Case study approach

As Yin (2009a:1) states, the value of the case study approach is recognized in exploratory research ‘when the focus is on contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context’. In relation to the proposed research, the contemporary phenomenon is ‘the public interest’ while the real-life context is Serbian planning practice in Belgrade.

The reasoning behind the decision to employ the case study approach is in line with the phronetic and path-dependency approaches to planning research, too, which recognise the value of the context-based, problem-driven research strategy based on a case (Flyvbjerg,

65

2006). Some of the main characteristics of this approach include the idea that context- dependent knowledge brings the research to an ‘expert level’, where ‘concrete, context- dependent knowledge is more valuable than the vain search for predictive theories and universals’, and secondly, that one can potentially generalise from a single case if there is a close familiarity with the local context and the case is carefully chosen, as opposed to the random, large samples (Flyvbjerg, 2006:225).

The argument is that context-dependent knowledge is essential for any case study analysis drawing on close familiarity with the local context. This kind of expert knowledge can be reached through the in-depth investigation of a single case (Yin, 2009a). As Flyvbjerg (2006:224) explains, it is common to all experts that they operate based on a kind of intimate knowledge of many single cases in their area of expertise, and not only on the general textbook context-independent insight into the problematics. Hence, context- dependent knowledge and expertise are the precondition of any expert activity, but also the basis of a case study as a teaching, learning or research method (Flyvbjerg, 2006:225). In relation to this research, the literature review on the articulation of ‘the public interest’ in planning theory provided a broad understanding on the theoretical approaches to the concept of ‘the public interest’. However, according to the case study approach, it is only by placing this phenomenon within the local context that it can potentially provide assurance of validity of the research, as well as in-depth understanding on the ways in which these findings might be generalised (Yin, 2009a).

Besides providing an in-depth understanding on the researched phenomenon, the expert knowledge gained through case study research can help actors understand their own direct accounts of their motivations and observations (Yin, 1981). This means that being able to understand how the treatment of the social phenomenon is subjectively experienced and interpreted by the people being studied - may help both the researcher and subjects of the research question their ongoing practice, ethics, as well as relationships of power and knowledge, and thereby work to produce change (Schram, 2012:19).

The importance of context-dependency is also recognised within the widespread ‘path- dependent’ / historical approach to research on post-socialist societies in general and Serbia in particular (Chapter 2, section 2.6.2). The idea that the socialist era produced a

66

unique urban model - substantively different to that of capitalist cities (Szelenyi, 1996), serves as a basis for path-dependency research on post-socialist societies. Nevertheless, the development path of all the post-socialist societies did not necessarily take the same course (Tosics, 2004). Hence, it is assumed that the concrete context-dependent knowledge on the changing role of ‘the public interest’ in planning practice in Serbia could be reached only through an in-depth inquiry focused on specific socialist and post- socialist cases of ‘planning in the public interest’.

One of the most common critiques of the case study approach is related to the notion that an individual case, or small number of cases, cannot serve as a basis of generalisation, or theory development. This stand is pertinent in the natural sciences or any positivist approach where theories are conceptualised or reconceptualised based on a large number of cases in order to generalise an assumed relationship or property (Giddens, 1982:328). Nevertheless, a purposeful and not random choice of the case and sample, in- depth understanding of the context, recognition of data availability, use of both qualitative and quantitative inquiry, as well as researcher’s attitude and ability to collect, analyse and triangulate data - could overcome these obstacles and provide potentially generalizable knowledge (Flyvbjerg, 2006).

4.3.1 Case selection

In choosing case studies of planning practice in Serbia, so as to understand the role of ‘the public interest’, the following aspects were considered. Belgrade, as the capital of Serbia, has a long tradition of planning practice and planning institutions. The majority of contemporary investments are located in Belgrade, which implies that various influences, changes and issues related to the political, economic and social realm are articulated in planning practice within this local context. As a capital city, Belgrade is often recognized as the ‘test ground’ for critical, but also extreme planning practices that are later applied on a smaller scale around Serbia (Petovar, 2008). The critical planning practices here relate to the ‘common’ and ‘repeated’ developments in line with the formal planning system and legal framework (Bryman, 2014). On the other hand, the extreme cases of planning and development appear occasionally and substantively different from the usual / formal practice (Bryman, 2014; Yin, 2009a). Hence, the examination of both critical and extreme cases in Belgrade could possibly hold the key to a more generalized understanding of the changes and challenges faced by the Serbian planning system in its adjustment to the free-market economy, as well as the articulation

67

of ‘the public interest’ within such practices. Last but not the least, the researcher spent one year working in the Urban Planning Institute of Belgrade, and had the opportunity to be included in the preparation of urban and general plans at various levels (Plan of General Regulation, Detailed Urban Plans) and is thus to some extent familiar with both the planner’s work in practice as well as urban plans that are developed.

The researcher’s ‘quest’ for cases of planning in ‘the public interest’ started off without preconceptions as to what these case-studies would be. The specific cases for this research derived from the qualitative interviews with planning professionals in Belgrade, where interviewees were asked to provide example of developments in Belgrade that are ‘in the public interest’. In addition, all of the selected cases needed to be defined as ‘in the public interest’ within both the planning and legal framework.

This enquiry includes four cases - two large-scale developments (a socialist and a contemporary example) and two neighbourhood-level developments (again, a socialist and a contemporary example). These case studies aim to reflect different levels of planning - broader large-scale developments, as well as specific neighbourhoods or smaller-scale representatives of the socialist and contemporary planning and development eras respectively. The two large-scale developments were identified as New Belgrade (socialist era) and the Belgrade Waterfront (contemporary, in progress), as well as two neighbourhood-level developments - Block 23 (a 1970s neighbourhood in New Belgrade) and Stepa Stepanović (contemporary example, 2013).

Data on large-scale developments was accessed through interviews and participant observation at public discussions for the contemporary Belgrade Waterfront development, as well as the analysis of content and planning legislation since socialism, the consultation of available planning literature and basic quantitative analysis of city- level plans (General Urban Plans – GUPs and Spatial Plan of Special Purpose Belgrade Waterfront - SPSP). Data on neighbourhood-level cases was derived from interviews with planning practitioners and some inhabitants of these neighbourhoods, content analysis of planning legislation, and was complemented with basic quantitative analysis of neighbourhood-level plans (Detailed Urban Plans – DUPs and Urban Project - UP). This research started off under the premise that all of the above developments are most likely to have elements of critical cases (Bryman, 2012:70) that aim to deliver better

68

explanations of the social phenomena of interest - in this case the articulation of ‘the public interest’ within socialist and contemporary planning practice in Serbia. However, as the research progressed, some cases also seemed to be extreme cases, which are unlikely to be similar to any other case in Serbia (Bryman, 2012:70).

The case study inquiry may also contribute to the re-evaluation of existing theory on the nature of planning, in particular with respect to the treatment of ‘the public interest’ within the rational and communicative approaches to planning (Chapter 2) under the socialist and post-socialist / market-economy order. The complexity of this role refers to the variety of domains within local planning practice affected by and / or affecting ‘the public interest’, as well as the way this has changed over time with the transition from a socialist to market-oriented regime.

The following section will consider the use of the mixed-method approach to data collection and analysis, which has been adopted in order to investigate the main research problem. It will go on to explain the way qualitative and quantitative inquiries contributed to an in-depth understanding of socialist and post-socialist cases of planning ‘in the public interest’.