Case stUdY desiGn

my empirical research starts from the observation that dutch fashion industry’s development during the last 50 years has been shaped by increasing distance between design and manufacturing, as more and more fashion firms have relocated or outsourced manufacturing abroad. i aim to understand the effects of distance between design and manufacturing practices based on the assumption that they manifest themselves in the relationship between these practices. i intend to explore how design and manufacturing relate to each other; how aesthetic and technical aspects of the fashion business influence and depend on each other, and how distance affects this relation. in other words: what happens to this relationship once design and manufacturing become spatially and/or organizationally separated? how

do dutch fashion firms organize this relationship at a distance?

to gain such in-depth understanding of organizational practices and the qualitative nature of relationships between these practices, a certain closeness to real-life situations (or ‘being there’ in the words of gertler, 2003; 2004) is called for. this allows researchers to develop context-dependent knowledge of particular studied realities (flyvbjerg, 2006). a case study design can provide such a way of understanding, as it “is especially well suited to produce [concrete, context-dependent] knowledge” (flyvbjerg, 2006: 223). case studies draw attention to the unique, the specific, “the particularity and complexity of [...] its activity within important circumstances” (stake, 1995: xi). as such, they are not primarily aimed at providing generalizable accounts.

as i explained in chapters 1 and 2, there is no universal way of outsourcing practice within the dutch fashion industry. instead, there are various hybrid forms of organizing production abroad within the complex constellations of dutch fashion’s global production networks. i therefore assume that organizational practices also differ considerably from firm to firm. considering the aim of understanding organizational practices, the diversity and complexity of organizational structures in dutch fashion, and the practical limitations of conducting research, i have chosen to focus on a limited number of specific cases rather than giving a general analysis of the dutch fashion industry in its entirety. i thus pursue an explorative approach in which i intend to provide a nuanced and in-depth understanding of how fashion brands deal with the apparent distance between design and manufacturing – and what this actually means for the organization of dutch fashion design and production. Before turning to the process of case selection, i want to address the issue of generalizability in case study research (cf. markusen, 1999). traditionally, generalizability in the social sciences refers to the degree to which a sample in a quantitative study is statistically representative: the results of the sample are thus generalizable to the entire population. for a sample to be representative, it needs to have a certain size and cases need to be selected randomly. Both criteria are almost never met in case study research, which is often based on a single or limited number of theoretically informed cases. however, criteria for evaluating quantitative research are not necessarily transferable on a one-to-one basis to criteria for the evaluation of qualitative analyses. Baxter and eyles (1997: 515, drawing on lincoln & guba, 1985), for instance, argue for qualitative researchers to strive for transferability, which – analogous to the traditional term of generalizability – refers to the degree to which “elements of research produced in one context may be transferred to others.” Being reflexive and transparent about one’s methodology can enhance transferability, as it allows other researchers to move beyond the specific cases studied. more importantly, i agree with

BOX 4.1: T

G

S

the grand seigneur is an annual award that has been established in 1984 by the association for the dutch fashion fair (Vereniging nederlandse modebeurs) and is considered the highest award for the fashion industry in the netherlands (costin & grotenhuis, 1989; Vnm, 1987). initially, the award aimed at supporting individual performances in the fashion and clothing industry; persons who for a considerable amount of time had positively contributed to the dutch fashion world in the broadest sense of the word (ibid.). gradually, the aim of the grand seigneur has been redefined to include individuals or organizations in the netherlands that have shown long-term contribution to the fashion sense or fashion consciousness of the dutch public, thereby focusing more on the awareness of the consumer. since 2001 modint – the dutch trade association of manufacturers, importers, agents, and wholesalers of clothing, fashion accessories, carpet and (interior) textiles – has taken over the award.

Between 1984 and 2013, the grand seigneur has been awarded to the following fashion professionals, firms, and institutions:

1984 cecile Kanteman (fashion counsellor and marketer)

1985 günther frank (colour specialist)

1986 Jacques van gils (menswear)

1987 cora Kemperman/mac & maggie (retail)

1988 louki Boin/avenue (fashion journalism)

1989 marieke and Willem olsthoorn/oilily (children’s wear)

1990 Bros. Van den Kommer/agu sport (sports and cycling fashion)

1991 hans de Vries (allround)

1992 arnold van geuns and clemens raemeckers/ravage (design and styling)

1993 John de greef (journalist and lecturer)

BOX 4.1

1996 Jan Jansen (shoe designer)

1997 arie Vervelde (fashion illustrator)

1998* Jan van Born/claudia sträter (retail)

2002 marjan Wigger/turnover (womenswear)

2003 lidewij edelkoort (trendwatcher)

2004 rattan chadha/mexx (women’s/men’s/children’s wear)

2005 marlies dekkers (lingerie)

2006 Jos van tilburg/g-star (jeans wear)

2008 Piet Paris (fashion illustrator)

2009 Viktor horsting and rolf snoeren/Viktor & rolf (high fashion designers)

2010 inez van lamsweerde and Vinoodh matadin (fashion photographers)

2011 arteZ institute of the arts (fashion academy)

2012 fiona hering (fashion journalist)

2013 han Bekke (chairman modint)

2014 Jan taminiau (high fashion designer)

stake, who explains that

[t]he real business of case study is particularization, not generalization. We take a particular case and come to know it well, not primarily as to how it is different from others but what it is, what it does. there is emphasis on uniqueness, and that implies knowledge of others that the case is different from, but the first emphasis is on understanding the case itself (stake, 1995: 8).

although results of case study research are not meant to be representative and generalizable, they do in fact produce valuable knowledge that contributes to more general theory development. insights from different case studies can challenge or question existing theories or raise new questions for the study of a phenomenon that has been under-researched so far. the point is that case study research starts from a specific issue or phenomenon that we wish to understand, while generalizing its results is not the primary aim. i therefore also concur with flyvbjerg (2006: 227): “that knowledge cannot be formally generalized does not mean that it cannot enter into the collective process of knowledge accumulation in a given field or in a society.” as long as we provide sufficient evidence for the relevance of the case and the trustworthiness of our results, it is up to other researchers to give their own interpretation and possibly transfer it to other cases as well.

Part of the quality of a case study design thus depends on the way in which the cases are selected. i conceive of cases not just as given entities that are randomly selected, but as made (cf. ragin, 1992) in accordance to theoretical assumptions and specific research questions (Platt, 1992). ‘What is this research subject a case of?’ is indeed a relevant question to ask but “may not be known until after most of the empirical part of the project is completed” (ragin, 1992: 8-9). the scope and nature of a case develops throughout the research process as key actors are identified, concepts are refined, and questions are sharpened. this means that in the practice of doing research, it is not uncommon to “adapt and adjust our methodological practices in view of changing research contexts” (Yeung, 2003: 446). cases should first and foremost be selected with the aim to maximize the intended learning effect: “[W]hich cases are likely to lead us to understandings, to assertions, perhaps even to modifying of generalizations?” while taking into account which cases are attainable considering the researcher’s time and access for fieldwork (stake, 1995: 4). correspondingly, my selection of case studies has been guided by theoretical and conceptual arguments on the one hand, while being subject to practical limitations on the other; i shall address both in more detail below.

my study as part of the research project on dutch fashion identity, i defined a number of basic criteria that potential cases had to meet in order to be considered for inclusion. this resulted in the selection of four dutch fashion brands – oilily, mexx, ¯coraKemperman, and Van gils – which are summarized in table 4.1 at the end of this section. in the following, i explain how this selection of case studies has been achieved.

1. dutch fashion

first of all, the cases had to be part of the dutch fashion industry. firms that were set up and continued to have their headquarters in the netherlands were considered as dutch. Whereas this was a relatively straightforward criterion, a related but less unambiguous element was the relevance of the case for understanding the particularities of dutch fashion or dutch fashion identity. the question of which cases are representative and thus considered key to understanding dutch fashion was approached differently among the members of our research team. for instance, all four cases in my research (see table 4.1) are positioned within the mid- to higher mid-market segment, whereas a different theoretical approach might ask for cases of high fashion designers as well. it is therefore important to acknowledge that my case studies do not represent the entire range of dutch fashion, and that it is indeed possible to add numerous other cases to cover more elements of dutch fashion.

nonetheless, all four case firms played a significant role in dutch fashion industry’s history at some point in time. Van gils and oilily are mentioned in almost every historical overview of the dutch fashion industry as pioneers in terms of both outsourcing and marketing strategies. mexx can be considered as one of the first truly multinational dutch fashion brands and was one of the biggest fashion firms in the netherlands. ¯coraKemperman is the current outcome of a new development in retailing in the 1970s, when Peek & cloppenburg started a subsidiary to provide affordable high- end fashion for youth. moreover, all four cases include one or more people who have acquired a Grand Seigneur, the highest award of the dutch fashion industry (see box 4.1) 2. relocation and/or outsourcing of manufacturing

since the aim of my study is to understand the effects of distance between design and manufacturing, it was required that all cases in some way were confronted with the issue of relocation and/or outsourcing of manufacturing. this is the main reason why high fashion designers were not part of my study, as they compete in a different market where cheap labour is considered less important and outsourcing less pervasive.

furthermore, i strove for a certain variety in types of organization, in order to study relationships between design and manufacturing in different organizational contexts. i aimed to include, for instance, both former manufacturers that developed into brands and outsourced manufacturing (i.e. oilily and Van gils), and brands that never owned any production facilities from the start (i.e. mexx and ¯coraKemperman).

the issue of relocation and outsourcing also had implications for the cases’ boundaries. if understanding relationships between design and manufacturing in globalized organizations is the aim, limiting cases to single firms would not be a valid strategy for demarcation. my focus is on practices and relationships that take place in certain organizational contexts and thus in specific firms at specific times and places, but they are not confined to them. i needed a flexible way of demarcation that would guide, yet not obstruct, my perspective.

in today’s ‘economy of signs’ (lash & urry, 1994), brands have become one of the main principles of organizing (cf. lury, 2004), especially in fashion (cf. Weller, 2004). i thus decided to focus on specific brands as a starting point. Yet, the eventual scope of the cases developed along the way as i included people, firms, and other economic actors whenever they appeared relevant for the case and accessible for research. in the case of ¯coraKemperman, for instance, it turned out that Kemperman had developed a specific way of styling as a buyer for mac & maggie in the 1970s and 1980s, which is why retailer Peek & cloppenburg and its subsidiary mac & maggie were added to this case study. likewise, in the case of Van gils, menswear manufacturer the makers was included, as the brand’s manufacturing heritage appeared to have a significant role in this company’s organizational practice.

3. firm age and organizational change

in order to draw comparisons between different types of firms as well as over a longer period of time, another criterion for case selection involved the period of time a brand or firm had existed and the type of organizational development it had gone through. this criterion is related to the previous one concerning outsourcing, as it allows for an explicit focus on what exactly changes in the relationship between design and manufacturing when the latter is being hived off.

since outsourcing and relocation of manufacturing started in the 1960s, i aimed to select cases that cover most of the period between the 1960s and the first decade of the twenty-first century. this is another reason why most of my case studies consist of more than one firm. Van gils started right after World War ii. oilily started in the mid-

1960s and mexx and ¯coraKemperman both have their origins in the 1970s. in all four cases, however, brands and firms had to deal with bankruptcies or takeovers at some point in history, and none of the organizations maintained its form for more than three decades.

4. accessibility

the final criterion for selection pertains to accessibility (cf. crang & cook, 2007). cases had to be accessible in the sense of availability of (historical) information and the willingness to cooperate of people involved. regarding the selection process, i did not generate a random sample; i aimed for empirically rich cases. i utilized professional networking site LinkedIn to trace (former) employees through their past careers and i used the snow-ball method to gradually identify and approach key actors.

due to inevitable time constraints and issues concerning accessibility, i ended up with four case studies. i started on some cases – i.e. collected background information and planned or conducted first interviews – which i had to cancel as they reached a dead end (i.e. marlies dekkers, Van Winkel fashion, Vanilia, Veldhovengroup). in most of these cases, although people were in principle interested in contributing to the research project, their available time was often too limited to provide a rich case for the current study. to some extent, this seemed related to certain organizational changes and resultant uncertainties that these firms were dealing with at the moment of inquiry, which coincided with a strong economic crisis. internal reorganizations are always time-consuming and external inquiries for an academic study are then given lower priority.

as a case in point, marlies dekkers went bankrupt in august 2013, which indicates that the company had more demanding issues to deal with than cooperating with an independent Phd researcher. Vanilia – a case that would have provided an interesting example of a brand with its own manufacturing plant – has invested considerable time and effort to contribute to the research of Von maltzahn (2013), which may explain why contribution to my study was more difficult. furthermore, g-star did not become a case because the brand refused cooperation altogether.

Table 4.1: Overview of case studies

from the selection of case studies, in the next section i turn to my main unit of analysis: organizational practices.