Case study research

In general, case studies are the preferred strategy when ‘how’ and ‘why’

questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context. (Yin 2003, p.1)

4. Exploratory and explanatory research through case studies

84

A case study tries to bring to the fore why certain decisions are taken, how they are implemented and what their effects are. It deals with research in which the boundaries between the phenomenon being investigated and context are hard to distinguish. This is in contrast to an experiment in which the phenomenon is clearly separated from its context so that only a few variables need to be focused on during research (Yin 2003). Case study research strives to illuminate causal mechanisms, revealing the causal pathway from input X to output Y, while large-N cross-case studies try to reveal causal effect, which only deals with the likelihood and precision of output Y for an input X

(Gerring 2007, pp.43–44). In large-N cross-case studies, statistical generalisa-tion is used to extrapolate research findings from the investigated cases into a larger population. In case study research, the findings are also generalizable, but in this case to theoretical propositions instead of populations, as is the case with experiments: the purpose is to expand and generalize theories through analytical generalisation (Yin 2003, p.10).

As each action (e.g. an investigated collaboration between architect and engineer) in the spiral of Action Research can be considered as a case within Case Study Research, it requires five components of Research Design:

1. A study’s question: ‘how’ and ‘why’ question that needs to be investigated.

2. Its possible propositions: they state which phenomena might be of importance in answering the study’s question. It points towards possible evidence to be investigated.

3. Its unit(s) of analysis: what is the case under investigation?

4. The logic that links the data with these propositions: how can the retrieved data provide information on the propositions being

investigated?

5. Criteria for interpreting the data: how can the retrieved data be evaluated to make a value statement on the propositions (i.e. to what degree can the data refute or support a proposition)?

When the study of a case is more explorative because it is unclear what kind of findings can be expected, these five components are difficult to provide.

Nevertheless, in such an exploratory case study one should be able to define what needs to be explored in the case and what the purpose of this exploration is, and to provide criteria that define when such a case study research can be considered successful (Yin 2003).

The case studies conducted in the beginning of this doctoral work contain a strong exploratory component, while the ones at the end have a stronger

ex-4. Exploratory and explanatory research through case studies

85 planatory component that allows these five components to be better formulat-ed. For example, one of the first case studies was set up to understand which problems would arise when an architect and a structural engineer collaborate very early in the design process. Its purpose was to identify phenomena that might be responsible for obstructing a structurally informed architectural design process. Identifying these problems is then the criterion for the success of this case study. For this case study it is not possible to provide those five components of Research Design prior to the execution of the action event.

In one of the last case studies, when the importance of communication be-tween designers had become apparent and a new language had been

developed to improve their communication, those five components could be developed. (1) How can communication and collaboration between designers be improved during their early collaboration? (2) The communication and design possibilities improve for an architect when the structural information of an engineer’s design proposition is provided on the level of structural order, function, dimensions and possible structural design solutions. The newly developed language provides a communication with these different layers. (3) The case is an early collaboration between architect and structural engineer.

(4) The engineer’s communication with the architect on paper and reflexive note keeping shows if the engineer is able to express the essence of his conceptual proposition with this new language. The responses of the architect during the collaboration show if he or she understands the engineer’s proposi-tion. Questionnaires provide a measure of various parameters (e.g. did the architect think he or she was able to understand the engineer’s message? Did the language help in the architectural design process?). (5) The value of the improvement is mainly measured through benchmarking against what the architect and engineer are used to experiencing during collaboration.

In Case Study Research, three principles of data collection are suggested:

(1) the use of multiple sources of evidence, (2) the creation of a case study database and (3) establishing a chain of evidence.

(1) Because the data collected in Case Study Research is seldom precisely and objectively measured (in contrast to scientific experiments), using multiple sources of evidence can provide a better argumentation for the relevance of the data retrieved. This can be provided through converging lines of inquiry through which several different sources of information follow a corroboratory mode (Figure 4-3). When the events or facts in the case study are supported by more than one source of evidence, the data has been triangu-lated. This provides for a better construct validity (cf. Chapter 4.3) of the case study, as the same phenomenon is essentially measured through different sources of evidence (Yin 2003).

4. Exploratory and explanatory research through case studies

86

Figure 4-3. Convergence and Nonconvergence of Multiple Sources of Evidence.

In the doctoral work presented, various sources of evidence are provided that investigate the same phenomenon. For example, a number of activities were undertaken to evaluate whether architecture students were able to under-stand the newly developed language: documents were investigated in which the students used the language to express a structural concept, students were tested to determine if they could correctly interpret a structural concept using the language, questionnaires investigated whether students believed they had mastered the language, and group discussions with the students were held to evaluate the language.

(2) Another principle of data collection in Case Study Research is that the raw data that leads to the research conclusions can be reviewed independently by other investigators. This requires a separation of this raw data and the case study report. Therefore every case study project should strive to produce a formal, presentable database (Yin 2003).

In this doctoral work, all data has been bundled for each case study and stored digitally (e.g. video recordings, descriptions of seminar exercise, students’ reports and communication documents) or stored on paper (e.g.

workshop sketches and questionnaire responses).

(3) Reliability of the information derived from a case study can be further increased by maintaining a chain of evidence. This is achieved by allowing an

4. Exploratory and explanatory research through case studies

87 external observer to follow the derivation of any evidence from the initial

study question to the final case study conclusions, and to trace the steps back in this chain of evidence (Figure 4-4) (Yin 2003).

The following chapter will present the chain of evidence established in this thesis.

Figure 4-4. Maintaining a Chain of Evidence.