Case Study Design

Nachmias and Nachmias (2000) describe research design as a plan that directs the researcher in the process of data collection, analysis and interpretations. Two key components of a case study design are (a) the research questions especially those containing ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions and (b) the unit of analysis along with definition of the case Yin (2003). The former have already been discussed in Chapters 1 and 6. The sections below focus on the units of analysis along with defining the case for this research. This is followed by the case design being employed in this research. It also helps in laying the basis for detailed discussions in Chapter 8 regarding data collection and analysis procedures.

7.6.1. Determining Unit of Analysis and Defining the Case

Yin (2003) suggests that for a case study the case itself can be conceptualized as an individual, a firm, a group of firms (industry), a process, or a project. Babbie (2009) suggests that the unit of analysis is the entity being analyzed in a study. However, it should not be confused with the unit of

that determining the unit of analysis is primarily influenced by the way the research questions of a study have been put. Revisiting the research objectives and questions it is evident that the purpose of this study is to understand firm-oriented innovation in low-technology sectors within the context of a sectoral system of innovation.

This research collects and analyzes data for two sectors within Pakistan’s marble industry which in turn have been conceptualized as sectoral systems of innovation (SS). These include Buner Marble Sectoral System (BuMaS) and Peshawar Marble Sectoral System (PeMaS). Each is characterized by its own elements and structure thus each marble SSI forms a single case for this study. Going back to Babbie (2009) it is important to remind ourselves of the difference between the unit of analysis and the unit of observation. While a sector remains the case, the unit of analysis is the firm (processing and mining units) that exists within the sector. The firms in turn are represented by key individuals such as owners/managers from whom data has been collected.

Thus these individuals are the units of observation along with individuals from non-firms who have been contacted mainly during the initial semi-structured interview phase.

A more important issue is defining the case itself. Platt (1992) reminds us that the earliest or classic case studies take an individual as a case. While an individual, a group of individuals, a program or project, a firm or a group of firms can be a case, Stake (1995) does not agree with having a wide view of the case. For example, relationships or interactions among individuals or firms will be more difficult to assign case status because they are weak in terms of

‘specificity’ and ‘boundedness’. As evident from the research questions and subsequent discussions emanating from detailed literature review, this study takes influence from the sectoral system of innovation characterized by low-technology innovation within system boundaries. These boundaries are characterized by similar sets of marble products the sector deals with as well as the particular elements and structure of the system. Firms (the unit of analysis) remain the most important element with regards to low-technology

7.6.2. Choosing the Design: Multiple (Two) Case Design (Embedded – Type 4)

Yin (2003) offers a ‘2x2 Matrix’ of case study design. It includes the ‘Single Case Designs (Types1 & 2)’ and the ‘Multiple Case Designs (Types 3 & 4)’.

As pointed out earlier, the two sectoral systems namely ‘BuMaS’ and ‘PeMaS’

form the basis for case study research. Each case is characterized by embedded units of analysis in the form of mining and processing firms (elements of the sectoral system). The use of two cases in this research that are mostly similar to each other is primarily influenced by two factors. The first relates to practical conditions or actual situation on the ground. The marble industry of north-west region of Pakistan is characterized by three dominant sectors namely Peshawar, Buner and Mohmand Agency. Each of these has a significant number of marble processing units that acquire raw marble from the adjoining marble mines. Buner has a presence of both mining and processing units suggesting a ‘within-sector’ utilization of marble. Similar is the case with Mohmand Agency. However, Peshawar despite having a strong presence of processing units does not have mining units. Raw marble is mostly supplied from the adjoining area of Mohmand Agency. The main reason for discarding Mohmand Agency as a separate case is because of the bad law and order situation prevalent in the tribal regions of Pakistan since the last 5 to 6 years. Even at this point during write-up of the chapter, a military operation is underway in these areas making access to firms impossible. More importantly, most marble processing units in Mohmand Agency have closed down their operations either temporarily or permanently. Thus only Peshawar and Buner have been included. However, PeMaS is taken to include processing units in Peshawar and mining units in Mohmand.

The second factor influencing use of two or more cases relates to the imperative of increasing robustness of the study (Herriott & Firestone, 1983).

Applying the ‘replication logic’ (Hersen & Barlow, 1976) also used in experiments helps build our confidence in the research outcomes. Yin (2003) points out that the use of 2 – 3 cases that provide similar results is a ‘literal replication’. Both BuMaS and PeMaS are similar in terms of their sectoral

processes, demand, institutions, firms that is processing and mining units, non-firms and interactions/relationships). A possible difference between the two cases is that PeMaS is characterized by being located in the provincial capital of the province (North-West Frontier Province) with better access to markets, knowledge and technologies. However, it is only through cross-case comparisons that we can determine the influence of these differences on innovation within the two selected cases.

As a result this research study applies a multiple case study design (embedded – type 4). Use of the multiple cases is justified not just through replication logic but also because neither of the two cases represents a critical case, a unique case, a revelatory case, a typical case or a longitudinal case (Yin, 2003) that are the criteria used to justify selection of one case in single case study designs. Figure 7.1 provides a visual representation of the multiple case study designs (embedded – type 4):

Figure 7.1: Multiple (Two) Case Design (Embedded – Type 4)

7.7. Conclusion

This chapter has introduced the research methodology and design. The suitability of case study as a strategy is presented in light of the components of critical realism and interpretations to this research. The concept of ‘case’

applied in this research is presented along with the units of analysis. Multiple case design (embedded – type 4) is chosen while providing the background and reasons for this choice. The ensuing Chapter 8 presents the procedures used for data collection and analysis thus elaborating in greater detail on the research methodology and design applied in this research.

CONTEXT

Peshawar Sectoral System (PeMaS) Product groups, technologies, knowledgebase, learning processes,

demand, institutions, non-firms, interactions/relationships

CASE 1

Peshawar & Mohmand Agency

Unit of Observation:

Owner/Manager Embedded Unit of Analysis 1

‘Marble Mining Firm’

Embedded Unit of Analysis 2

‘Marble Processing Firm’

CONTEXT

Buner Sectoral System (BuMaS) Product groups, technologies, knowledgebase, learning processes,

demand, institutions, non-firms, interactions/relationships

CASE 2 Buner

Unit of Observation:

Owner/Manager Embedded Unit of Analysis 1

‘Marble Mining Firm’

Embedded Unit of Analysis 2

‘Marble Processing Firm’

Chapter Eight