Case study design

The existing theories can be categorised into three groups: theories that are in accordance with the research findings, in contrast with the research findings or neutral (provide no framework or grounding) to the research findings (Eisenhardt 1989). Case studies can be exploited to build new theories and/or test and retest existing theories that are well developed in foundation (Yin 2003). Thus, theory plays an important role in case study research.

Case study design is appropriate where it is necessary to study a real-life situation in real time (in a limited space and time) with immediate impact and relevance (Johns 2008).

Moreover, case study design can be used to gather and analyse data about one or a small number of samples as a way of studying a broader phenomenon. Generally, the case is bound by time and activity, and a variety of data collection methods (interviews, document and record analysis, and observations) are usually exploited to collect detailed information over a sustained period of time (Stake 1995). A distinctive feature of the case study is the use of multiple sources of evidence to examine the case holistically (Tan 2002). Hence, case studies inherit different strengths and weaknesses (Gillham 2000). Yin (2009) explains the logic of case study design in two different aspects. Point (a) below considers the scope of the case study and point (b) explains the technical characteristics and data collection and analysis strategies encompassed in case study design.

a) A case study is an empirical inquiry which:

 investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life contexts: especially when

 the boundaries between the phenomenon and the context are not clearly evident.

b) The case study inquiry:

 copes with technically distinctive situations in which there will be many more variables of interest than data points and, as one result:

 relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion and, as another result:

 benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis.

Yin (2003) further states that many social scientists deeply believe that the best use of case studies can be obtained in exploratory research rather than descriptive or explanatory investigations. Walsham (1995) proposes that the most appropriate method for conducting empirical research in the interpretative tradition is the in-depth case study; however, such studies are not necessarily qualitative (Stake 1995). The case study’s main strength is its ability to provide a real situation in which practice can be studied and contact can be made with real participants who can contribute to the research with their practical knowledge (Blakstad 2001, Simons 2009).

Case study design is an ideal method/design for particularisation (Stake 1995). Notably, the data gathered is more qualitative than quantitative (Sekaran 2003). Its poor ability with regards to generalisation seems to be the key limitation of case study research (Stake 1995).

Eisenhardt (1989) argues that binding the emergent theory with existing literature strengthens the internal validity, generalisability (external validity) and theoretical level of theory building from case study research. The generic characteristics of case study research (Punch 1998), types of case studies (Yin 2003) and their central components (Yin 2009) are discussed in the literature.

Table 3-3: Characteristics of case study research

Each case has boundaries that must be identified at an early stage of the research.

Each case will be a case of something in which the researcher is interested. Hence, the unit of analysis must be defined at the outset in order to clarify the research strategy.

Case studies seek to preserve the wholeness and integrity of the case. However, in order to achieve some focus, a limited research problem must be established geared towards the specific features of the case.

Source: Punch (1998 p.153)

There are four types of case study design and Yin (2003) discusses the characteristics of each type and their rationales, as noted in Table 3-4.

Table 3-4: Types of case study design

Characteristics Rationale

Type 1 One case, holistic, one unit of analysis, case and unit of analysis are indistinguishable. Type 2 One case, embedded units of analysis, not

holistic but still context dependent, case and unit of analysis are distinguishable.

Extensive analysis More focused analysis Type 3 More cases, holistic, case and unit of analysis

are indistinguishable.

More robust findings Replication logic (literal/theoretical) External validity Type 4 More cases, embedded unit of analysis, not

holistic yet context dependent, case and unit of analysis are distinguishable.

Within the boundaries of this investigation, a single Type 1 case study design was exploited to understand building change of use at macro and micro levels. The single case design provides more opportunities for in-depth investigations. The rationale of the Type 1 category suits situations where the selected case:

 represents a critical case in testing a well-formulated theory;

 represents an extreme case or a unique case;

 is a representative or typical case;

 is a revelatory case; or

 is a longitudinal case, studying the same single case at two or more different points in time (Yin 2003).

The Loughborough town centre case study was exploited to establish that building change occurs over time and to investigate the economic implications. Loughborough represents a typical English regional town and it is indeed a representative/typical case for this investigation. The rationale for limiting the study to a single case (Type 1) was because the first objective requires in-depth data on building change, its sequence/pattern and, most importantly, the economic implications of change. Having selected a case study design, these three factors could be studied clearly to a good depth. In addition, secondary data (interviews) from the Adaptable Futures project was used to justify the selected case as a typical representative case by revealing a similar pattern of building change of use in another English city (Leicester). This data is compiled in chapter 7. The unit of analysis is a significant factor in case studies, as it determines what or who is to be analysed. This study looks into patterns of building change, thus buildings are considered the unit of analysis. In a way, the study contributes to theories of building change and their economic impacts. The deals with ‘how’ questions by understanding building change and ‘why’ questions

in reasoning the facts behind this change. Thus, a case study method was exploited to accomplish the first objective of this study.

 Case study (theoretical) propositions – pointing attention, limiting scope and suggesting possible links between phenomena

Instead of having a proposition, the purpose of the objective 1 is to explore the patterns of building change of use and to understand the economic implications.

The scope was limited to selected building typologies of middle range (4 -12 storeys) buildings.

 Case study units of analysis – main units must be at the same level as the study questions and typically comparable to those previously studied

The unit of analysis of the selected cases is ‘buildings’. They were analysed to identify how change of use/function has happened in different decades over the last century. The buildings of the selected cluster were compared with their previous uses/functions to identify the ‘pattern of change of use’. The passing years, which showed a remarkable change in building functions, were considered to explain the economic impact of building change of use. Thus, buildings were considered the primary unit of analysis in this research to understand the pattern of building change of use.

 Logic linking the data to the propositions – matching pieces of information to rival patterns that can be derived from the propositions

First, the pattern of building change of use was identified from historic maps of the selected building cluster over the last century. Following this, four economic indicators were considered (growth rate of population, growth of higher and further education, growth in the industrial and manufacturing sectors, and policy changes) to study how they have changed over the different periods of time. The relationships between building change of use and these economic indicators are then explained.

 Criteria for interpreting the findings – iteration between propositions and data, matching sufficiently contrasting rival patterns to data; there is no precise way of setting the criteria

The pattern of building change of use was analysed through typo-morphological analysis. The changes (growth) in economic indicators during the selected time period were identified by analysing the collected data (census and statistics, facts and figures). The economic indicators were used to interpret the pattern of building change of use. In addition, secondary data (interviews by the Adaptable Futures research group) and semi-structured and unstructured interviews were exploited to understand the economic implications of building change of use and to generalise the findings.

The above points clearly discuss how case study design was exploited in this research inquiry to test the intuition of building change occurring over time and to understand the economic implications by identifying empirical data to underpin the assumption. In a way, the case study can be considered to be an ‘all-encompassing method’ that covers the logic of research design, data collection techniques and approaches to data analysis (Tan 2002, Yin 2009). It is important that it must use some empirical methods and present some empirical data. The adopted data collection methods within this investigation’s case study design and what data was collected and how it was analysed are discussed in chapter 7. The next half of the hourglass model represents the survey design.