In simple terms, case studies ‘take as their subject one or more selected examples of a social entity which are studied using a variety of data collection techniques’
(Hakim, 2000, p.59), deemed to be most appropriate for developing a full understanding of the case(s) (Punch, 2000b). According to Yin (2003b, p.4), case studies are the ‘method of choice when the phenomenon under study is not readily distinguishable from its context.’ For example, investigating the extent to which SMNGBs are ‘policy shapers’ or ‘policy takers’, could be thought of as a case study into the capacity of non-traditional sports or unfunded-elitist sports to influence national sport policy. The underlying premise being a study of an occurrence or response to an event/mechanism/policy outcome in one sport constitutes a case study of the wider phenomena, as opposed to a complete study of an aspect of that sport. Furthermore, Yin (2003c, p.9) posits that a case study is best used when ‘a
“how” or “why” question is being asked about a contemporary set of events, over which the investigator has little or no control’, such questions dealing with
‘operational links … traced over time, rather than mere frequency or incidence’ (Yin, 2003c, p.6). For example, within this study the researcher has no control over whether NGBs influence sport policy or not.
According to Stark and Torrance (2005, p.33), case studies seek to:
‘engage with and report the complexity of social activity in order to represent the meanings that individual social actors bring to those settings and manufacture in them (sic), [the assumption being] that ‘social reality’ is created through social interaction, albeit situated in particular contexts and histories, and seeks to identify and describe before trying to analyse and theorize.’
In other words, a holistic understanding of ‘a set of issues, and how they relate to a particular group, organisation, sports team, or even a single individual’ (Gratton and Jones, 2010, p.107) or in this case SMNGBs. The intensive nature of case studies aim to ‘tease out and disentangle a complex set of factors and relationships’ (Easton,
78 2010, p.119), rather than generalising to the population at large. In doing so, the intention is to achieve a ‘rich description’ (Geertz, 1973) of a phenomenon in order to represent it from participants’ perspectives, and seeks to ‘illuminate’ the researcher/reader’s understanding of an issue (Parlett and Hamilton, 1988; Gall et al., 1996; Stark and Torrance, 2005; Bryman, 2012). As argued by Phillpots et al.
(2010), case studies address the complexity, diversity and uniqueness of each social entity (SMNGB), and the key agent’s perceptions, beliefs, values and ideas, and the role of structures in shaping them, which strongly endorses a critical realist position.
The use of multiple case studies has been validated by a number of authors. Herriott and Firestone (1983), for example, emphasised the robustness of the multiple-case study, while Yin (2009) argued that multiple-case studies result in more compelling findings, as the single-case study ‘cannot be regarded as a complete study on its own’ (Yin, 1994, p.41), and creates potential ‘fears about the uniqueness or artificial conditions surrounding the case’ (Yin, 2003c, p.54). In many respects, multiple-case studies involve ‘focused comparisons’, whereby the logic of multiple-case design enables researchers to provide an ‘intensive comparison of a few instances’ (Hague et al., 1998, p.280). This study, however, has not adopted a comparative research design; rather the use of multiple-cases has served to draw cross-case conclusions between two or more cases. The logic of comparison implying that ‘we can understand social phenomena better when they are compared in relation to two or more meaningfully contrasting cases or situations’ (Bryman, 2012, p.72). For Yin (1994, p.47), the logic underlying the use of multiple-case studies advocates that
‘each case must be carefully selected so that it either (a) predicts similar results (a literal replication) or (b) produces contrasting results but for predictable reasons (a theoretical replication).’ In this sense, the three cases selected for this study may not only provide similar results regarding their capacity to influence national sports policy or not, or the strategies used to adapt to policy changes, but also offer distinct variations. Furthermore, cross-case conclusions underpinning the theoretical basis and framework of this study might be useful for investigating policy influence or conformity in other sports, or indeed the same sports in other countries or comparisons between countries. Thus, the utility of the logic of comparison ‘directly tackles the question of generalizability by demonstrating the similarities and
79 differences across a number of settings’ (Peräkylä, 2004, p.296 cited in Silverman, 2005, p.129).
Criticism of case study research is centred firmly on the external validity or generalisability debate (Lincoln and Guba, 2000; Stark and Torrance, 2005; Easton, 2010; Bryman, 2012). Interestingly, Schlager and Blomquist (1995, p.651) argued that within the ACF, ‘case studies are not general theoretical explanations of how political actors create, implement, and change public policies in order to advance their own purposes and respond to perceived problems.’ However, a counter-argument to the above critique, resides in the claim that the role of theory in case studies is ‘the single most important aid in doing case study research’, as not only is
‘theory helpful in designing a case study, [it] also becomes a vehicle for generalising a case study’s results’ (Yin, 2003b, p. xiv). It is further argued that the use of multiple-case studies has the potential to improve theory-building (Bryman, 2012), by establishing the circumstances in which theory will or will not hold (Yin, 2009). This is clearly seen in the context of this study by way of an evaluation of the utility of the ACF in examining the sport policy process, and SMNGBs, as policy actors, to determine their capacity to influence policy direction, which also has a distinct link to critical realism’s notion of retroduction, whereby existing theory is used to uncover mechanisms, structures and power underneath the immediately observable surface.
For example, the ACF’s notion of deep structures, coalitions and beliefs is strongly related to the critical realists’ view of reality, as being structured, potentially hierarchical and has both individual and social features. This can be seen through the spine of accountability within community sport policy from government through to SMNGBs, where structures do not determine outcomes, but rather constrain or facilitate agency determined behaviour, which are constituent features within this research and fundamental to critical realism.
Retroduction within this multiple-case study design is augmented further through the integration of Lukes’ three dimensional theory of power within the ACF, when applied to multiple cases to provide insight into the dynamics of coalitions and relationships between SE/UKS and SMNGBs. Indeed, it is possible to view the closeness of the neo-pluralistic origins of the ACF with Lukes’ dimensions of power through each dimension. Lukes’ first dimension of observable and concrete decision making would be reflective of SMNGBs doing something wouldn’t otherwise do, in this case
80 involvement within the sport policy environment, and undertaking SE’s bidding in return for financial resources, target-setting-resource-dependency relationship.
Power is unequal in terms of dominant NGBs versus those that are marginalised, for example, medal winning sports versus non-medal winning sports. The second dimension of power, focused on agenda setting and barriers to entry into the decision-making process of policy, can be seen through SE and the pendulum swing in community sport between sport for sport’s sake, sport for social good and physical activity, where the influence of even the largest of NGBs has been marginal. While Lukes’ third dimension of power and ideological control is more challenging, it is observable through the acceptance of the idea that sport does good things, is good for communities and individuals, and an idea that has been deeply entrenched in popular consciousness. The shaping of NGB/SMGB preferences also has a strong connection to ideological and psychological control of Lukes’ third dimension, particularly government’s action through SE to remove ‘Blazer Brigade’ from within NGBs to ensure NGBs are professionally managed, the impact of which has been an organisational-identity crisis among SMNGBs, as revealed within the empirical findings of this research.