Case study as research strategy

The distinctive need for case studies arises out of the desire to understand complex social phenomena. As strategy it allows an investigation to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events. There are numerous definitions of case study. Goode and Hatt (1952: 331, my emphasis) defined case study as a ‘way of organising social data so as to preserve the unitary character of the social object being studied’ thereby underlining the strategy’s holistic perspective. Eisenhardt (1989: 534) defines it as ‘a research strategy which focuses on understanding the dynamics present within single settings’. In his classic definition, Yin (1984: 23) also emphasises the case study’s strength in accommodating multiple data sources and its sensitivity to context. He defines case study as ‘an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used’ (Yin, 1994: 13). Finally, Eckstein (1975: 81) refers to the case study as ‘trying to capture the whole, (being) intensive in nature, and open-ended and flexible at all stages of the research process’.

Suitability of case study as research strategy for this study

One way of exploring the suitability of the case study as research strategy is by looking at its advantages and disadvantages relative to other research strategies. That a particular strategy is relatively more or less advantageous that others depends, according to Yin (1984: 13), upon (1) the type of research question, and (2) the control an investigator has over the actual behavioural events, and the focus on contemporary as opposed to historical phenomena.

(1) Type of research questions and types of case studies. Yin distinguishes principally between ‘what’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ research questions. A study’s emphasis or emphases on one or more of these types of questions should in turn lead to undertaking exploratory, descriptive, and/or explanatory types of case studies.

There are two basic types of ‘what’ questions. Some ‘what’ questions can be described as exploratory. This type of question is a justifiable rationale for conducting an exploratory study, the goal being to develop pertinent hypotheses and propositions for

further inquiry. But this type of ‘what’ question is also an acceptable rationale for conducting a descriptive study. In this study, ‘exploratory what questions’ are evident in all three sets of research questions: challenges; strategies and outcomes; and explaining strategies and outcomes. That the research questions led us to conduct a largely exploratory and descriptive case study is hardly surprising given the current state of empirical research in Chile’s large-scale copper mining sector, with only one major study conducted since the beginning of the mining boom (Agacino et al., 1998). But although necessary, an exploratory/descriptive case study is not sufficient to address the remaining research questions.

Indeed, a second type of ‘what’ question is said to take the form of ‘how many’ or ‘how much’. While ‘exploratory what-questions’ favour case studies, questions such as these are more likely to favour survey or documentary analysis. Questions involving assessments of union success and failure normally favour this type of research (e.g. union membership and density statistics, data on collective contracts, industrial conflict, etc.). Although every effort has been made in this study to obtain and present reliable data in this regard, most of the evidence collected has been obtained from interviews, which, as we shall see below, could have serious limitations. But it is important to bear in mind that, rather than concentrating on ‘objective indicators’ of union effectiveness, this study aims to provide a more holistic, and admittedly more subjective, assessment on the possibilities and limitations of different types of emerging collective action.

In contrast to ‘what’ questions, ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions are more explanatory and likely to lead to the use of case studies, histories, and experiments as the preferred research strategies. This is because such questions ‘deal with operational links needing to be traced overtime, rather than mere frequencies or incidence’ (Yin, 2003: 6). In this study, ‘how’ questions complement ‘what’ questions in the second set of research questions: strategies and outcomes. This is because these questions deal with ‘what’ strategies as well as with ‘how’ these strategies have emerged and evolved over time. In other words, they consider the content as well as the processes of union strategy.

‘How’ and ‘why’ questions constitute the bulk of the third set of research questions: factors and dynamics. Here I am concerned with explaining the adoption of particular strategies and the development of distinct types of trade unionism, as well as with explaining their relative success or failure. In other words, in answering these questions,

the study aims at identifying the key factors and dynamics that may be explaining the differences in form, evolution, and outcomes of union strategy and types of trade unionism. The use of the verb may here is not casual, and underlines the qualitative character of this study i.e. being to develop pertinent hypotheses and propositions for further inquiry.

(2) Extent of control over behavioural events and degree of focus on contemporary as opposed to historical events. In contrast to historical methods, case studies are preferred when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real life context, and when the investigator has little control over events.

The distinctive contribution of the historical method is in dealing with the ‘dead’ past, that is, when no relevant persons are alive to report, even retrospectively, what occurred. Nevertheless, histories can be done about contemporary events; in this situation, the strategy begins to overlap with that of the case study. The case study is preferred in examining contemporary events, but when the relevant behaviours cannot be manipulated. Experiments, in contrast, are done when an investigator can manipulate behaviour directly, precisely, and systematically. Thus the case study relies on many of the same techniques as a history, but it adds direct observation and systematic interviewing as sources of evidence.

(Yin, 2003: 7)

In sum, the case study strategy in its various forms (exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory) provides for a highly suitable strategy to investigate the issues raised by the research questions that guide this study.