A CASE STUDY APPROACH

3.3.1 The Advantages of a Case Study Approach

According to Yin (2013, pp. 16), ‘a case study research is an empirical inquiry that investigate a contemporary phenomenon (the ‘case’) in depth and within its real-world context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly evident’. Yin and Davis (2007) argued that case study is frequently adopted for striving a better understanding of a real-world phenomenon with the assumption that significant contextual conditions in pertinent to the case are likely to be involved. Unlike other research methodologies such as experiment that would deliberately separate

and has already reiterated its appropriateness for dealing with a process or complex real-life activities in great depth (Noor, 2008). Yin (1989) pointed out that a case study is a suitable strategy for researchers to probe the ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions when they have very little control over the event. A case study approach also contributes to a better understanding of the interactions between different participants together with their strengths and weaknesses in relation to the context and time. To obtain an in-depth understanding of real-life activities, empirical work is necessary for exploring not only what happens contemporarily but also in the near past due to the consistency of the players and the context.

In a case study, one result usually relies on multiple factors. Which implies that: 1, data covering a range of related aspects should be collected; and 2, the traditional variable-based analysis methods are constrained by its capacity in revealing the holistic picture of the relations between various factors and the result (Yin, 2013). Therefore a theoretical proposition is needed not only to guide the data collection from the beginning but also for a better interpretation of the data collected form empirical works. As is noted by Rosenbaum (2002, pp. 277-279), ‘a complex pattern of expected outcomes should be elaborated in the preferred theoretical statements-the more complex the better’. Having the theoretical propositions in the first place also plays a critical role in generalizing the lessons from the case study in an analytical manner in the later stage (Yin, 2013, p. 40). The ‘analytical generalization may be based on either (a) corroborating, modifying, rejecting or otherwise advancing theoretical concepts that was firstly referenced in designing the case study or (b) new concepts that arose upon the completion of the case study’… and ‘In either situation, the generalization would be at a conceptual level that is higher than that of the specific case (Yin, 2013, p. 41).

As is suggested by Kohn (1987, p.716) ‘intensive comparative analysis of a few cases may be more promising than a more superficial statistical analysis of many cases’. According to Yin (2013, p. 52), there are generally five reasons for selecting a single case: ‘1). The case can represent the critical test of a significant theory; 2). The case represents an extreme case or an unusual case, deviating from theoretical norms or even everyday occurrences; 3). The case is common and can represent the circumstances and conditions of everyday situation; 4); the cases is revelatory while the researcher has the opportunity to observe what is previously unavailable; 5). The case is longitudinal which could be studied at two or more different points in time’.

In this research, the context of the UK and China serve as a pair of unique cases that are highly contrasted against each other. The current policies and practices of urban regeneration are largely shaped by contextual factors and have variegated appearances across the two countries. It is therefore proper to use case study as a means to examine the variegated appearances of neoliberalism reflected in urban regeneration and public participation policies and practices in both UK and China.

It is worth noting that ‘case study is not the best method for assessing the prevalence of phenomena and a case study would have to cover both the phenomenon of interest and its context, therefore yielding a large number of potentially relevant variables which in turn requires large number of potentially relevant works that are beyond the capacity and means of the

Table  3.4:  The  pros  and  cons  of  case  studies:  

Pros:

1. Case studies enable the researcher to have a holistic view of a small phenomenon and have in-depth examination and interpretation.

2. The evidence and data of case study comes from various sources of real life and therefore are more convincing.

3. Case study is also useful in capturing the emergent and immanent properties of life and the ebb and flow of the governing system in a fast changing social-economic context.

Cons:

1. As case study is selected from particular context and has unique features, it is hard to generalize the research findings based on single case study.

2. The difficulty of analysing the cases is correlated with the complexity of the context.

Source: Noor, 2008

3.3.2 The Potential Constrains for Applying a Case Study

Approach in the Cross-National Comparison

It has to accept that attempts to show the full picture of the current urban regeneration practices in both countries and to compare them through single case study is too ambitious as both countries are internally diversified. While in the UK there is a clear north-south division regarding the economic development and population density, in China a similar division can be found between the west and the east part of the country. Moreover, cities in both countries not only vary in size but also have unique histories and characteristics regarding the indigenous culture, micro political environment as well as development strategies. Even within a city, spatial inequalities

exist among different communities. All the factors listed above have an impact on the unique features of a single case and the research findings may only reflect a façade of the whole picture.

However, this doesn’t mean a cross-national comparison based on studying a single case selected from each of the countries is meaningless. Firstly, although micro environment plays a significant role in shaping the characteristics of a particular regeneration case, such as the interactions between different players, structural factors such as institutional setup and national policies plays are playing an equally, if not more, important role in deciding the patterns of the regeneration programs as well as the delivery procedures. Secondly, within a country, similar patterns can be found from regeneration programs initiated across cities and communities as the mutual learning process helps to facilitate the diffusion of models of regeneration programs that are thought to be ‘effective’ by decision makers. Therefore, comparing single regeneration cases in a cross-national comparative study does not only have the potential of revealing the differences and similarities existing in the structural factors between different countries but also enables the research findings to be generalized to a certain pattern of regeneration program that is prevailing in particular country. More importantly, through analysing the context and real cases, it is able to have a better understanding of the social dynamics in both countries and to seek opportunities for mapping experiences from one context to the other.