Comparative case study approach

This study is framed within broader ambit of a comparative case study approach. A case is defined as “a phenomenon of some sort occurring in a bounded context” (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The term case study as used here refers to an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries

123

between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident (Yin, 2003; Eisenhardt, 1989). As Yin (2003: 13) explains, a case study design should be considered when: (a) the focus of the study is to answer how and why questions; (b) the researcher cannot manipulate the behaviour of those involved in the study; (c) the researcher want to cover contextual conditions because he/she believe they are relevant to the phenomenon under investigation; or (d) the boundaries are not clear between the phenomenon and context (which is the case in the present study). Rooted in the qualitative research tradition, a case study approach was also chosen because of its openness to multiple sources of evidence which enables the researcher to deal with a full variety of evidence emerging from direct observation [online participant observation] of the events being studied and interviews [in-depth interviews] of the persons involved in the events (Wimmer & Dominick, 1987; Stake, 2003; Flyvbjerg, 2001).

Comparative cross-national research is a way of identifying the similarities and differences among “macro-social units” (such as countries, regions and other larger political entities) (Ragin, 2000; Collier, 1993) with the aim of revealing uniqueness. It entails learning about how and why different systems are different or similar as well as generating in-depth, contextual understanding (Ragin, 2000). As Downey & Stanyer (2005) notes, comparative analysis helps us to notice differences and through this making us aware of the geographical limitations of concepts and the importance of generalising prudently. Although single case studies can certainly provide rich insights into the practices associated uniquely with one specific platform (Yin, 2003), comparative method has the advantage of allowing for the systematic examination of two or more cases in order to highlight how different they are, thus establishing a framework for interpreting how parallel processes of change are played out in different ways in each context (Collier, 1993: 108). There are two approaches in comparative research: the most similar system design and the most different system design (Lijphart, 1971). Because in small-N case studies the selection of cases is a deliberate choice based on the theory-driven comparative method, this study integrates both the most different system design (MDSD) and the most similar system design (MSSD) to examine how and why youth activists from a democratic (South Africa) and non-democratic (Zimbabwe) political system use Facebook for political action (see Chapters One and Two for a comparison of the two countries).

Hallin & Mancini (2004: 2) ask a relevant question: Why comparative analysis? They point out that the role comparative analysis in social research can be understood in terms of two

124

basic functions: its role in concept formation and clarification and its role in causal inference (Hallin & Mancini, 2004). Comparative research is important because it sensitises us to variation and to similarity, and this can contribute powerfully to concept formation and to the refinement of our conceptual apparatus. It enables us to conceptualise more clearly what aspects of the system actually require explanation. As Bendix (1963: 535) observes, comparative studies “provide an important check on the generalisations implicit” in our concepts and forces us to clarify the limits of their application. The second reason comparison is important in social investifation is that it allows in many cases to test hypothesis about the interrelationships among social phenomena (Hallin & Mancini, 2004: 4).

Noteworthy to highlight that while it is typical for comparativists to use either MSSD or MDSD, some researchers use both system designs (see LeBas, 2011). On the one hand, the MSSD compares very similar cases (apples with apples) which only differ in the dependent variable, on the assumption that this would make it easier to find those independent variables

which can explain the presence/absence of the dependent variable (Przeworski & Teune, 1970: 33; Norris, 2010). It focuses on variation across cases as the basis of explanation thereby “controlling” for certain shared cultural, social or regime characteristics, such as studies comparing elections campaigns among member states within the SADC region. Thus, the MSSD seeks to compare political systems that share a host of common features in an effort to neutralise some differences while highlighting others. On the other hand, the MDSD compares very different cases (apples with oranges), all of which however have in common the same dependent variable, so that any other circumstance which is present in all the cases can be regarded as the independent variable. It concentrates on the commonalities across cases so as to eliminate other explanations (Przeworski & Teune, 1970). It seeks to identify those features that are the same among different countries in an effort to account for a particular outcome and use contrasting cases in order to find the cause of the differences. The “most different” strategy also seeks to maximise contextual variations when identifying regularities in the phenomenon under examination, such as comparing the use of Facebook by youth activists in democratic and non-democratic contexts. It also seeks to identify the key features that are different among similar countries and which account for the observed political outcome. It achieves this through deploying the basic logic of falsification77, which

77 _{The basic argument is that science progresses by eliminating possible causes for observed phenomena rather than by finding positive}

125

is anchored in the tradition of Popperian philosophy of science (Popper, 1959). In this way, MDSD allows the researcher to distil out the common elements from a diverse set of countries that have greater explanatory power (Collier, 1993:112).

In terms of their differences, the MDSD differs from the MSSD in the sense that it does not take a strict variable. As Peters (1998) argues, the most similar and most different systems designs therefore do very different things. On the one hand, the MSSD deals more directly with countries as a unit of analysis. It attempts to control for extraneous sources of variance by selecting cases in which this is not likely to be a major problem. On the other hand, the MDSD is not particularly interested in countries; this is more variable-based research. However, as Peters (1998: 41) observes, practically it is difficult to deploy one research design while leaving the other. It is only through combining both research designs that one can counter any deficiencies that may be countered in either of the two. The reason for adopting a combined research design is that because of the area focus of the thesis it was important to include shared historical features of the countries under analysis since these features would have structured the countries’ social, economic and political perspectives in a way that, although not uniform, should account for some level of similarity. On the one hand, the MDSD was deployed in order to “distil out the common elements from a diverse set of countries that have a greater explanatory power” (Landman, 2008: 70). On the other hand, the MSSD allowed for the historical comparison of cases under investigation. Therefore the integration of both approaches allowed for the identification of similarities and differences which are essential for comparative method. Drawing inspiration from scholars (Linz & Stepan, 1996; McCorley, 2015) who have integrated the MDSD and MSSD in their comparative studies, I also used a similar approach to compare how and why youth activists use Facebook for political purposes South Africa and Zimbabwe. Below, I briefly motivate the rationale for choosing the two case nations.

Rationale for choosing the case nations

There are certain criteria which should be met in order for the “most similar” and “most different” system designs to be combined in a single study. As Landman (2008: 75) argues, the combination of the two approaches needs to ensure that three criteria are adhered to in order to make sound inferences: “…the proper specification of the outcome to be explained, the reasons for adopting…[a] system design, as well as the choice of the particular countries

126

under scrutiny”. As discussed extensively in Chapters One and Two, the two countries have different regime types although they share numerous “historical legacies and characteristics that lend them to family resemblance selection” (McCorley, 2015: 17). Their historical trajectories make them similar in some ways (see Chapter One). The reason for choosing Zimbabwe and South Africa was based on the variations on the dependent variable, current level of democratic governance. Both countries have not yet experienced the “two-turnover test78” (Huntington, 1991) and do not seem to do so any time soon (McCorley, 2013; 2015). Zimbabwe has retreated into authoritarian governance which embodies the instrumentalism of

violent prebendalism and patronage (Gallagher, 2015). Although South Africa in some respects

has been successful in implementing political reforms to develop the complexity of the economy, increased complexity over the past two decades has not meant that democracy has been ingrained (McCorley, 2015: 123; see Chapters One and Two). As demonstrated in Chapter One, data sets from the Freedom House and Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) have classified the two case nations differently on the democratic and authoritarian scale. South Africa is placed on the democratic side of the regime divide while Zimbabwe is characterised as an authoritarian regime (Freedom House, 2014; Ibrahim Index on African Governance, 2014).

Building on Siebert, Peterson & Schramm’s (1956) classifications of media systems, Hallin & Mancini’s (2004) seminal work offers a standardised measurement for comparing media systems within Western democracies. The primary focus of Hallin and Mancini’s Comparing Media Systems is the relationship between media systems and political systems (2004: 1). This typology has been used classify the South African and Zimbabwean media systems (see Hadland, 2007; 2012; D’Angelo & Pollock, 2010). Inspired by Hallin & Mancini (2004) typology79 of press-state relations in mature democracies, D’Angelo & Pollock (2010) have revised and updated this model arguing that although Zimbabwe and South Africa fit within the “Mediterranean”/ “polarised pluralist80” model, they can further be classified into “hegemonic” and “participatory pluralist” models respectively. This is partly because in

78 _{According to Huntington (1991) a nascent democracy is considered consolidated only after it has achieved two peaceful electoral}

alternations after the foundation of the democratic elections. Although passing the two-turnover test does not guarantee that the country will not regress back into authoritarianism, it is generally used in indicating whether a new democracy has matured.

79 _{Hallin & Mancini (2004) compared the media and political systems of 18 countries in Europe and North America. They found these}

countries could be clustered into three broad groups, or “ideal types”: the Liberal model, the Democratic Corporatist model and the Polarised Pluralist model. They propose four major dimensions according to which media systems in Western Europe and North America can usefully be compared: (1) the development of media markets, with particular emphasis on the strong or weak development of mass circulation press (high or low levels of press circulation); (2) political parallelism, that is, the degree and nature of the links between the media and political parties or, more broadly, the extent to which the media system reflects the major political divisions in the country; (3) the development of journalistic professionalism and (4) the degree and nature of state intervention in the media system (see Hallin & Mancini, 2004: 68-72).

127

Zimbabwe the independent media opeates in an environment which is severely constricted whilst the public media is heavily controlled by the government. Although the Zimbabwean and South African media systems share some similarities, there are important differences which have been enunciated in Chapter Two.

Hadland (2007; 2012) has also attempted to Africanise Hallin & Mancini’s (2004) three models of media and political systems and concluded that South Africa’s media system falls largely into the “polarised pluralist” model though it retains strong liberal81 model traits. Some of the liberal model features exhibited by South Africa include the massive development of commercial newspapers with little state involvement and the relative dominance of market mechanisms and of commercial media in general. South Africa also fits into the “polarised pluralist” model because of the dominance of political coverage and the media’s predisposition towards elite audiences. Although the South African media system does have leanings towards the “democratic corporatist82_{” model, with some political}

parallelism83, a vibrant civic life, and limits on state power, Hadland (2012: 101) also pointed to the limited range of political perspectives found in the media (Hadland, 2012: 101). The state-owned public broadcaster, although displaying elements of bias towards the ruling party at certain times, such as elections, and promoting “developmental journalism” (Hadland, 2012: 106), also incorporates commercial approaches into its journalistic orientation and programming (Duncan & Glenn, 2010).

Zimbabwe, one the other, hand fits into the “polarised pluralist” model largely because the media system has a high degree of political parallelism, relatively low levels of journalistic professionalism and the state has historically played a central, interventionist role in the media (IMPI, 2015; see Chapter Two). The Zimbabwean media system has institutionalised an environment in which party politics and the media are closely integrated, with a relatively weaker commercial radio broadcasting sector (see Chapter Two). As intimated in Chapter Two, media polarisation which manifests itself through explicit partisan editorial orientation means that the Zimbabwean media system is characterised by “considerable” pluralism

81

A liberal model, in which the media operate according to the principles of the free market, without formal connections between media and politics and with minimal state intervention.

82 _{In this model, commercial media coexist with the media tied to orgsnised social and political groups and the state has a small but active}

role.

83

Political parallelism is one of four “major dimensions” used to categorise countries and their media systems into one or other of Hallin and Mancini’s three models of media and politics. The concept of political parallelism refers in essence to the closeness of the links between a political system and the media and examines the extent to which media systems reflect the major political trends and cleavages of the host country.

128

(Hallin & Mancini, 2004: 61). On the one hand, the state media is unapologetic for its support for the ruling ZANU-PF government, on the other hand, the private media appear to have signed a pact with the opposition to “hear no evil,” “speak no evil” and “see no evil” regarding its affairs (Chari, 2009:10; Chuma, 2005). Hallin & Mancini (2004) observe that a high degree of political parallelism, in which the media very directly reflect the spectrum and culture of a country’s political life, is most often the hallmark of either the “polarised pluralist” model. In Zimbabwe, the media are used as instruments of struggle in conflicts, by the ruling party (ZANU-PF) and by opposition parties (MDC-T) struggling against each other, but also by other contending parties in periods of democratic politics. For Hallin & Mancini (2004), the state in the “polarised pluralist” model plays a large role as an owner, regulator, and funder of media. Unlike the commercialised SABC in South Africa, the ZBC receives a substantial funding from the government and licence fees which explains the extensive political interference in editorial decision making (Moyo, 2009; Mare, 2014). Whereas in Zimbabwe, the government owns newspapers through its majority shares in Zimpapers, in South Africa there are no state-owned newspapers. The Freedom House (2015) rates the Zimbabwean media system as “unfree” while South Africa is considered “partly free”. Thus arguably media systems in Zimbabwe and South Africa have very characteristics in common.

Both case nations are also important because of the instrumental role of youths in struggles for political change and the marked usage of new media technologies to amplify grievances and for political mobilisation (Seekings, 2014; Munro, 2015; ActionAid Denmark, 2013). As intimated in earlier chapters, these are some of the reasons why this particular study chose to focus on Zimbabwe and South Africa, notwithstanding, important factors such as convenience and geographical proximity. For practical reasons, the chosen case nations allowed the researcher to visit them easily and conduct fieldwork. Next, I discuss the rationale for choosing the six case organisations.