The Case Study Methodology

3.2.1 Research Paradigm

From an etymology perspective the word ‘paradigm’ originates from the Greek word ‘paradeigma’ whose English translation is ‘example’. The term ‘paradigm’ can be characterized as ‘a loose collection of logically related assumptions, concepts, or

67

propositions that orient thinking and research’ (Bogdan & Biklen 1998). Mac Naughton

et al. (2001) state that a paradigm consists of three features, namely an opinion about the nature of knowledge, a methodology and validity criteria. Some frequent paradigms used in the literature are positivist, post positivist, interpretivist, constructivist, deconstructivist, transformative, critical, emancipatory and pragmatist (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). Without designating a paradigm as the first step of research, there is no basis for choosing methodology or research design.

Pragmatist paradigm

Pragmatism is an alternative to the aforementioned paradigms, as it is not committed to any philosophy or reality. It is regarded as the paradigm that specifies the underlying philosophical framework for mixed-methods research; however, as stated by Mertens (2005), researchers that use mixed methods put themselves philosophically in line with the transformative paradigm. Pragmatism puts the research problem to the centre and uses all approaches available to understand the problem, thus data collection and analysis methods are chosen with regard to their ability to provide understanding without any philosophical loyalty to other paradigms (Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006). Pragmatism sets the researcher free of mental and practical constraints imposed by the ‘forced choice

dichotomy between post-positivism and constructivism’ thus he/she does not need to get

restricted by any technique and it accepts that there are singular and multiple realities open to empirical enquiry (Feilzer, 2009). Pragmatism was adopted as the suitable paradigm for this research.

3.2.2 Case Study Methodology

According to Yin (2003) “colloquially a research design is an action plan for getting

from here to there, where ‘here’ may be defined as the initial set of questions to be answered and ‘there’ is some set of answers”. This study aims to adopt a case study

approach. This is because as stated by Cohen & Manion (1995), case studies allow for generalizations from a specific instance to a more general issue. The specific case has to present similar attributes with the issue that is being researched. Generalizations can be made after careful consideration and the researcher should bear in mind that they do not

68

always apply. Many case studies on the same or similar problems will lead to a more complete view of the issue.

A case can be defined as ‘a unit of human activity embedded in the real world, which can

only be studied or understood in context and exists in the here and now. The case study merges in with its context so that precise boundaries are difficult to draw’ (Gillham,

2000). It is designed to highlight the details from the viewpoint of the participants using many sources of data and it is selective as it focuses on one or two aspects that are crucial for the comprehension of the system being researched. A case is a space and time- specific phenomenon (Johansson, 2003). An important characteristic of case studies is that they give consideration not just to the voice of the actors, but of the relevant groups too and to the relationships between them. It is known to be a triangulation research method, in the context of which data, methodologies and theories can be triangulated to enhance knowledge generation (Tellis, 1997). ‘Case studies typically combine data

collection methods such as archives, interviews, questionnaires and observations. The evidence may be qualitative (e.g. words) or/and quantitative (e.g. numbers)’ (Huberman

& Miles, 2002).

Case study researchers place emphasis on different aspects of this methodology. Yin (1994) asserts that a case study is defined by the methods and the techniques used whereas Stake (1998) states that emphasis should not be placed on the methods of inquiry used but on the object of study. There are many types of case studies a researcher can use. ‘Historical or observational (a reflective account or observation of a past

phenomenon), intrinsic (the study of a single case or person to understand behaviour), instrumental (studies that reflect on a number of sources to generalise theory) and multiple case studies (where multiple sites or cases are compared) are some of the primary incarnations of the case study’ (Foster, 2011).

Case studies are controversial in terms of generalisation. Generalisations from cases are not statistical and depend on their interpretation. The researcher can generalise based on a case study using one or a combination of three principles: deduction, induction and abduction as shown in Table 3.1 (Johannson, 2003). Using multiple cases and making comparisons helps towards generalisation of the results.

69

Table 3.1 Modes of generalisation and reasoning in case study methodology. Source: Johansson (2003)

Research designs provide guidance for data collection and analysis. Yin (2009) identifies three prerequisites for deciding on the appropriate strategy: the types of questions asked, the degree of control of the researcher over actual behavioural events and the extent to which the research focuses on contemporary or historical events (Table 3.2).

70 3.2.3 Double Case Study Methodology

As already described, the chosen methodology for this research is case study methodology. More specifically, this study endeavours to apply an embedded case study design. Case studies are preferred when contemporary events are to be explored and when the relevant behaviours cannot be manipulated (in contrast to controlled experiments).

The investigator usually has little or no control on the ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions that are being asked in the context of a case study (Yin, 2009). In the present study, a real life phenomenon is being evaluated and in order to fully understand it, the contextual conditions that are encompassed had to be understood too and they could not be ignored or isolated. Additionally, this case study makes use of already existing data. Evaluation process plays a great part in this research (evaluation of a water efficiency programme). Presumed causal links are explained and the intervention and the real life context in which it occurred are described. For the reasons stated above, case study is the preferred methodology as it has a distinctive place in evaluation research (ibid). In the context of an embedded case design, the units of analysis have to be clearly defined. Here, the primary ‘case’ is the water company’s efficiency programme while the secondary units are the households involved. If a multiple embedded case study is applied, the ‘secondary cases’ will be kept different and separate for each primary case.

A common concern about case studies, especially single case studies, is that they do not produce generalizable results. The answer to this is that the case study does not represent a ‘sample’, rather it aims at expanding and generalizing theories and not at statistical generalizing. However, using a double or a multiple case study rather than a single one provides stronger evidence and helps towards generalizing a theory. The rationale behind a multiple case study and replication design is that each case must be selected so that it either (a) predicts similar results or (b) produces in some way contradictory results but for anticipated reasons (Yin, 2009). This study aims at implementing a double case study design where the two cases can be compared and contrasted to identify similarities and differences. The two case

71

studies evaluate the effectiveness of two water efficiency programmes of two different water providers in the UK. The results produced by the two separate analyses and procedures are similar and complement each other.