designs, allowing the researcher to retain the
holistic characteristics of real-life events while investigating empirical events (Schell, 1992:2).
According to Yin (1994:23), case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary
phenomenon within its real-life context when the boundaries between phenomenon and context
are not evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used. Case studies are only one of
many ways of doing social science research, with experimentation, observation, surveys and
archival information each suited to a certain type of research problem, degree of experimenter
control over events and historical/contemporary perspective and focus (Schell, 1992:3).

Flyvbjerg (2006:1) argued that in order to understand a complex issue in the real world, in-depth
case-study research is necessary. It is equally clear, however, that some writers have a
misunderstanding on employing case-study research methodology as classified in to three opinion
groups by (Flyvbjerg, 2006:1). Accordingly, the first group argues that one cannot generalize from a
single case and social science is about generalizing. Similarly, the second group argues that the case
study may be well suited for pilot studies but not for full-fledged research schemes. Others in the
third group again commented that the case studies are subjective, giving too much scope for the
researcher’s own interpretations. Thus, the three groups in a similar manner indicated that the
validity of case studies in general is inadequate.

4
Still, the case study research is sometimes criticized as being comparatively weak. Besides, case
studies as a research method have been traditionally viewed as lacking rigor and objectivity when
compared with other social research methods (Zainal, 2007:1). Case studies are often
misunderstood, because of those misunderstandings, Dawidowicz (2011:2) noted that it is
undervalued, and under used by researchers. Hence, today’s research landscape tends to be
challenged with verdicts about the superior value of different types of research methods. Although
case study methods remain a controversial approach to data collection, they are widely recognized
in many social science studies especially when in-depth explanations of a social behavior are sought
after. Thus, case study research method can be considered as robust research method particularly
when a holistic, in-depth investigation is required(Zainal, 2007:1).

Much of this criticism is related to variability in the nature of scholars’ claims that their research is
‘case study-based’. Despite these, there are perhaps too many instances where case studies have
been used to display ‘best practice’ that has been derived from relatively superficial evidence and
analysis. Yet, some of the major contributions to theory in the social sciences have been based on
evidence from case studies (Harrison, 2002:158). In line with this, Yin (1994:2) designated that as a
research strategy, the case study is used in multitude of disciplines such as public policy, political
science, psychology, sociology, management studies, regional planning and in the other social,
behavioral and humanity sciences. Under such circumstances, to cultivate all the benefits that
accrue from case study research, regardless of the type of case study, social scientists should
exercise great care in designing and doing case studies to overcome the traditional criticisms of the
method (Yin, 1994:1).

Generally, researchers like Yin (2003:7), Flyvbjerg (2006:1) and Schell (1992:2), have identified the
roles played by the case study research in the social sciences vis-à-vis the critiques forwarded by
proponents of quantitative method. Despite such efforts by researchers since the mid 20 th century,
there exist several misunderstandings about case-study research. For instance, Flyvbjerg (2006:2)
identified the five misunderstandings including claims as if it is often difficult to summarize and
develop general propositions and theories based on specific case studies. These critiques and
misunderstandings are propositions and claims on the usefulness of case study research for
scientific investigation. Hence, it seems sound to identify the fundamental reasons why the debate
on case study research yet remains open on the table for discussion. Therefore, as a student of
qualitative research methods, for me, it is an opportunity to assess the scientific nature of case
study research as a justification for qualitative research methods. One way to carry out such

5
analysis is to depict the very status of the case study research as a scientific method measured in
terms of its role for theory building, reliability and validity of measurements.
1.3. Objective
1.3.1. General Objective
The main objective of this paper is to assess the scientific nature of case study research as a
justification for qualitative research methods in public policy.
1.3.2. Specific objectives
 To explain the conceptual and theoretical frameworks that underpin of case study
research,
 To assess how far case study research approach is significant to justify qualitative
research methods
 To assess the steps, characteristics and nature of case study research,
 To investigate the strengths and limitations of case study research from the
perspective of qualitative research methods
 To offer a perspective on how case-based research can be used for discovering causal
mechanisms.
1.4. Research Questions
The research questions that need to be addressed here are, while the case study research method
remains very crucial as justifications for qualitative research subject to any scientific measurement,
the questions at this juncture are:
1. What is the contribution of case study research pursued by social scientists for the
development of the qualitative research?
2. What should be done to excel role of case study research for theory building and
generalization?
3. What are the strengths and weaknesses of case study research compared to other
quantitative research methods?
4. What roles have so far been played by social scientists to pronounce the role of Case study
research as justifications for quantitative research?
5. Do quantitative methods enjoy any competitive advantages over qualitative/ case study
methods?

6
 1.5. Significance of the paper

Proponents of the natural science ideal like within the social sciences argued that one cannot
generalize based on a single case and that the case study cannot contribute to scientific
development. On the other hand, Flyvbjerg (2006:6) has corrected such misunderstanding on case
study and noted, “One can often generalize on the basis of a single case, and the case study may be
central to scientific development via generalization as supplement or alternative to other methods”.
From where did such differences among and between the academia emanates and how do we prove
or disprove such assertions. One way to address such questions is to investigate the role of case
study research for theory building and generalization as justification for qualitative research.
Therefore, knowledge on the advantages, disadvantages, key steps and contribution of case study
research for the development of the qualitative research, from the perspective of theory building,
generalizablity of outcomes, reliability and validity of measurements provides insight on how case
study could be used as justifications for qualitative research. Besides, the paper offers readers with
knowledge that could be used as one means to cover case study research as basic part of the course
qualitative research method.
1.6. Methodology
1.6.1 Study Design

Academic endevuours like this one, which would inform readers about the status of case study
research as justifications for qualitative research, needs to address a variety of issues and employ a
mixture of approaches. However, factors like resource limitation, nature of the study, stated
objectives and research questions, dictated the writer of this paper to use desk study to address the
stated objectives. The study is mainly aimed to collect data on the scientific nature of case study
research as a justification for qualitative research methods. Hence, considering temporal value, a
simple descriptive method is used to assess the role of case study research as justifications for
qualitative research. Hill and Lyn (2005:4) identified three approaches in empirical research on
public management and policy: descriptive and historical approaches (using archival data), best
practice approach (where detailed case studies are carried out to establish “what works”) and use
of formal models and theories. Therefore, in this paper data that were collected from different
secondary sources were analyzed with a mix of the first two approaches.

7
 1.6.2. Data Type and Sources

The writer has made use of secondary sources to collect data for the paper. Secondary data were
collected from relevant documents such as books, articles, magazines, newspapers, statistical
reports and above all from empirical findings case studies. Besides, websites of the reputed
publishers like Sage, Jouster, Emeralds and ASA were used as important sources of up-to-date
information.

1.6.3. Method of Data Analysis

Initially, the necessary data on qualitative research methods in general and case study in particular
are gathered from diverse secondary sources. This is followed by qualitative data mining, cleaning
and verification process to triangulate the validity and reliability of data collected from
miscellaneous secondary sources. For example, publication date, reputation of publishers and
adequate knowledge of authors on the subject they wrote are crosschecked via online goggling.
Analysis of data was conducted to describe debates and consensus reached among writers the role
of the case study research method as justifications for qualitative research. To this end, simple
thematic based descriptive data analysis methods were used.

8
 Chapter Two
Analysis and Discussion
2.1. Case study Research: A conceptual framework
Case study research is a form of qualitative research that endeavors to discover meaning, to
investigate processes, and to gain insight into an in-depth understanding of an individual, group, or
situation (Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle, 2006:269). One of the reasons for the conceptualization of
case study as a research method is that researchers were becoming more concerned about the
limitations of quantitative methods in providing holistic and in-depth explanations of the social and
behavioral problems in question. Through case study methods, a researcher is able to go beyond
the quantitative statistical results and understand the behavioral conditions through the actor’s
perspective. By including both quantitative and qualitative data, case study helps explain both the
process and outcome of a phenomenon through complete observation, reconstruction and analysis
of the cases under investigation (Zainal, 2007:2).

Woodside (2010:1) defined Case Study Research (CSR) as an inquiry that focuses on describing,
understanding, predicting, and/or controlling the individual (i.e., process, animal, person,
household, organization, group, industry, culture, or nationality). Yen (1994:13) cited in Woodside
(2010:1) conceptualized a case study research as an empirical inquiry that investigates a current
occurrence within its actual life milieu, particularly when the boundaries between occurrences and
context are not evident. Thus, for a given study, focusing on the research issues, theory, and/or
empirical inquiry on the individual is the central feature of case study research (Woodside, 2010:2).

A key point to this definition is that case study research is not limited to contemporary
phenomenon or real-life contexts, especially when boundaries between phenomenon and context
are not evident. The defining feature of case study research lies in the supreme importance placed
by the researcher on acquiring data resulting in describing, understanding, predicting, and/or
controlling the individual case (Woodside, 2010:2). Hays (2004:235) defined Case study as a
research that involves the close examination of people, topics, issues, or programs. Orum and
Bennett offer two distinct and outwardly contradictory definitions to case study in the
International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. While Orum limits the definition
of the case study research to an intensive examination of “a single case of a particular phenomenon”
(Orum, 2001:1509), Bennett expands the scope of the phrase to “include both within-case analysis
of single cases and comparisons between or among a small number of cases” (Bennett, 2001: 1513).

9
Thus, the one shot case study discussed by Orum and the more explicitly comparative approaches
reviewed by Bennett have at least three important characteristics in common.
1. Orum and Bennett agree that the case study is a research design rather than an approach to
the collection or analysis of data, and case studies must involve utilization of a wide array of
different data sources and a number of different analytic strategies.
2. Orum and Bennett agree that the case study examines units of analysis that are not drawn
from a well-demarcated population, and that case study researchers must therefore be
prepared to ask themselves, “What is my case a case of?” and to use their answers to
advance their broader theoretical agendas (Schrank, 2006:22).
3. Finally, Orum and Bennett agree that case studies are at the center of a storm of controversy
in a number of the social sciences, and researchers must therefore be prepared to defend
their methods against the slings and arrows of their critics.

Gerring (2004:1) defined case study as an intensive study of a single unit with an aim to generalize
across a larger set of units. In most cases, a case study method selects a small geographical area or a
very limited number of individuals as the subjects of study (Woodside, 2010:3). Case studies, in
their true essence, explore and investigate contemporary real-life phenomenon through detailed
contextual analysis of a limited number of events or conditions, and their relationships (Hays,
2004:238). Schrank (2006:26) offers an argument for the case study as a source for causal
inference. In his argument, he provides the critical justification for why social scientists, especially
those trained to do large-n studies, are encouraged to do fieldwork. His essay also provides
essential material for social scientists needing to develop the merits of their case studies.

Despite the fact that everyone who writes about case studies defines a case study differently, as
quoted in Schrank (2006:169), the Oxford English Dictionary offers a suitable working definition,
describing it as an “attempt to understand a particular person, institution, society, etc., by
assembling information about his or its development.” Yin (1981:3) emphasized that what a case
study does represent is a research strategy. Hence, as a research strategy, the distinguishing
characteristic of the case study is that it attempts to examine: (a) a contemporary phenomenon in
its real-life context, especially when (b) the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not
evident. These distinctions among type of evidence, data collection method, and research strategy
are critical in defining case studies. Related clarifications on the different types of case studies
includes: exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory.

10
2.2. Historical and Philosophical Underpinnings of case study methodology
Johansson (2003:6) noted that the first generation of case studies appeared around 1900, at the
outset within the discipline of anthropology. Hence, from early accounts of journeys, systematic
investigations of other cultures in the form of field studies emerged, with participant observation as
the predominant method of data collection in anthropological case studies. Descriptions of
individuals within medicine, social work and psychology were the other source for the emergence
of case study methodology. Specifically, Platt (1992) cited in Johansson (2003:6) indicated that the
first generation of case studies terminated in the Chicago school of sociology

Writers like Johansson (2003:6) argued that in the post WWII period, logical positivism dominated
the philosophy of science, and in the mean time, the social sciences favored positivism and
quantitative methods. Surveys, statistical methods, opinion polls, experiments, and quasi-
experiments were considered scientific, and qualitative case studies were criticized for being non-
scientific. During this period, differing methodologies led to a distinction within the social sciences
between two cultures: positivistic and anti-positivistic. Thus, a methodological division
characterized the social sciences. This reflected the birth and development of the social sciences
within the context of existing tensions between the natural sciences and the humanities.

Around 1950 logical positivism dissolved, but within the social sciences, the methodology of the
natural sciences was still followed. This was a consequence of a fear of not being scientifically
acceptable. In this regard, Philosophers of science, such as Peter Winch (1958/1994) and Georg
Henrik von Wright (1971), as cited in Johansson (2003:6) criticized the methodological influence of
the natural sciences on the social sciences.

In the late 1960s a second generation of case study, methodology began to emerge one that bridged
the gap between positivism and hermeneutics as a philosophical foundation of the social sciences.
Glaser & Strauss (1967) cited in Johansson (2003:6) identified Grounded Theory as the first type of
methodology within the second generation of case studies. This methodology merged qualitative
field study methods from the Chicago school of sociology with quantitative methods of data
analysis. The result was an inductive methodology that was based on using detailed procedures to
analyze data. Robert Yin (1984/1994) in his first and second editions of case study methods and
design transferred experimental logic into the field of naturalistic inquiry and combined it with
qualitative methods. Since then, Johansson (2003:6) argued that much has been said on case study

11
methodology. As a result, case study methodology has developed in the direction of eclecticism and
pragmatism. This development has been advocated by, among others, Yin (1994, 2004, 2005, 2009;
and Johansson (2003:6). Rather than believing that one must choose to align with one paradigm or
the other, Johansson (2003:6) emphasized on a paradigm of choices arguing that a paradigm of
choices rejects methodological orthodoxy in favor of methodological appropriateness as the
primary criterion for judging methodological quality. Case study methodology now bridges the
methodological gap in the social sciences. In summary the evolution and current status of case
study method is shown in figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1. The history of case study methodology.

HERMENEUTICS
First generation of Case studies Robert Stake
Anthropological
Humanities

M. Q. Patton
Accounts of Journeys Field studies
The

Chicago B. Flyvbjerg
School Grounded
Case work

Combining qualitative and

case history Theory

Quantitative methods
Robert
Social Sciences
Methodology

Yin
METHODOLOGICAL CLEAVAGE

Statistical analysis Opinion polls

of archival records Surveys
Sciences
Natural

POSITIVISM

1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 year

Source: Adopted from Johansson (2003:7)

2.3. The Objectives of Case Study Research

Case Study Research is appropriate for several research objectives. Woodside (2010:4) proposed
that deep understanding of the actors, interactions, sentiments, and behaviors occurring for a
specific process through time should be seen as the principal objective by the case study
researchers. Deep understanding in CSR includes knowledge of ‘‘sense making’’ processes created
by individuals, systems thinking, policy mapping, and systems dynamics modeling. Accordingly,
Woodside (2010:6) identified the principal objectives of CSR, but not limited to description,
explanation, prediction, and control of the individual process, animal, person, household, group, or
organization. Thus, Woodside advocated that CSR is often appropriate for several research

12
objectives going beyond description and explanation. Description of each objectives of Case Study
Research is presented below:
1. Description: Description in CSR is the attempt to answer who, what, where, when, and how
questions.
2. Explanation: Explanation in CSR is the attempt to answer the why question. Sometimes
CSR explanations include reports provided by: (a) the direct participants in the case; (b)
informed third party observers to the case; and (c) the case study researcher.
3. Prediction: Prediction in CSR includes forecasting near term and/or long-term
psychological states, behaviors, or events that will follow within the individual case and/or
similar cases.
4. Control: Control in CSR includes attempts to influence the cognitions, attitudes, and/or
behaviors occurring in an individual case. Control is a relevant objective in experimental
studies of single cases.
Each of these four case study research objectives can be viewed beneficially as orthogonal to the
other three objectives.
2.4. Core Propositions in Case Study Research
The available literature in case study research has identified several core propositions. For the
purpose of this paper, 12 of these propositions are summarized in table 2.1.
Table 2. 1: Core Propositions in Case Study Research
S.No. Core Propositions
1 Time is recognized explicitly in modeling behavioral processes in CSR
2 In many case studies, multiple individuals participate in different conversations and
behaviors within one period in the case. Hence, conversational analysis is the primary focus
of many case studies.
3 Individuals are members of identifiable households, groups, or organizations.
4 Much like actors appearing in different scenes in a play, different individuals in the same
group may participate in conversations and behaviors in different time periods
5 When examined deeply, most cases involve three or more informal groups or organizations
that affect the process and outcomes under study.
6 Identifiable individuals and groups engage in identifiable behaviors leading to identifiable
events (i.e., outcomes).
7 Specific events influence the occurrence of other events.
8 Some events can be repeated
9 The presence of certain events changes the influence of another event
10 Not all members of a group communicates with every other member in the same group
11 Participation in the case of identifiable groups occurs only in a limited number of time
periods
12 Conversational contacts within a group may increase or decrease from one period to the
next within a case
Source: Compiled from Woodside (2010:14)

13
Woodside (2010:14) argued that diverse streams of CSR focus on different concept variables. For
instance, policy mapping is the attempt to diagram, explain, and predict recurring relationships
among events in a case study. Decision systems analysis on the other hand is the attempt to
diagram and explain (but not to predict) relationships among non-recurring events in a case study.
Therefore, the CSR methods appropriate for a given study depend on the nature of the process
being examined, as well as the interests of the researcher. For processes being repeated with
adjustments, such as managing a newspaper business or pricing gasoline, policy mapping is an
appropriate research tool. For one-off processes, such as an individual or organization adopting a
new technology, decision systems analysis and Ethnographic decision tree modeling (EDTM) are
appropriate research tools. While many different CSR methods are available, all include the
recognition of the core concepts in table 2.

2.5. Case Study Research Design/Types

The case study approach is multi-faceted and may be applied and used in a number of different
ways. Case studies can be undertaken from a positivist or interpretivist paradigm, may be
deductive or inductive, may involve single or multiple cases using literal or theoretical replication
and may use qualitative and quantitative data (Baxter and Jack, 2008:2). Yin (2004:6) identifies
three main steps for Case study design as discussed bellow.

The first step is to define the “case” that we are studying. In this step, Yin, argued that arriving at
even a tentative definition helps enormously to organize the case study. Generally, researchers
should stick with their initial choice, because they might have reviewed literature or developed
research questions specific to the choice. Nevertheless, a desirable quality of the case study method
is the ability to redefine the “case,” after collecting some early data. Researchers should beware
when this happens to backtrack, reviewing a slightly different literature and possibly revising the
original research questions before moving to the second step of case study design.

The second step calls for deciding whether to do a single case study or a set (multiple) of case
studies designs. Researchers can choose to keep their case holistic or to have embedded sub-cases
within an overall holistic case. Holistic or embedded case studies represent another two types of
case study design, which can exist with either single- or multiple-case studies which give a chance
for case researchers to think of the two-by-two combination producing four basic designs for their
case studies. Yin (2004:7) stressed that of these combinations, the most intriguing are the ones

14
contrasting single- and multiple-case studies. Focusing on a single case will force researchers to
devote careful attention to that case. Conversely, having multiple cases might help them to
strengthen the findings from the entire study since the multiple cases might have been chosen as
replications of each other, deliberate and contrasting comparisons, or hypothesized variations.

The third step outlined by Yin (2004:7) involves deciding whether to use “theory development” to
help to select case(s), develop data collection protocol, and organize initial data analysis strategies.
Your case study could attempt to build, extend, or challenge the existing perspective, possibly even
emulating a hypothesis-testing approach. However, Yin, commented that such a theoretical
perspective also could limit researchers’ ability to make discoveries from scratch.

Table 2.2: Component of interactive model qualitative research design

S.No. Component of Questions to be answered
research design
1 Goals:  Why is your study worth doing?
 What issues do you want it to clarify, and what practices and policies
do you want it to influence?
 Why do you want to conduct this study, and why should we care about
the results?
2 Conceptual  What do you think is going on with the issues, settings, or people you
framework plan to study?
 What theories, beliefs, and prior research findings will guide or inform
your research and what literature, preliminary studies, and personal
experiences will you draw on for understanding the people or issues
you are studying?
3 Research  What, specifically, do you want to learn or understand by doing this
questions study?
 What do you not know about the things you are studying that you want
to learn?
 What questions will your research attempt to answer, and how are
these questions related to one another?
4 Methods  What will you actually do in conducting this study?
 What approaches and techniques will you use to collect and analyze
your data, and how do these constitute an integrated strategy?
5 Validity  How might your results and conclusions be wrong?
 What are the plausible alternative interpretations and validity threats
to these, and how will you deal with these?
 How can the data that you have, or that you could potentially collect,
support or challenge your ideas about what is going on?
 Why should we believe your results?
Source: Maxwell (2008:216)
Maxwell (2008:215) developed the “interactive model” of qualitative research design including case
study. The model consists of the components of a research study and the ways in which these
components may affect and be affected by one another. It does not presuppose any particular order

15
for these components, or any necessary directionality of influence. This model of research design
has five components, each of which addresses a different set of issues that are essential to the
rationality of a qualitative study study:

The components discussed in table 2.2 are not substantially different from the ones presented in
many other discussions (Rowley, 2002:19) of qualitative research design. What is innovative is the
way in which Maxwell (2008:216) tries to conceptualize the relationships among the components.
In this model, Maxwell depicts how the different parts of a design form an integrated and
interacting whole, with each component closely tied to several others, rather than being linked in a
linear or cyclic sequence. The most important relationships among these five components are
displayed in figure 2.2

Figure 2.2: an Interactive Model of qualitative case study research Design

Goals

Research
Questions

Source: Maxwell (2008:217)

Once if the researcher determined that the research question would be best answered using a
qualitative case study, then the next step is the selection of a specific type of case study design. The
literature on case study methods and design identified several types of case study research designs.
In some article and books, case study research designs discussed here are classified as case study
research types. The criteria for classification and respective types of case study design are indicated
in table 2.3.

16
Table 2.3: Criteria and Classification of Case Study designs

S.No. Criteria Type of case study

1 Nature of the case  Intrinsic: unique and extraordinary
 Instrumental: developing theories and insights
 Collective: More than one instrumental case
2 Theoretical claims  Descriptive: requires theory to guide data collection
 Casual: search for causal and explanatory theories
 Exploratory: data collected before theory
3 Number  Single
 Multiple
4 Unit  Embedded: more than one unit
 Holistic: global
5
Source: Baxter and Jack (2008:6).
Gay (1994:17) while conducting a case study on information systems over five firms, identified
single, exploratory, in-depth pilot case study followed by a more explanatory, cross-case analysis of
the five firms. Yin (2003) uses different terms to describe a variety of case study designs. Yin,
categorizes case studies as explanatory, exploratory, or descriptive. He also differentiates between
single, holistic case studies and multiple-case studies. Stake (1995) cited in Baxter and Jack
(2008:4) identifies case studies as intrinsic, instrumental, or collective. Explanations and
empirical/published cases of the on the respective case study research design are provided in
Figure 2.3 and Table 2.4.
Table 2.4: Types and Explanations of Case Study designs
Case Study Design/Type Explanations on the case study designs Published cases
Explanatory It would be used if researchers were seeking to Joia (2002) cited in
answer a question that sought to explain the Baxter & Jack (2008:4),
presumed causal links in real-life interventions that analyzing a web based e-
are too complex for the survey or experimental commerce learning
strategies. In evaluation language, the explanations community: A case study
would link program implementation with program in Brazil. Internet
effects (Yin, 2003). Research, 12,
305-317.
Exploratory This type of case study is used to explore those Lotzkar & Bottorff
situations in which the intervention being evaluated (2001); cited in Baxter &
has no clear, single set of outcomes (Yin, 2003). Jack (2008:5). An
observational study of the

17
 development of a nurse-
patient relationship.
Clinical Nursing Research,
10, 275-294.
Descriptive This type of case study is used to describe an Tolson, Fleming, &
intervention or phenomenon and the real-life Schartau (2002); cited in
context in which it occurred (Yin, 2003). Baxter and Jack (2008:5).
Coping with
menstruation:
Understanding the needs
of women with
Parkinson’s disease.
Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 40, 513-521.
Multiple-case studies A multiple case study enables the researcher to Campbell et al (1998);
explore differences within and between cases. The cited in Baxter and Jack
goal is to replicate findings across cases. Because (2008:5). Innovative
comparisons will be drawn, it is imperative that the community services for
cases are chosen carefully so that the researcher can rape victims: An
predict similar results across cases, or predict application of multiple
contrasting results based on a theory (Yin, 2003). case study methodology.
American Journal of
Community Psychology,
26, 537-571.
Intrinsic Stake (1995); cited in Baxter and Jack (2008:4) uses Hellströ m, Nolan, &
the term intrinsic and suggests that researchers Lundh (2005); cited in
who have a genuine interest in the case should use Baxter and Jack (2008:5).
this approach when the intent is to better “We do things together”.
understand the case. It is not undertaken primarily A case study of “couple
because the case represents other cases or because hood” in dementia.
it illustrates a particular trait or problem, but Dementia, 4(1), 7-22.
because in all its particularity and ordinariness, the
case itself is of interest. The purpose is NOT to come
to understand some abstract construct or generic
phenomenon. The purpose is NOT to build theory
(although that is an
option; Stake, 1995).
Instrumental Other than understanding a particular situation, it Luck, Jackson, & Usher
provides insight into an issue or helps to refine a (2007); cited in Baxter
theory. The case is of secondary interest; it plays a and Jack (2008:5).
supportive role, facilitating our understanding of Components of
something else. The case is often looked at in depth, observable behavior that
its contexts scrutinized, its ordinary activities indicate potential for
detailed, and because it helps the researcher pursue patient violence in
the external interest. The case may or may not be emergency. Journal of
seen as typical of other cases (Stake, 1995). Advanced Nursing,59,11-
19.
Collective Collective case studies are similar in nature and Scheib (2003), cited in
description to multiple case studies (Yin, 2003) Baxter and Jack (2008:5).
Role stress in the
professional life of the
school music teacher: A
collective case study.
Journal of Research in

18
 Music Education, 51,124-
136.
Source: Baxter and Jack (2008:4-5).
2.5.1. Single or Multiple Case Study Designs
Case study literatures often cited Single and multiple case study designs as the main groups of case
study designs. Similarly, a detailed explanation given on these common forms of case research
designs. Schell (1992:6) indicated that case studies might either focus on a single case or use a
number of cases. Schell, tries to differentiate the two arguing that a single case may form the basis
of research on typical, critical or deviant cases, while multiple cases may be used to achieve
replication of a single type of incident in different settings, or to compare and contrast different
cases. Multiple-subject case studies are especially useful if topics are too complex or involve too
many actors to be addressed using a simple interview survey. Single case studies are analogous to
single experiments, and as such are justified using the same arguments as the single experiment.
Schell (1992:6), identifies three rationale single case:
 It represents the critical case in testing a well-formulated theory;
 It may represent an extreme or unique case, worth documenting and analyzing;
 The third rationale is the revelatory case2
Baxter and Jack (2008:6) noted that besides identifying the “case” and the specific “type” of case
study to be conducted, researchers must consider if it is practical to conduct a single case study or if
a better understanding of the phenomenon will be gained through conducting a multiple case study
(Yin, 2003). The ability to look at sub-units that are situated within a larger case is powerful when
the researcher consider that data can be analyzed within the subunits separately (within case
analysis), between the different subunits (between case analysis), or across all of the subunits
(cross-case analysis) (Baxter and Jack, 2008:6). The ability to engage in such rich analysis only
serves to better illuminate the case. The pitfall that beginner researchers fall into is that they
analyze at the individual subunit level and fail to return to the global issue that they initially set out
to address (Yin, 2003).
A multiple or collective case study allows the researcher to analyze within each setting and across
settings. Baxter and Jack (2008:6) argued that while a holistic case study with embedded units only
allows the researcher to understand one unique/extreme/critical case. In a multiple case study,
researchers are examining several cases to understand the similarities and differences between the
cases. Yin (2003:47) describes how multiple case studies can be used to either, “(a) predicts similar

2
According to Schell (1992:6), the revelatory case exists when a phenomenon not previously accessible to
scientific investigation is revealed.

19
results (a literal replication) or (b) predicts contrasting results but for predictable reasons (a
theoretical replication)”. As part of their final analysis, Baxter and Jack (2008:6) commented that
this type of a design has its advantages and disadvantages. Overall, the evidence created from this
type of study is considered robust and reliable, but it can also be extremely time consuming and
expensive to conduct.

In general, these two case study design parameters, the number of sources of data, and the number
of cases studied, provide us with a two by two matrix of basic designs of case studies as depicted in
figure 2.3.
Figure 2.3: Basic types of design for case studies
Single case designs Multiple case designs
unit of analysis)
Holistic (Single

Type1 Type2
(multiple units

Type 4
Type 3
of analysis)
Embedded

Source: (Rowley, 2002:6).

Schell (1992:7), concludes that one class of technical criticism directed against the case study as a
research strategy is related to the misapplication of one type of case study design when another is
indicated. Thus, by understanding the usefulness and limitations of each type of design, it is easily
possible to overcome at least part of the reproach directed against the case study.

2.6. Principles for Doing Case Study Research

This section identifies the twelve principles relevant for doing case study research. The discussion
emphasizes that accuracy (validity) comes first, not generality. Woodside (2010:397) identifies the
key thoughts to signify the twelve principles for doing case study research (table 2.5). According to
Woodside (2010:398), the quality in doing and writing-up case study research improves with
practice. Big mistakes usually occur by beginners in doing case study research. All case study
researchers make mistakes but usually do improve with practice; studying case-study research
methods before going into the field to collect data can be helpful. Mistakes include asking blunt

20
questions at a first meeting with informants and asking ‘‘why’’ questions. Woodside identifies 12
principles of case study research as the means to correct mistakes committed by novice
researchers. Hence, some selected principles that are relevant for case study research theory
development, designing methods, and data interpretation are discussed bellow.

Table 2.5: Twelve principles relevant for doing case study research
 Configural not net effects  Conjunctive-disjunctive not
compensatory decision-making
 Unconscious not conscious thinking  Systems thinking not independent versus
dependent conditions
 Dynamic not cross sectional designs  Multi-person not one-person

 Multiple routes not one model only  Satisfy not optimize decisions

 Predictive validity not only a best fitting  Unobtrusive evidence not just obtrusive
model interviews or observations

 Context not context free  Visual not just verbal data collection and
interpretation.
Source: Woodside (2010:397)

i. Configural Effects Not Net Effects

Outcomes are viewable better as results of causal recipes and not combinations of independent
variables and interaction terms. ‘‘In conventional quantitative research, independent variables are
seen as analytically separable causes of the outcomes under investigation. Typically, each causal
variable is thought to have an autonomous or independent capacity to influence the level, intensity,
or probability of the dependent variable’’ (Ragin, 2008:112; cited in Woodside, 2010:399).

Achieving accuracy requires applying methods that account for contingency and complex
antecedent conditions. The addition of complex interaction terms presents severe problems of
interpretations. Expecting techniques designed specifically to estimate net effects in linear-additive
models to do a good job of assessing causal recipes, especially in situations that include multiple
recipes, is unreasonable (Ragin, 2008:112; cited in Woodside, 2010:399).
ii. Unconscious Not Conscious
Woodside (2010:400) characterizes researchers as we have biases favoring the belief that we plan
what we do and know why we have done whatever we have done. When outcomes are good, we
usually conclude, ‘‘I did it!’’ Humans tend to report that their decisions and behaviors were the
principal (or only) causes of good outcomes. When outcomes are bad, we conclude, ‘‘they changed

21
the rules on me!’’ Humans tend to report that conditions and actions of others were the principal
(often the only) cause of bad outcomes. Humans fail to (consciously) notice how context and
manipulations by behavioral scientists and marketers influence their behavior (Bargh & Chartrand,
1999; cited in Woodside, 2010:399). Therefore, collecting conscious-based data via self-reports
(e.g., subjective personal introspections and survey responses) is insufficient for achieving high
accuracy. In case studies, Woodside (2010:400) noted that humans need to reflect on their own
behavior and collect unconscious thinking data to achieve high accuracy in describing and
understanding their own thinking and behavior.

iii. Dynamic Not Cross-Sectional

Woodside (2010:400) criticized the dominant logic for most organizational studies, since it opt to
collect all the data in the main study in one survey and then to test a conceptual model using
structural equation modeling. The conceptual models include no lagged relationships (and the
write-ups of these studies include only best-validity estimates and almost never include tests for
predictive validity). While the conceptual models usually imply lagged relationships between the
independent variables and the dependent variables, the empirical models fail to test for such
relationships. As a result, Woodside advised researchers not to follow the dominant logic approach
and to embark on collecting data from the same sources for several days, weeks, years, or decades
is the best approach. Furthermore, doing cross-lagged analysis field experiments where
manipulations precede outcomes, system dynamics modeling in case study research, and
qualitative comparative analysis are useful alternatives to avoid the failure to recognize empirically
for lagged relationships. Hence, case study researchers should go back into the field several times
more if possible to see if informants’ predictions become reality. Participant observations that
include long periods in the field alleviate the lack of information on lagged relationships that cross-
sectional data analysis ignores (Woodside (2010:400).

iv. Multiple Routes Not One Model Fits All

Several models in a multiple regression analysis achieve close to the same maximum level that is
reachable for the coefficient of determination (adjusted R2) in an empirical positivistic study;
hitherto, most of these studies only report one or two empirical models. Similar reports are made
for structural equation models. Against this assertion Woodside (2010:400) argued that case study

22
researchers using qualitative comparative analysis 3 know better and they report all relevant
routes to high outcome levels for the outcome condition.

v. Predictive Validity Not Just Best Fit Validity

Quantitative researchers like Gigerenzer (2008); cited in Woodside, 2010:401) shows that multiple
regression models do extremely well at creating a best fitting model for a given dataset but perform
less well in comparison to more simple heuristics at predictive validity testing the model’s accuracy
for a separate set of data. Presenting only best-fit model findings is the dominant logic in the
management, organizational studies, and marketing literatures but doing so is bad practice. Testing
for predictive validity with hold out samples is always possible and doing so substantially increases
the benefit for both empirical positivistic and interpretative case studies. Woodside (2010:401)
tries to show how case studies can apply empirical positivistic analysis methods4

vi. Context Not Context-Free

Since multiple-actors participate in the contexts relevant to the main focus of research on most
human behaviors, collecting data from multiple informants and for multiple context are useful for
confirming the accuracy of the findings and expand on understanding of the contingencies affecting
outcomes uniquely for each context. The big mistake in the dominant logic in management research
is not planning a research study to examine for context effects (Woodside, 2010:401).

2.7. The Case Study and Causal Inference

Compared other types of qualitative researches, case studies are distinguished from other social
scientific methods since it investigates a person, institution, or society rather than people,
institutions, or societies more broadly (Schrank, 2006:169). The information used in case study can
be either qualitative or quantitative collected by an individual or a team via interviews, surveys,
archival materials, observations, or any other widely accepted source (Kin, 1981:2). Data collected
for case study can be analyzed using one or more of a wide variety of analytical methods, including,
but by no means limited to, close reading, historical interpretation, analytical narratives, and even
the use of inferential statistics (Schrank, 2006:169).

3
For more information on the software program see the software program at fsqca.com
4
Some examples of positivistic analysis methods include latency measurement and building-in degrees-of-
freedom analysis. For details see Woodside, (2010:401)

23
Prominent case study methods advocates like Schrank (2006:169) noted that the case study is the
unappreciated workhorse of the contemporary social sciences. Schrank, further appreciated the
importance of case study method as it has made and continues to make massive contributions to
every social scientific discipline. Johansson (2003:6) indicated that the classic works of sociology
and political science involve case studies. Anthropologists, geographers, and historians use the
approach all the time. In addition, mainstream economists are quick to underscore the virtues of a
well-designed case study, at least when it suits their rhetorical or polemical purposes (Schrank,
2006:169).

Nevertheless, the methodological literature on the case study is for the most part defensive rather
than instructive (Orum, 2001:1510). Schrank, 2006:169) confirmed that for every book and article-
offering insight into the practice of case based research, one finds a half dozen books or articles
debating the very merits of the approach. Most of those works, by the way, are critical. In this
regard, the subsequent works by Yin (1981, 1994, 2003, 2005 and 2009) are worth to mention on
case study research methods and designs.

Schrank (2006:171) argued on the prevailing view of the case study, as it owes much to the critique
offered by Donald Campbell and Julian Stanley in their classic exposition of Experimental and
Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research in 1966. According to Campbell and Stanley (1966:6)
cited in Schrank (2006:171), the one-time case study entails the observation of a single group that
has supposedly been exposed to some agent or treatment presumed to cause change. The limits to
the one-time case study are related to either absence of a baseline measure of the outcome variable
or a control group. As a result, one can neither be certain that a change in the status of the outcome
variable has actually occurred nor attribute the alleged change to the ostensible cause with any
degree of certainty. Therefore, using the words of Campbell and Stanley (1966:6), Schrank
(2006:171), noted that the case study methodology suffers from a total absence of control as to be
of almost no scientific value.

Case study research analysts like Bennett (2001) Yin (1981) in his article “case study crises”,
Flyvbjerg (2004), and Schrank (2006) have responded to Campbell and Stanley’s critique by
amplifying the importance of case study research as justification for qualitative method. After a
thorough analysis Schrank (2006:173) had identified the situations, under which case study
research might be appropriate; when:

24
  It promises to yield fundamental insight into a rare but important process or event that
offers no obvious point of comparison,
 It addresses an ambiguous, obscure, or otherwise inhospitable population that is difficult to
reach through traditional methods,
 It explores a crucial, deviant, or negative case that will shed light on an established theory,
 It is used in conjunction with a large-n statistical study to flesh out underlying causal
mechanisms,
 It is combined with a small-n comparative approach to assess necessary causal conditions
or conditional theoretical statements,
 It can be evaluated against an established body of theory that offers multiple observable
implications, and
 when no adequate body of theory exists, and the relevant hypothesis or control group is
therefore unclear
In general, Schrank (2006:173) concluded that any or all of these situations would justify the use of
case-based methods, regardless of whether they would foster valid causal inferences in the narrow
sense of the term5. Finally, Schrank, noted that large-n researchers have to compromise nuance for
generalizability while small-n researchers compromise generalizability for nuance. In both cases,
the goal is mostly to understand social processes and their implications, and both methods are
fraught with fundamental study design concerns that allow only partial answers. Nevertheless, in
mutual dialogue, the two methodological enterprises can yield more complete insights into social
processes (Ibid).

2.8. Data Collection and Analysis Methods Useful for Case Study Research
Many writers (Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle, 2006:116) on case study research often associate it
with using qualitative research methods. While other few (Woodside (2010:11) indicated that CSR
is not only restricted to one set of research methods instead quantitative methods, including
statistical hypotheses testing, are appropriate for many case studies. As well, Woodside also noted
that the value of most CSR reports could be enhanced considerably by using multiple tools, both
qualitative and quantitative methods, in the same study. Thus, the lack of a well-defined,
formalized methodology of case study research is, one of the key criticisms on case research ( Guy,
1994:3). It is therefore especially important to understand the types of research activity proscribed

5
For ongoing discussions about case study research approach, see the websites for the Consortium on Qualitative Research
Methods (www.asu.edu/clas/polisci/cqrm/) and the American Political Science Association’s Qualitative Methods Section
and associated newsletter (www.asu.edu/clas/ polisci/cqrm/QualitativeMethodsAPSA.html).

25
for case study preparation, and the different types of data collection and analysis approaches
typically used.

Schell (1992:6) noted that case studies usually follow one of two types of research methodology
such as multiple triangulations (based upon the use of multiple sources of evidence) and review of
multiple case studies. Similarly, most case studies use at least Single or multiple sources of data. In
case of multiple data sources, multiple investigators and sites may be involved in the collection of
interview, observation and administrative documents and performing structured surveys (Rowley,
2002:4). Single or multiple source case research may cover all of the forms of investigation used by
any of the other research designs. Yin (1981:10) describes cases with a single source of
information/data as holistic cases and cases with multiple sources of information as embedded
cases. After more than a decade, Yin (1994:14), cautions that embedded cases may be mistakenly
classified as holistic cases if a single source has identifiable sub-units. Supporting Yin’s idea, Baxter
and Jack (2008:6) argued that a holistic case design would logically only be used when it is
impossible to identify sub-units, and when the relevant theory underlying the case study itself is of
a holistic nature.

In general, the type of data needed, sources, data collection tools and analysis mechanisms vary
based on the type of research design and context. For example, descriptive and explanatory case
studies need propositions. Research questions need to be translated into propositions. Hence, the
data collection and analysis can then be structured in order to support or refute the case study
research propositions (Rowley, 2002:4).

2.8.1. Measurement Procedures and Data Collection Tools/Techniques

The case study as a research strategy encompasses specific techniques for collecting and analyzing
data directed by clearly stated theoretical assumptions. Besides, data should be collected from
different sources and its integrity should be ensured (Rowley, 2002:4). Qualitative measurement is
used in professional qualitative case studies (Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle, 2006:116). The unit of
analysis (individual person, an organization team or department) is the basis for the case studies
(Woodside, 2010:11). It can sometimes be difficult to identify the boundaries of the unit of analysis.
A key issue is that the case study should only ask questions about the unit of analysis, and any sub-
units; sources of evidence and the evidence gathered are determined by the boundaries that define
the unit of analysis. Selecting the unit of analysis, or the case is crucial. Case selection must be

26
determined by the research purpose, questions, propositions and theoretical context, but there will
also be other constraints that influence case selection. These include (Rowley, 2002:4):
 Accessibility: whether the data needed can be collected from the case individual or
organization,
 Resources (whether resources are available to support travel and other data collection and
analysis costs), and
 Time available (if time is limited, it may be easier to analyze a small business rather than a
large business, or to identify a unit of analysis within a large organization, rather than seek
to study the organization in its entirety.
It is necessary to decide what data is necessary in order to support or destroy the propositions, and
to reflect on the criteria for interpreting the findings. Prior discussing the specific data collection
and analysis techniques, it is also vital to pinpoint the four tests of measurement and the related
checking mechanisms for case study research that have been widely used to establish the quality of
empirical social research (see table 2.6).

Table 2.6: Tests of measurement and mechanisms for Checking Case Study Design
Tests
Activity

Construct validity Internal validity External validity Reliability:

This is concerned with Establishing a causal Establishing the demonstrating

exposing & reducing relationship whereby domain to which that the data
subjectivity, by linking data certain conditions findings can be collection
Meaning

collection questions & are shown to lead to generalized based on produced can
measures to research other conditions. replication logic. be repeated
questions and propositions. with the same
results.
Use replication logic
pattern

explanation

series

in multiple case
Establish chain of

key
informants review
draft case study

Develop case study

study
sources of evidence
Case study tactic

Use multiple

Use case
time

database
evidence

protocol
building

analysis

studies
report
Have

Do

Do

Do

Research design
Phase in which

Data collection

Data collection
Data collection

Data collection
Data analysis

Data analysis

Data analysis
Composition
tactic occurs

27
Source: Rowley (2002:5-6)
A case study research is characterized by flexible, naturalistic methods of data collection and does
not use formal instruments to record data (Yin, 2009). Qualitative data for case study research are
gathered in the form of words and pictures (Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle, 2006:116). The tools
that are used tend to be ones that produce data that allow for rich and thick descriptions of the
phenomena being studied. Robson (1993:155) suggested that in a case study has to be scientific
and as unbiased as possible. The sampling strategy, the data collection process must be systematic
and the data recorded with accuracy. Case study researchers use a variety of research tools, but
they often prefer to use observations, conduct interviews, and conduct document analysis (Lodico,
Spaulding and Voegtle, 2006:116).

Rowley (2002:7) indicated that data collection and the general the execution of a good case study
depend crucially upon the competence of the researcher. Unlike, with say, a questionnaire, the
evidence to be gathered is defined as it is collected, and the researcher is an active agent in the
process. In this regard, Robson (1993:163) advises researchers undertaking data collection to be
able to ask good questions, to listen and to interpret the answers. This involves having a sound
grasp of the issues/questions (Robson, 1993:163) and propositions of the case study (Rowley,
2002:7), and being able to approach the study in an unbiased, and flexible manner (Robson,
1993:163).

Data collection should be guided by a case study protocol 6. This protocol as outlined by Rowley
(2002:7) needs to include the following sections:
1. An overview of the case study project.
2. Field procedures, such as use of different sources of information, and access arrangements
to these sources.
3. Case study questions, or the questions that the case study researcher needs to keep in mind
when collecting data. These questions are posed to the researcher, and not to any specific
respondents, although they may be used to guide the formulation of questions to
interviewees, and members of focus groups. In complex cases studies it is important to
differentiate between the questions asked of specific interviewees and used to interrogate

6
In large case studies, with multiple cases and embedded designs with several sub units in each case study, then
more than one researcher is engaged in gathering evidence, in such circumstances, the case study protocol is a
central communication document for the team (for more information on case study protocol, see Rowley,
2002:7).

28
 documents, questions asked of the individual case, and questions to be asked across
multiple cases.

In general, case studies draw on multiple sources of evidence (Rowley, 2002:8). These include
documents, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant observation, and physical
artifacts. Each of these different sources requires different approaches to their interrogation, and is
likely to yield different kinds of insights (Robson, 1993:157). Each source has its strengths and its
weaknesses, and the richness of the case study evidence base derives largely from this multi-
facetted perspective yielded by using different sources of evidence (Rowley, 2002:8). Rowley
(2002:8) noted that whichever sources of evidence are used for a case study; there are three key
principles of data collection that need to be observed:
i. Triangulation - one of the great strengths of case studies as compared with other
methods is that evidence can be collected from multiple sources. Triangulation uses
evidence from different sources to corroborate the same fact or finding (Rowley,
2002:8).
ii. Case Study Database - A case study database of the evidence gathered needs to be
collected. Whilst a report or dissertation may be the primary distillation of the case
study, a further outcome that strengthens the repeatability of the research, and
increases the transparency of the findings is a well organized collection of the evidence
base. According to Rowley (2002:8), this base may include case notes made by the
investigators, case study documents that are collected during a case study, interview
notes or transcripts, and analysis of the evidence. When preparing a dissertation it will
be useful to attach some elements of this evidence as appendices to the case study
report.

iii. Chain of Evidence – Case study researchers need to maintain a chain of evidence. The
report should make clear the sections on the case study databases that it draws upon,
by appropriate citation of documents and interviews. In addition, the actual evidence
needs to be accessible in the databases. Rowley (2002:8) noted that within the database,
it should be clear that the data collection followed the protocol, and the link between
the protocol questions and the propositions should be transparent.
Like Rowley, Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle, 2006:116).

29
2.8.1.1. Observation as data collection Technique in case study research
Observation as a tool of case study research requires systematic and careful examination of the
phenomena being studied. Specifically, researchers who choose to use observation must conduct
their observations in a way that results in accurate, unbiased, and richly detailed information.
Observation as a research tool requires training in both what to observe and how to record the
observations (Slack and Rowley, 2001:35).

When conducting observations, the primary goal is to gather data that are accurate and naturalistic
and, to the greatest extent possible, that reflect the reality of the situation as the participants see it.
This necessitates that case researchers become familiar with the setting and that the participants
are comfortable with their presence. Before the start of the observation, researchers must decide to
what degree they will allow themselves to be involved in the setting. There are certainly varying
degrees of involvement that you can choose. Gold (1958), cited in Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle,
2006:117) identified the following classification of observation based on the degree of participation
of the observer:
i. Complete participant: This means that you are a member of the group, and no one in
the group is aware of the fact that they are also an observer. While this might allow a
true “insider’s” view, it raises ethical concerns because, in essence, researcher are
deceiving the participants.
ii. Participant as observer:. In this situation, researchers are active member of the group
and actively participate in the group’s activities and interactions, but each member of
the group knows that researchers are also serving a research role. In essence, a
collaborative relationship is developed between the observer and the participants.
Although this removes the ethical concerns presented by being a complete observer,
researchers may compromise the natural interaction of the group.
iii. Observer as participant:. Choosing to be an observer as participant removes the
researcher a bit from group membership. Although researchers certainly still have a
connection to the group, they will not likely participate in the group’s activities.
iv. Complete observer: Here researchers might conduct their observations from behind a
one-way mirror or in a public setting. They are not a member of the group and do not
participate in the group’s activities.
When selecting a role as an observer, you must decide the extent to which you want your activities
as a researcher to be overt or covert. This decision may influence how the participants behave,

30
respond, and react. As a qualitative researcher, you need to recognize the influence this might have
on the reality of the phenomena being investigated.

Key Features of Careful Observation. According to Goetz and LeCompte (1984); cited in Lodico,
Spaulding and Voegtle, 2006:118), careful observation in case study should include at least the
following key features:
 An explanation of the physical setting: This would include an overall physical description
of the space.
 A description of the participants in the setting. Careful explanation of the participants
would include not only who is in the setting but also why they might be there and a
description of their roles. Besides, any relevant demographic information should be
included.
 Individual and group activities and group interactions: The researcher should observe
the activities the participants are engaging in. Special note should be made of the particular
activities that will help to answer the foreshadowed questions.
 Participant conversation and nonverbal communication. Because case data often
include direct quotes, conversations should be observed in such a way as to note not only
what is being said but also how it is being said.
 Researcher behavior. Because the researcher is part of the setting, careful attention must
be paid to the influence the observer has on the behavior of the participants. Does the
researcher’s presence in any way influence what is occurring in the setting?
Observational Protocols in a case study
Case study researchers develop an observational protocol specific to the topic of the study. Lodico,
Spaulding and Voegtle, 2006:118), noted that protocols are generally designed to gather data that
cannot be predicted in advance (e.g., conversations, observed natural behaviors, answers to open-
ended questions). Even when collecting qualitative data, it is important to have a protocol that will
help guide the collection of data in a systematic and focused manner.

Observational protocols may take different forms. In case study research, observational protocols
are typically unstructured. Most include brief phrases or questions identifying the types of actions,
features of the setting, or interactions to focus on in the observation. Some observational protocols
include a recording sheet to be used in the observation. The recording sheet may simply provide an
organized space for recording the details of what happens in a particular setting.

31
Conducting and Recording Observations in a case study: Meyer (2001:339) argued that
conducting good observational case research takes time and practice. With the observational
protocol, the following are key strategies to conduct good observation in a case study (Lodico,
Spaulding and Voegtle, 2006:118):
 Keeping observations short.
 Be alert to the behavior, conversations, and activities of the participants.
 Concentrate on specifics.
2.8.1.2. Interviews as data collection Technique in case study research
Interview in case study research, is a formal technique whereby a researcher solicits verbal
evidence/ data from familiar informants. After the verbal evidence has been obtained, the
researcher will normally need to convert the record of the interview into a written transcript
before analysis and the objective of the interview is to obtain insightful data for this purpose
(Remenyi, 2011:11). As a result, most case study research employs interviews. The interview might
be the major data collection tool of the study; particularly when the behavior of interest cannot be
easily observed or may be used to corroborate or verify observations. An interview is a purposive
conversation with a person or a group of persons.
Group versus Individual Interviews. Many case study interviews are conducted one-on-one when
the interviewer attempts to determine the participant’s feelings, interpretation, or reaction to an
event (often referred to as a “critical-incident interview”) or a set of circumstances or life
experiences (also known as “life histories”). In one-on-one interviews, the researcher lets
participants express their thoughts in their own words. With focus group interviews, the researcher
is able to collect data from multiple participants and also to observe and record the interactions and
group dynamics that unfold.

Interview Protocols for case study research: According to Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle,
2006:120), an important element of conducting a good interview is the construction of the
interview protocol. An interview protocol should include a brief script for explaining the purpose of
the study to the interviewee, places to record the date and background information on the
interviewee, and the preliminary questions to be used in the interview. Because the procedures for
conducting qualitative interviews are flexible, the questions serve as a starting point. A good
interviewer will use the questions to begin the discussion and will then ask additional questions
based on the person’s responses.

32
Types of case study research Interview: There are several different types of interviews
(Remenyi, 2011:13; Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle, 2006:120; and Mack et al, 2005:41):
 Structured interview: is one in which the researcher comes to the interview with a set of
questions, does not deviate from those questions, and asks the same questions of all the
participants. In a semi-structured interview researchers usually prepare a list of the
questions to be asked but allow themselves the opportunity to probe beyond the protocol.
 Non-structured interviews: is more conversation like and allow for the greatest
flexibility. The researchers may simply jot down a list of topics that they want to cover in
the interview. Generally, in case study research, the researcher will conduct a semi-
structured or non-structured interview.
 In-Depth Interviewing: is a technique designed to elicit a vivid picture of the participant’s
perspective on the research topic. Researchers engage with participants by posing
questions in a neutral manner, listening attentively to participants’ responses, and asking
follow-up questions and probes based on those responses. In-depth interviews are usually
conducted face-to-face and involve one interviewer and one participant.

How to Conduct a Good Interview in case study research?

Case study methodologists (Mack et al, (2005:41; and Remenyi, 2011:13) noted that conducting
interview research requires certain skills and practice with those skills. Often, one of the most
critical steps in the process of conducting an interview is determining the right person or people to
interview. As noted previously, an important component of conducting a good interview is the
construction and use of the interview protocol. Even when collecting semi-structured interviews, it
is important to have a protocol that will help guide the collection of data in a systematic and
focused manner. While conducting an interview, there are certain general procedures researchers
should follow (Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle, 2006:125):
 Begin the interview by reintroducing yourself.
 Remind the participant of the confidentiality of his or her responses.
 Obtain general descriptive information.
 Strive for neutrality.
 Use effective probes.
 Record the interview data.

33
2.8.1.3. Focus groups Discussion as data collection Technique in case study research
While interviews can be conducted with more than one person at a time, a focus group is a shift
away from an interview to a group discussion between small (6-10) groups of individuals selected
based on some knowledge about the research question (GAP, 2004:7). Focus groups are an
extremely efficient method of collecting data on a subject about which very little is known and are
valuable for asking participants to comment on and suggest explanations for research findings. In a
focus assessment study, it is desirable to conduct several focus groups with representatives of
different groups, not only to ensure that a particular group does not have opinions peculiar to them,
but also that a variety of perspectives on an issue are explored.
Moderating Focus Group Discussions
Many of the skills required by a focus group moderator are the same as those required by an
interviewer and were presented in the previous section. However, as outlined by GAP (2004:33), a
crucial difference between a focus group and an interview is that group interaction reduces the
data collector’s control of the process: the role of a moderator is not to lead like an interviewer, but
to guide. A useful definition of a focus group is that, using a list of themes or semi-structured
questions, a moderator: “capitalizes on the group dynamics to focus on the key issues but does not
obstruct the natural flow of the discussion in the group”. The present section discusses the
considerations necessary for the successful employment of this technique.
2.8.1.4. Documents and Artifacts as data collection Technique in case study
Documents and artifacts are another form of case study data collection tool. Lodico, Spaulding and
Voegtle, (2006:126) noted that these may include documents or objects that existed before the start
of the study or those documents, such as journals, created after the study has begun as requested by
the researcher. Documents and artifacts produced before the study by the participants generally
include things like public records, personal writings, or instructional materials. The decision to use
documents, artifacts, or both is driven by the case study research questions asked.
2.8.2. Organization and analysis of data in a Case Study
Data collection and analysis in case study research are inductive processes in which numerous
small pieces of data are collected and gradually combined or related to form broader, more general
descriptions and conclusions. Although the steps involved in case study research data analysis will
vary according to the research questions asked and the type of approach taken, the steps listed
below are common to most case studies (Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle, 2006:302):
 Preparing and organizing the data
 Reviewing and exploring the data

34
  Coding data into categories
 Constructing descriptions of people, places, and activities
 Building themes and testing hypotheses (if any)
 Reporting and interpreting data
Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle (2006:302) noted that there might be some back-and-forth movement
between the steps. One might need to review data initially before deciding how to organize it. The process of
coding might also lead one to reorganize some of the data. However, the steps tend to flow in this general
direction. Case study methodologists (Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle, 2006:302; Yin, 1994; Robson, 1993:159;
Woodside, 2010) argued that although it is possible to describe the processes of coding, description, theme
building, and hypothesis testing through review of data as if they are separate steps, case study data analysis
is actually an iterative process. The steps are repeated several times, with something new added in each
iteration. The process is repeated until the researcher feels that the research questions have been answered
and sufficient meaning extracted from the data. Figure 2.4 displays the iterative nature of the processes of
coding, description, and theme identification.
Figure 2.4: Processes in qualitative data analysis.

Researcher organizes data,

examines it

Researcher reexamines
data and codes them with
30 to 40 different codes

Codes are combined and

reduced to 15 to 20 categories;
data are recoded with new

Descriptions Major and

are generated minor
summarizing
themes are
data rganized

Final analysis and

interpretation of data

Source: (Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle, 2006:311)

35
2.8.3. Reporting and Interpreting case study Data

The final step in case study research is the actual writing of the research report, including the
researcher’s interpretations of what the data mean. Most qualitative case study research is
reported in a narrative manner, which often makes it more enjoyable to read than quantitative
research. The narrative may be organized using any of several different formats summarized in
Table 2.7. The choice of format may be determined both by the results of the data analysis and by
the researcher’s philosophical framework and purpose in conducting the research. Many
researchers include visual diagrams or images to represent the complex array of events, issues, or
themes that emerged from their data analysis (Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle, 2006:312).
Reports of qualitative case studies usually include extensive samples of quotes from participants.
By using the participants’ own words, researchers aim to build the reader’s confidence that they are
accurately representing the reality of the persons and situation studied. As in quantitative research,
qualitative case studies also report the methods used to collect and analyze data, but the criteria
used to evaluate qualitative studies differ (GAP, 2004).
Table 2.7: Formats for Writing the Text of Qualitative Reports
Format Description
Thematic Text is organized in terms of discussion of themes that arise from the data analysis. This is a
flexible format that fits a wide range of topics and is probably the most common method.
Natural Text structure parallels or “recreates” the process of exploration and discovery that
history occurred during fieldwork. This format conveys a strong sense of the people, the setting, and
the interactions involved in the research although it makes it difficult to do theme analysis.
Alternative or Text is presented using a performance-based format such as a story, song, dramatic
performance- performance, or highly personalized account called an auto ethnography. This format is
based useful in capturing the intense emotionality of a setting or experience.
Amalgamation Researcher analyzes data from several people and creates descriptive portraits of the
“types” of persons involved in the study. Each portrait is based on multiple persons so that it
protects confidentiality of the information.
Theoretical Text is organized around a theory used throughout the report. A developed theory may
serve as the framework for reviewing literature and collecting data, as in a theoretically
oriented case study. Grounded-theory approaches organize writing in terms of the creation
of a new theory that explains the data or the modification of an existing theory based on the
data.
Traditional Text is presented in the traditional style of research reports including Introduction, Review
scientific of Literature, Method, Results, and Discussion sections.
Source: (Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle, 2006:312)

36
2.9. The Strengths and weaknesses (Critiques) of Case Studies
2.9.1. Strengths
Yin (1994:) in his second edition of case study research design and methods noted that case study
research is a very useful method as it allows expanding and generalizing theories by combining the
existing theoretical knowledge with new empirical insights. According to Schrank (2006:173), the
application of this method could be useful for transcending the local boundaries of the investigated
cases, capturing new layers of reality, and developing new, testable and empirically valid
theoretical and practical insights. Likewise, Vissak (2010:2), indicated that CSR is especially
important in studying topics that have not attracted much previous research attention. Case studies
are principally helpful for discovery, description, mapping and relationship building, but they may
also be used for theory testing, refutation, refining, illustration, classification, hypothesis
development, prediction, identification of further research needs (Yin, 2009: 4; Vissak, 2010:2;
Schrank (2006:173 and Woodside, 2010).

Case studies do not necessarily have to rely on previous literature or prior empirical evidence.
Thus, case study research can be used for theory building even if little is known about the
phenomenon (Vissak, 2010:2). Unlike those research methods that aim at statistical correlations
with less focus on their underlying explanations, case research can help to discover causal
relationships, understand how and why things happened in a certain way, and create thick,
interesting, and easily readable descriptions and rich understandings of phenomena in their natural
settings (Dyer & Wilkins, 1991; cited in Vissak, 2010:3; Yin, 1994:5). Case studies can be also used
for deeply investigating dynamic, experiential and complex processes (Vissak, 2010:3).
One of the other strengths of case studies is that the
 Necessary data can be collected over a long time so that the researcher can go much further
than a cross-sectional snapshot of a process
 Case study data can be collected from multiple levels, perspectives like business papers,
journals, annual reports, archival records, and the case companies’ homepages
 The case study method also enables research to be conducted in countries with sample
bases too small for using statistical generalization
 In case study research, it is also possible to generalize from only one case if it is useful for
theory building

37
Advocates of qualitative methods have in recent years become more enthusiastic. For instance,
Benbasat et al (1987:370; as cited in Guy (1994:3), identify three strengths of case study research
in information systems:
 The researcher can study information systems in a natural setting, learn about the state of
the art, and generate theories from practice;
 The method allows the researcher to understand the nature and complexity of the process
taking place; and
 Valuable insights can be gained into new topics emerging in the rapidly changing
information systems field.

2.9.2. The Critique (weaknesses) of Case Studies

Despite their usefulness, case studies have been often criticized. According to Guy (1994:3),
Zealous critics of qualitative methods like case study are many and hail largely from the natural
sciences. Criticism that is more objective has come from the social sciences. Kerlinger (1986:348);
as cited in Guy (1994:3) identifies three major weaknesses of qualitative research:
 Inability to manipulate independent variables,
 Risk of improper interpretation, and
 Lack of power to randomize.
Similarly, Lee [1989] as cited in Guy (1994:3) identifies four corresponding problems with case
study research: a lack of controllability, deductibility, repeatability and generalizability. The latter
two limitations: repeatability and generalizability stem largely from lack of power to randomize.
Some critics like Vissak (2010:8) stated that as each case study is equal to one research
observation; hundreds of case studies are required to produce any (statistically) meaningful
results. Otherwise, they could be only used for explanatory purposes, not scientific justification.

In general, the preceding discussion identifies that like any other method, case studies have both
strengths and weaknesses. For the sake of simplicity and aptness, the strengths and weakness of
case study method are summarized in table 2.8.

38
Table 2.8: The strength and weaknesses of case study
S.No. Strength Weaknesses (Critique)
1 Commonly used in many scientific Unappreciated and underutilized as a
disciplines. methodology. Sometimes considered to be soft,
weak, “feminine,” and unscientific.
2 A higher response rate than in surveys Hard to conduct and interpret the results.
3 Useful for generating new theory or Time and labor consuming and hard to publish in
specifying (and, if necessary, criticizing) certain journals.
already researched topics.
4 Can explain new, complex and/or dynamic Cannot handle large data sets and hard to make
issues. statistical generalizations.
5 Suitable for asking “how” and “why” (not) Difficult to access confidential data. The
questions about a set of events and studying interviewee may not be very honest.
a firm from multiple perspectives.
6 Provide a holistic perspective on real-life A potential researcher bias, a bias from the
events and the processes leading to certain
use of key informants and selecting certain firms.
results.
7 Theoretical reading and empirical research A threat to end up with a weak theory or partial
can support of particular theories or frameworks.
be done at the same time. The data can
be collected from a large number of different
qualitative and quantitative sources.
8 Flexible in sequencing, reformulating and Hard to find a balance between depth and
adding questions. breadth: a single case increases the former but
decreases the latter while a multiple case study
increases the latter but decreases the former.
Source: Vissak (2010:10)

2.10. Characterization of Qualitative Case Study Research in Public Policy

In the previous sections, an attempt has been made to synthesis case study research method as a

justification for qualitative research method. This Sub- section tries to show how a qualitative case

study method can be applied in public policy researches. Both theoretical and empirical evidences

reveal that case study research method has been used as the key qualitative research method in

39
public policy. For instance, Gholipour (2010) employed a case study method to study the Trends of

Policy Research in Policymaking Environment, Timothy and Nerenz (2007) employed a case study

method to study :Contract bundling and public policy,” and Court and Young (2003) employed a

case study method to “Bridging Research and Policy with insights from 50 Case Studies.

Given the theoretical and empirical evidences on the importance of case study, method in public

policy the following section tries to show how the case study research method is appropriate when

it is used in a hypothetical comparative case study selected by the writer of this paper. To show

how to implement the case study steps discussed above under this Hypothetical Topic the

background, statement of purpose, the objectives, research questions and the respective

methodologies that would be used to generate data to answer the research questions and

objectives.

Hypothetical Comparative Case Study Topic

The Role of Public policy Initiatives to strengthen Rural-Urban Interface for Poverty Reduction and

Sustainable Development in Coffee and Non-Coffee Growing Areas: the case of Hawassa and Bahir Dar

Towns, Ethiopia.

2.10.1. Background of the Problem (for the Hypothetical Case Study)

Prior development policies, theoretical/empirical approaches, systems of governance and

management keep on treating rural and urban development as independent and largely distinct
sectors (UNDP, 2000). The paradigm shift from urban-based industrialization policy in the 1970s
towards Integrated Rural Development Policy (IRDP) failed to bring desired outcomes owing to
neglect of urban aspect in development process (Tegegne, 1999; Lynch, 2005). Hence, both spatial
units were given different policy emphasis that obscured collective synergy of Rural-Urban Linkage

40
(RUL) for poverty reduction and sustainable development where one is cause for a problem instead
of being remedy (Tegegne, 2005).

Current policy initiatives witnessed that mere consideration of rural development, as an entirely
distinct aspect from urban development is no longer acceptable. Instead, RUL development
approach becomes the appealing development strategy. Designing a balanced and mutually
supportive policy approach to development of both geographic units is vital (Okpala, 2003).
Therefore, policy makers, researchers and other stakeholders need to view development issues
along the broad spatial continuum than treating the two areas independently (GDPRD, 2007).

The challenge for poverty reduction and sustainable development is to narrow rural-urban divide
by incorporating this fact in to development frameworks, and further identifying policy initiatives
to bring mutual benefits (Douglass, 1998). Therefore, in developing countries like Ethiopia RUL
should form central part of policies that guide rural-urban development (Tegegne, 2006).
Nevertheless, designing a sound policy framework and development strategy is not an end by itself;
rather a consolidated effort is yet needed from the scientific community to bridge the prevailing
rural-urban divide (Tegegne, 2005). This can be done by diverting current emphasis of research
away from a mere analysis of physical linkage to in favor of a stronger focus on the role of Public
policy Initiatives to strengthen Rural-Urban Interface for Poverty Reduction and Sustainable
Development (UNDP, 2000; Lynch, 2005). Thus, a micro level detailed case study on two different
agro ecological zones in a developing country, as Ethiopia would provide a paramount importance
on the nature of linkages and policy formulation for poverty reduction and local economic
development.

2.10.2. Statement of the Problem (for the Hypothetical Case Study)

Rural and urban areas are symbiotically interrelated geographic units in various aspects (GDPRD,
2007). Their interactions are key strategic elements for livelihood diversifications (Tacoli, 1999).
Positive and strong RUL stimulate growth, reduce poverty (GDPRD, 2007) and have serious
implications on economy of a nation (Assefa, 2006). Such potentials could be well cultivated if the
two spaces are made to complement and function each other through a sound policy framework
(Tegegne, 2005). Research findings suggest that, RUL should form critical parts of national policies
and strategies that guide both rural and urban development (Tegegne, 2006; Tacoli, 2006).

However, past development policies and research works have treated rural and urban areas
independently (Lynch, 2005). Besides, development strategies and policies of developing countries
are often based on the dichotomy of rural and urban areas. Hence, the choice of development policy

41
initiative is one of the debated issues on rural-urban development literature (Asefa, 2006).
Similarly, Ethiopia’s development policies and strategies have been shared between rural and
urban issues. In this regard, failure of country’s previous development policies to integrate the two
spatial units in a meaningful way undermined the role of RUL to reduce poverty and promote
sustainable development (Assefa, 2006; Tegegne, 2005).

Prior development policies in Ethiopia had failed to bring rural development since farmers have
faced with several socio-economic, cultural and administrative problems. This in turn, hindered
farmers’ opportunities to use agricultural inputs, non- farm activities and ultimately exhibit a weak
rural-urban interaction (Tegegne, 1999; Demese, 2006). Similarly, recent development policies and
planning frameworks such as Agricultural Development Led Industrializations (ADLI) in Ethiopia
with the exception of PASDEP (2005-2010) and DTP (2011-2015) yet remains rural centered with
minimal opportunity for the potential of urbanization to contribute in country’s socio-economic
development (Befekadu and Birhanu, 2003; Assefa, 2006). Therefore, the policy environment in
Ethiopia reveals that RULs have not received adequate attention in development endevuours of the
country that calls for more research and investigation to identify its adverse effect on the ongoing
development process.

Research reveals that RUL in Ethiopia is continually affected by a serious of interrelated problems
that emanates from weak policy initiatives. In this regard, lack of adequate means of transport,
market facilities, agro-processing industries, farm inputs, unfavorable land tenure, subsistence
agriculture, resource degradation, poverty and lack of enabling environment were identified as
threats for the positive RULs in the country (Bezabih).

Tegegne (1999) noted that small/intermidaite towns in Ethiopia are key nodal points for poverty
reduction and sustainable development. Hawassa and Bahir Dar towns in this regard have linkages
with their hinterlands and other small urban centers in their vicinity. However, the nature of
infrastructure and services provided by Ethiopian towns do not enhance RULs; hence, the towns’
relation with their hinterland is yet constrained with physical, institutional and social
infrastructure backlogs.

In general, rural-urban linkage studies twined from policy perspectives in Ethiopia are limited
(Assefa, 2006). More specifically, no comparative case based policy perspective linkage studies
have so far been conducted between Hawassa and Bahir Dar towns. Besides, the comparative
advantage of towns located in coffee and non-coffee growing areas in terms of their linkages with
the hinterland is not clearly known and creates a knowledge gap, which necessitates detailed case

42
investigation. Therefore, a comparative case based detailed assessment on the role of public policy
initiatives to strengthen rural-urban interface for poverty reduction and sustainable development
between coffee and non-coffee growing areas and their hinterland is worth researching to bridge
the existing knowledge gap.
2.10. 3. Objectives (for the Hypothetical Case Study)
2.10.3.1. General Objective
The main objective of the case study is to investigate the role of public policy initiatives to harness
rural-urban interface for poverty reduction and sustainable development in the study areas.
2.10.3.2. Specific Objectives
The specific objectives of the study includes
 To assess the major public policies/strategies and their implications to harness rural-
urban linkages in the study areas
 To explore similarities and differences in policy content and the political context of the
past and current rural and urban development policies/strategies
 To investigate the existing policy perspective opportunities, challenges and prospects
for rural-urban linkages in the study areas.
 To investigate policy and institutional setups and gaps that affect RUL for livelihood
diversification and sustainable development
 To assess the role of local governments (urban/rural) to strengthen rural-urban
linkages for poverty reduction and sustainable development.
2.10.4. Research Questions (for the Hypothetical Case Study)
The case study will answer the following questions.
 How far the major public policies strengthen rural-urban linkages in the study areas?
 To what extent are the hinterlands serve as sources of raw material supply for
manufacturing industries?
 What are the major policy/institutional setups and gaps that affect RUL for poverty
reduction and sustainable development?
 What factors influence rural-urban linkages in the study areas?
 How far rural-urban local governments in the study areas strengthens rural-urban
linkage for poverty reduction and sustainable development?
 How far the policy making/evaluation process is participatory and transparent in the
study areas?

43
2.10.5. Methodology of the Study (for the Hypothetical Case Study)
2.10.5.1. Study Design
A mix of case study designs such as Explanatory, Exploratory, Descriptive and Multiple-case studies will
be used to assess the role of public policy initiatives to strengthen rural-urban interface for poverty
reduction and sustainable development. Although, it is not advisable to use mix of research designs
in one case study, this study aims to use more than one research design due to the nature of
research questions and data needed. Besides, in policy study it is common to use more than one
study design. For instance, Hill and Lyn (2005) identified three approaches in empirical research on
public management and policy: descriptive and historical approaches (using archival data and
quantitative methods), best practice approach (where detailed case studies are carried out to
establish “what works”) and use of formal models and theories. The types of case study designs
selected and the respective explanations for the choice are discussed in table 2.9

Table 2.9: Selected case study design for the (for the Hypothetical Case Study)
Case Study Design/Type Explanations on the case study designs
Explanatory It selected to be used to answer the stated research questions that
sought to explain the presumed causal links in real-life interventions in
the two case sties. The explanations from this design would link public
policy program implementation effects in the two case study areas.
Exploratory This type of case study is selected to be used to explore whether public
policy intervention implemented in the two case study areas has no
clear, single set of outcomes.
Descriptive It is selected to be used to describe an intervention or phenomenon and
the real-life context in the two study areas.
Multiple-case studies It is selected to be used to explore differences/similarities between the
two cases.
Source: Developed by the Writer (2012)

2.10.5.2. Data Type and Sources (for the Hypothetical Case Study)
The case research will make use of both primary and secondary sources to collect data for the
study. Primary data will be collected through observation, interviews, Focus groups Discussion,
documents, structured and semi structured questionnaires of open ended and close-ended types.

44
Secondary data will be collected from published materials like policy documents, legislations,
books, magazines and other research outputs.

2.10.5.3. Data Collection Instruments (for the Hypothetical Case Study)

Data collection techniques such as structured interview, observation and focus group discussions,
structured and semi structured questionnaires of open ended and close-ended types, and
documents will be used. Structured questionnaires are selected to be used to collect information
that does not need further explanation where as semi-structured questionnaires will be used to
collect information from those respondents that cannot read and write. Focus group discussion is
mainly chosen to be used as a technique to collect information that are hardly possible to be caught
by other methods.

2.10.5.4 Sampling Techniques (for the Hypothetical Case Study)

Both urban and rural households will be part of the case study population. To collect some
quantitative data for the study, multi-stage sampling technique will be used to select sample rural
households.

 First, the researcher will identify Peasant Associations (PAs) that are found within 20-
kilometer radius from Hawassa and Bahir Dar towns by using GIS.
 Second, stratified sampling technique will be used to subgroup the identified PAs in to two
groups based on proximity/distance to the towns. The first group being PAs with in the first
10 kilometer while the second group comprises PAs within the next 10 to 20 kilometers.
 Thirdly, 8 PAs will be purposively drawn i.e 2 PAs within each successive 10 kilometer of
radius from Hawassa and Bahir Dar towns. The selection of PAs will not done haphazardly,
instead the availability of infrastructure like road, electricity, telecommunication, health
stations, educational institutions, farmers’ training centers, etc will be considered to see
their impacts on policy formulation, RULs, poverty reduction and sustainable development.
 Fourthly, after preparing a sample frame from kebele (the smallest unit of administration
tier in the country) registration file, representative rural sample households will be selected
for the survey through simple random systematic sampling. To reduce bias and to keep its
representativeness, the sample size will be determined using statistical methods stated
bellow

To select sample urban households and traders/firm owners for the study, a two stage
sampling technique will be used.

45
  Initially the researcher will contact municipality officials in the two towns to identify
kebeles that host Centeral Business Districts where intense RUL is carried out.
 In the 2nd stage, after preparing the sample frame, representative samples will be selected
through simple random systematic sampling technique using municipality and kebele
records. The sample size will be determined using statistical methods stated bellow.

2.10.5.5 Sample Size determination (for the Hypothetical Case Study)

Sample size determination is not an easy task since it is affected by several factors. Sample size for
instance, depends on the type of research design, the desired level of confidedence, population
characteristic, cost and time availability. To minimize the problem and to keep the
representativeness of the sample in the population, this study will make use of the following
formulas that is often used in most social science researches for sample size determination. (ECSC,
2008).

1. n=¿)2pq/d2 2) nf = n /1+((n -1)/N)) Where:

n - is desired sample size (when the population is greater than 10,000)

nf - is the desired sample size (when the population is less than 10,000)

z α /2 - is the standard normal deviate at the required (95%) confidence limit (1.96)

p-is 0.1(Proportion of in the target population to be included in the sample)

q – is 1- p (1- 0.1=0.90) N - is the total number of the population

d – is the level of statistical accuracy (margin of error) set usually at 0.05

Number of sample households in the study areas will be determined as per of the proportion to the
population size and samples will be drawn using systematic random sampling method.

2.10.5.6. Methods of Data Analysis

Initially, the data cleaning process will be conducted to identify any missing value and to take
corrective measures by crosschecking the corresponding questionnaires. Owing to the complexity
of variables in data analysis for policy perspective linkage studies, the data gathered will be
analyzed using various descriptive and statistical tools. To make the analysis simple, response
gathered from close and open-ended questions will be edited and coded. The coded responses will
be feed in to computer and thoroughly analyzed using a soft ware SPSS version 17.0 (Schematic
Program for Social Sciences). This version of the soft ware is selected to be used due to its

46
compatibility, updatability and suitability to transport, edit and analyze data and create
relationships.

Analysis of quantitative data will be conducted to show important relationships of variables under
the study. To this end, mixes of qualitative and quantitative models will be used in the study.
Descriptive and inferential statistics such as ratios, percentages, mean, standard deviations,
variance, chi-square, t-test, one-way ANOVA (F- test), correlation and multiple linear regressions
will be used to analyze and describe the data quantitatively by making use of SPSS version17.0.
Besides, since study if more of a qualitative case study, the researcher will use narration to analyze
and present the qualitative data. More specifically, data gathered through FGDs, key informant
interview, personal observation and open-ended questions would be analyzed through narration to
compare and contrast the impact of public policy initiatives on poverty reduction and development
in the case study areas. Content analysis and thematic analysis will be used to analyze various
policy documents and field reports.

2.10.5.7. Model Specification

Case studies are not only limited to quantitative analysis. As described by Yin (1994) it is also
possible to employ both methods. Hence, multiple linear regression models are understandably the
most valuable and widely used multivariate statistical techniques in most linkage studies that
involve ratio/interval variables. The model uses two or more independent variables to predict the
value of one dependent variable. The model is chosen to be used in the case study owing to its
appropriateness to analyze the causal relationship between dependent and independent variables
that are quantitative in nature. Here, the dependent and independent variables and their categories
are not stated since the writer believes that it is out of the scope of this term paper. The model can
be specified as:

Model (1) y = β0 + β1x1 + β2x2 + … + βkxk + ε ………………..1st order linear model

Model (2) y = β0 + β1x1 + β2x2 + β12x12 + β11 x21 + β22 x22 + ε ……2nd order linear model

The multiple linear regression models have two orders. However, because of its simplicity and
aptness with the proposed study, the researcher will adopt the first order model. Where:

Y = the dependent variable β0= the constant term/intercept

x1 x2…xk = the independent variables β1 β2…. βk = the slope coefficient of continuous variable
ε = Random error/ residual term

47
In general, an attempt has been made to synthsisize how to use a case study research method in a
selected comparative hypothetical case in two different agro ecological zones. It is indicated that
case study is a prudent qualitative method to be used and applied in policy researches.
Chapter Three
Summary and the Way forward
3.1 Summary
In the previous chapters, an attempt has been made to characterize Case Study Research as a
Justification for Qualitative Research Method in Public Policy. The main objective of the paper is to
assess the scientific nature of case study research as a validation for qualitative research methods.
Based on the entire work the key points are summarized as follows:
 To achieve the stated objective, the writer has used desk study and employed descriptive
study designs to assess the role of case study research as justifications for qualitative
research.
 In the literature, there is no consensus on the definition and conceptualization of case study
research. Nevertheless, the Oxford English Dictionary offers a suitable working definition,
describing it as an “attempt to understand a particular person, institution, society, etc., by
assembling information about his or its development.”
 Case study methodology has developed in the direction of eclecticism and pragmatism and
its origin can be traced to fields like anthropology and sociology. Later, this development
has been advocated by, among others, Yin (1994, 2004, 2005, 2009; and Johansson
(2003:6).
 The principal objectives of CSR includes but not limited to description, explanation,
prediction, and control of the individual process, animal, person, household, group, or
organization.
 The case study approach is multi-faceted and may be applied and used in a number of
different ways. For example Explanatory, Exploratory, Descriptive, Multiple-case studies,
Intrinsic, Instrumental and collective case study designs are some to mention.
 A case study research is characterized by flexible, naturalistic methods of data collection
and does not use formal instruments to record data. Hence, observation, FGD, interview,
documents and artifacts are the common data collection strategies.
 While proponents of case study research become more enthusiastic on its flexibility and
holistic application, on the other hand, critics identified three major weaknesses of

48
 qualitative research: Inability to manipulate independent variables, Risk of improper
interpretation, and Lack of power to randomize.
 As clearly shown in the last part of the paper, case study research is a prudent method to be
used in public policy to synthesis the incremental impact of public policies.
3.2. The way forward

Based on the summary and main discussion the following suggestion is drawn for discussion
and synthesis among the scientific community:

 Currently, there is a great demand, especially in the field of policy science, for research that
is able to build knowledge from observation of phenomenon within a contextually rich
environment. Most scholarly works in field of public policy rely heavily upon case studies,
either for disseminating knowledge or for evaluation and implementation of policies.
Therefore, it would be a serious blow to policy research if, as many critics argue that there
is no real value to qualitative, case-based research.
 Key principles in the use of case studies were summarized, and proper application, choice of
a suitable case study protocol, understanding of key research and practical drawbacks and
criteria were identified. Thus, it is unlikely that the use of case studies as a research medium
will become less important for policy scientists, regardless of expected epistemological
developments. As a remedy improved methodology, principally led by more explicit
research protocol and case study databases may lead to dramatic improvement in the
reputability of case study methodology as a prudent research strategy in policy sciences.
Likewise, Schell January (1992) forwarded alike comment on the application of case study
research strategy in business and economics.

 Critics on case study are skeptical develop a full trust on the quality of data collected
through case study. This is why because; the data collection process for case studies is more
complex than those used in other research strategies. Therefore, the case study investigator
in policy sciences must have a methodological versatility not necessarily required for using
other strategies and must follow certain formal procedures to ensure quality control during
the data collection process.

49
 References

Assefa A. (2006). Development Policies and their Implications to Rural-Urban Linkages in Ethiopia:
Opportunities and Challenges. In Gete et al. (eds) Fostering New Development Path Ways:
Harnessing RUL to Reduce poverty and Improve Environment in the Highlands of Ethiopia.
Proceedings of a Planning Workshop on Thematic Research Area of Global Mountain
Program. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Baxter P. and Jack S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and
implementation for Novice Researchers The Qualitative Report Volume 13 Number 4. pp.
544-559. Accessed on May, 26, 2012 and available at http://www.nova.edu/ssss . McMaster
University, West Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Bennett A. (2001). “Case Study: Methods and Analysis.” Pp. 1513–1519. In: Neil J. S. and Paul B.
(eds). International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands.
Berg, B.L. (2007). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 6th Edition. San Francisco:
Pearson Education, Inc.

Bezabih E. (2006). Implications of Rural-Urban Linkages for Livelihood Diversification in Kafa Zone.
In Gete et al. (eds) Fostering New Development Path Ways: Harnessing RUL to Reduce poverty
and Improve Environment in the Highlands of Ethiopia. Proceedings of a Planning Workshop
on Thematic Research Area of Global Mountain Program. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Birhanu N. and Befekadu D (2003). The Role of Urbanization in the Socio-economic Development
Process. Ethiopian Economic Association (EEA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Court J. and Young J. (2003). Bridging Research and Policy: Insights from 50 Case Studies Working
Paper 213 . Overseas Development Institute, London UK
Creswell J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd
Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications, Inc. New Delhi, India.
Dawidowicz P. (2011).With Scholarship and Practice in Mind: The Case Study as Research Method.
The Journal of Applied Instructional Design Volume 1. Issue 2. Walden University.
Accessed on May 26, 2012 and available at www.jaidpub.org . ISSN: 2160-5289

50
deMarrais K. and Lapan S.D. (2004). Foundations for Research Methods of Inquiry in Education
and the Social Sciences Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. London UK.

Demese C. (2006). Rural-Urban Linkages and the Role of Small Urban Centers in Enhancing
Economic Development in Ethiopia. In Gete et al. (eds) Fostering New Development Path
Ways: Harnessing RUL to Reduce poverty and Improve Environment in the Highlands of
Ethiopia. Proceedings of a Planning Workshop on Thematic Research Area of Global
Mountain Program. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Denzin, N.K., and Lincoln Y.S. (2000). Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Douglass M. (1998). Regional Network Strategy for Reciprocal Rural-Urban Linkage. Vol. 20(1).
Third World Planning Reviews.

ECSC (2008). Research Methods and Techniques, Course Handbook II. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Eshlaghy et.al. (2011). A Classification of Qualitative Research Methods. Research Journal of

International Studies - Issue 20. Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Tehran, Iran.
Flyvbjerg B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research. Pp. 219-244. Qualitative
Inquiry. Volume 12 Number 2. Sage Publications. Accessed on May 25, 2012 and
available at http://qix.sagepub.com
GAP(2004). Focus assessment studies: a qualitative approach To data collection. United Nations
Publication. Accessed on May 28, 2012 and available at www.unodc.org, New York. USA.

GDPRD (2007). Mind the Gap: How to Improve Rural-Urban Linkages to Reduce Poverty. Platform
Policy Brief No 1.

Gerring J. (2004). What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for? American Political Science Review
Vol. 98, No. 2. Boston University Boston, USA.
Gholipour R. (2010). Studying the Trends of Policy Research in Policymaking Environment (A Case
Study in Research Center, Iranian Parliament). European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume
12, Number 4 (2010)
Gillham B. (2000).Case Study Research Methods. Printed and bound in Great Britain by TJ
International Ltd. London, UK.

51
Guy G.G. (1994). Integrating case study and survey research methods: an example in information
systems. European Journal of Information Systems 3(2):pp. 112-126. Palgrave
Macmillan Ltd. Accessed on May 28, 2012 and available at http://eprints.qut.edu.au.
Harrison A. (2002). Case Study Research. (pp.158-180) In: Partington D. (Editor). Essential Skills
for Management Research SAGE Publications Inc. Thousand Oaks, California.
Hays P.A. (2004). Case Study Research. (pp. 234-251). In: deMarrais K. and Lapan (eds).
Foundations for Research Methods of Inquiry in Education and the Social Sciences.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. London, UK.

Hill C.J. & Lyn L.E. (2005). Is hierarchical governance in decline? Evidence from empirical research.
Journal of Public Administration research and theory, 109-138

Johansson R. (2003). Case Study Methodology. International Association of People-Environment

Studies, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lavrakas P.J. (2008). Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Volume 1&2. SAGE Publications,
Inc. California. USA.
Lodico, Spaulding and Voegtle (2006). Methods in Educational Research: From Theory to
Practice. First edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. San Francisco, United States of America.

Lynch K. (2005). Rural-Urban Interaction in the Developing World. Routedge, London and New
York.

Mack et al (2005). Qualitative Research Methods: A Data Collector’s Field Guide. Family Health
International. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA. Accessed on May 28, 2012 and
available at http://www.fhi.org
Maxwell J.A. (2008). Designing a Qualitative Study. pp. 214-253. In: Bickman, L., & Rog, D. (Eds.).
(2008). The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage. Accessed on May 26, 2012 and available at
http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/cepi/staff/bickman_l.htm .
Meyer C.B. (2001). A Case in Case Study Methodology. Norwegian School of Economics and
Business Administration Field Methods, Vol. 13, No. 4, November 2001. pp. 329–352 Sage
Publications
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing.

52
Muluadam A. (2010). Rural Urban Linkages in Ethiopia: A Market Perspective Analysis, Challenges
and Prospects The case of Debre Markos town and its Hinterland. VDM Publishing House,
Germany

Okpala D. (2003). Promoting the Positive Rural-urban Linkages Approach to Sustainable

Development and Employment Creation. The role of UN-HABIT, Marrakech, Morocco.

Orum A. (2001). “Case Study: Logic.” Pp. 1509–1513. In: Neil J. S. and Paul B. (eds). International
Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Remenyi D. (2011). Field Methods for Academic Research – Interviews, Focus Groups and
Questionnaires In Business and Management Studies. Academic Publishing International
Ltd, Reading, UK
Robson C. (1993). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner researchers.
1st edition, Blackwell Publisher Ltd. Oxford, UK.
Rowley J. (2002). Using Case Studies in Research. Management Research News. Volume 25. No.1
School of Management and Social Sciences, Edge Hill College of Higher Education,
Ormskirk, Lancashire, England.
Schell C. (1992). Value of the Case Study as a Research Strategy. Manchester Business School.
Manchester City, UK.
Schell C. (1992). The Value of the Case Study as a Research Strategy. Manchester Business School.
Manchester. UK.
Schrank A. (2006). Case-Based Research. pp.21-47. In: Perecman E. and Curran S. (eds). A handbook
for social science field research: Essays & bibliographic sources on research design and
methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. London, United Kingdom.
Schrank A. (2006). Essentials for the Case Study Method. pp.169-174. In: Perecman E. and Curran S.
(eds). A handbook for social science field research: Essays & bibliographic sources on
research design and methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. London, United Kingdom.
Schutz,Chambless and DeCuir (2004:272). Multimethods Research. Pp.284.299. In: deMarrais K.
and Lapan (eds). Foundations for Research Methods of Inquiry in Education and the Social
Sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. London, UK.
Slack F. and Rowley J. (2001).Observation: Perspectives on Research Methodologies for Leisure
Managers Management Research News. Volume 24. No.1School of Management and
Social Sciences, Edge Hill College of Higher Education, Ormskirk, Lancashire, England.
Stark S. and Torrance H. (2005). Case Study. pp.33-40. In: Somekh B. & Lewin C. Research Methods
in the social Sciences. SAGE Publications Inc. London, UK.

53
Tacali C. (1999). Understanding the Opportunities and Constraints for low-income Groups in the Peri-
urban Interface: The Contribution of Livelihood Frameworks. London, UK.

Tacoli C. (2006). Rural-Urban Linkages Research Initiatives: Lessons and Key Issues from
International Experiences. In Gete et al. (eds) Fostering New Development Path Ways:
Harnessing RUL to Reduce poverty and Improve Environment in the Highlands of Ethiopia.
Proceedings of a Planning Workshop on Thematic Research Area of Global Mountain
Program. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Tegegne G. (1999). Rural-urban Relations in Rural Regions: The Case of Coffee and Non-Coffee
Growing regions in Central and South-Western Ethiopia, in Ethiopia Journal of Development
Research, Vol. 21, No. 2. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Tegegne G. (2005). Rural-Urban Linkages in Ethiopia: The Need to Bridge the Divide. In Tegegne
and Van Dik (eds). Issues and Challenges in Local and Regional Development.
Decentralization, Urban service Delivery, Linkage and inequality. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Tegene G. (2006) RUL in Ethiopia: Status, Challenge and Opportunities and Further Research
Directions. In Gete et al. (eds) Fostering New Development Path Ways: Harnessing RUL to
Reduce poverty and Improve Environment in the Highlands of Ethiopia. Proceedings of a
Planning Workshop on Thematic Research Area of Global Mountain Program. Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.

Timothy T. Nerenz (2007). Contract bundling and public policy: a case study in acquisition of
goods and services by the U.S. Government North Central University Prescott, Arizona,
U.S.A. International Journal of Case Method Research & Application (2007) XIX, 3 © 2007
WACRA ISSN 1554-7752
UNDP (2000). Rural-Urban Linkages: An Emerging Policy Priority. Bureau for Development
Policy, New York.
Vissak T. (2010). Recommendations for Using the Case Study Method in International Business
Research. The Qualitative Report Volume 15 Number 2 March 2010. pp. 370-388. Accessed
on May 23, 2012 and available at
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR15-2/vissak.pdf
Winch et al (2000). Qualitative Research for Improved Health Programs. A Guide to Manuals for
Qualitative and Participatory Research on Child Health, Nutrition, and Reproductive Health.
Department of International Health Johns Hopkins University, School of Hygiene and Public
Health.

54
Woodside A.G. (2010). Case Study Research: Theory _ Methods _ Practice. Emerald Group Publishing
Limited. Boston, USA.
Yin (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods. Third Edition. Sage Publications.

Yin R.K. (1981). The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers. Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26, No.
1. pp. 58-65. Accessed on May 26, 2012 and available at http://links.jstor.org/sici.
Yin R.K. (2004). Case Study Methods. COSMOS Corporation. Third edition of Complementary
Methods for Research in Education, American Educational Research Association,
Washington, DC.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 1984: Newbury Park, Sage
Publications.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Second Edition Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publication. California
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zainal Z. (2007). Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan bil.9, Malaysia

55