Multiple embedded case studies

A case study is richly descriptive and uses quotes from research participants, anecdotes and prose composed from interviews (Hancock & Algozzine, 2006, p. 16). Case studies can be used to study events, programmes, situations and activities (ibid.). Case studies often require use of multiple research methods of data collection, which is important for ensuring the trustworthiness of findings. The case study strategy allows for investigation of contemporary events, whose time-space configurations are not easily manipulated (Yin, 2003). Multiple embedded case studies (Yin, 2009) are also called nested case studies (Lotz-Sisitka & Raven, 2004) because they are made up of cases within a case. In this study a minimum of two networked activity systems constituted a case study (see Figure 4.1 below for the multiple case study design in this study). The units of analysis in Case Study 1 are the farmers‟ and the school activity system and the Schools and Colleges Permaculture Programme itself; in Case Study 2, these are farmers, organic facilitators, and organic marketers‟ activity systems; while Case Study 3 is comprised of the MFS farmers; MFS trainers and government extension workers‟ activity systems. In each case study, the activity systems are connected to each other because they have a shared object depicted as a small circle between them. The outer circle shows that the case studies are related based on the broad initiative of change oriented learning in sustainable agriculture practices after the work of Lotz-Sisitka and Raven (2004).

118

Figure 4.1: Multiple embedded (nested) case study design in the study

4.2.2.1 Why case study research design

As discussed briefly in Chapter 1, I worked in three case study sites (see Section 1.8) and employed a multiple embedded case study design. The decision to use more than one case study was influenced by both practical and theoretical reasons. The theoretical reasons were that multiple case studies as opposed to a single case study are considered to be more compelling and robust (Yin, 2003, p. 53):

The first word of advice is that although all designs can lead to successful case studies, when you have a choice (and resources), multiple case designs may be preferred over single designs… Analytic conclusions independently arising from two cases, as two experiments, will be more powerful than those coming from a single case (or single experiment) alone. Second, the contexts of the two cases are likely to differ to some extent. If, under these varied circumstances you still can arrive at common conclusions from both cases, they will have

Case Study 1:

Permaculture, Zimbabwe

Case Study 2: Organic Farming, South Africa

Case Study 3: Machobane Farming System, Lesotho

Activity systems as units of analysis

119

immeasurably expanded the external generalizability of your findings, again compared to a single case.

The research questions and the ontological and epistemological perspectives guiding the study (see Sections 1.5; 3.1; 3.2; 3.3 and 3.6) also informed the research design. They suggested that I work with real issues, in natural situations where people were learning and practising relevant forms of agriculture. A research design deals with the logical dimensions of the study, not the logistical (Yin, 2009, p. 27). The case study design seemed most appropriate because it would allow me to work deeply with groups of people in a fashion that resonates with intensive research designs that are typical of research underpinned by critical realist philosophy (Sayer, 2000). They involve intense analyses and descriptions of a single unit or system bound by space and time. The researcher uses them to gain an in-depth understanding of something. Insights gathered from such can be used to influence policy, procedures and future research (Merriam, 2001). The table at the end of the section (Table 4.3) shows the implemented case study design.

4.2.2.2 Case studies and intensive research designs

In realist terminology, the research design was intensive not extensive because it sought to get detailed information and address specific issues being encountered by specific groups of people in the case studies. Sayer (2000) argued that an intensive research design for investigating a human being would start doing so by looking at any part of the body, and then look for connections between one part and another, one organ and another, building a picture of the body‟s structure and systems. This is what working with applications of CHAT requires (see Sections 2.6; 3.4.2 and 3.4.4). One could start with analysis of the tools, the object or the subject before interrogating their relationships, histories and contradictions both within the activity system and between it and others. Sayer (2000, p. 22) further noted “intensive research seeks out substantial relations of connection and situates practices within wider contexts, thereby illuminating part-whole relationships”. Therefore intensive research values context in a similar manner to second and third generation CHAT and its associated methodology of DWR. Sayer (2000) identifies interactive interviews as one of the methods that are suitable for use with intensive research. The idea of building a picture and making connections resonates with Emirbayer‟s (1997) ontological view of a world that is relational (see Section 3.3). Intensive research in the tradition of critical realism allows for an analysis of structure agency relations in case study contexts as implied by Sayer:

Realists seek substantial connection among phenomena rather than formal associations or regularities. In explaining associations, they seek to distinguish what must be the case from what merely can be the case. Explanation of the social world also requires an attentiveness to its stratification, to emergent powers arising from certain relationships, and to the ways in which the operation of causal mechanisms depends on the constraining and enabling effects of contexts (Sayer, 2000, p. 27).

120 4.2.2.3 Types and orientations of case studies

Tesch (1990, p. 39) defined a case study as an intensive and detailed study of one individual or of a group as an entity through observation, self-reports and any other means. Berg (1998) discussed three kinds of case studies: intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. He defines an intrinsic case study as one where the intention is to understand the intrinsic aspect of a particular entity. Instrumental case studies on the other hand seek to provide insight into some issue or to refine some theoretical explanation. Collective case studies involve the intensive study of several instrumental case studies in order to allow a better understanding or an enhanced ability to theorize about the larger collection of case studies (Berg, 1998, p. 217). Bassey (1999) also made three distinctions in terms of case studies: theory seeking and theory-testing (instrumental); storytelling and picture-drawing case studies (intrinsic); and theory-generating case studies (collective). The case studies in this research were intrinsic, instrumental and collective; theory-seeking and testing and theory-generating at the same time because while I sought to understand each case study in its own right, I also sought to provide insight into issues of change oriented learning and sustainability practices and because I intended to find ways of explaining workplace learning in multiple sites which contributes to a wider research programme. This research resonates with the following: “the claim to knowledge may contribute incrementally to the accumulated knowledge on the topic under study, challenge existing theoretical ideas; offer significant improvement in practice or provide a significant piece of a jigsaw of understanding” (Lotz-Sisitka & Raven, 2004, p. 81; See section 9.2). Case study research results cannot be generalised to populations or universes, because generalisations create a sense of certainty and absoluteness that cannot arise from case studies (Bassey, 1999; Sayer, 2000; Yin, 2009). Bassey (1999) therefore recommended that insights that are generated from case studies need to be given as general statements that are imbued with a sense of uncertainty, and defined these generalisations as fuzzy. The phrasing of fuzzy generalisations avoids the use of definitive statements to ones that are tentative, using such words as „can‟ and „could‟ instead of such words as „will‟ and „should‟ (Lotz-Sisitka & Raven, 2004). This understanding shaped the framing the recommendations in this study (see Sections 10.2.1-10.2.5).

4.2.2.4 Criteria for case selection

The case study research design was employed in this study (as mentioned earlier) because I sought to understand social phenomena within naturally occurring settings: farmers practising, learning and enhancing sustainable agriculture – and relating with sustainable agriculture promoters, high input agriculture extension workers and the corporate sector. Activity systems which are the unit of analysis in CHAT (see Sections 3.4.3 and 3.4.4) lend themselves easily to multiple embedded case studies. I used non-probability sampling to choose cases to study. In particular, I used purposive sampling, also known as theoretical

121

sampling that involved the selection of cases based on my judgment about what would be most useful (Bloor & Wood, 2006) (see Section 1.3).

As mentioned in the above paragraph, activity systems formed the basic unit of analysis in the study. In each case study, there were several activity systems. Consequently, I worked with what Yin (2009) calls multiple case studies that are embedded, which means that within each case study there are further units of analysis. In the case of this study these units are activity systems as conceived and constructed by different actor groups in each case study (see Sections 3.4 and 5.2).

4.2.2.5 Types of questions that case studies answer

Case studies are best used when one intends to answer the how and why questions (Yin, 2003; 2009). The „how‟ questions dominated my research work and for issues that were raised, the study purposefully asked „why‟ they were there and how they could be addressed. “In general, case studies are the preferred method when (a) „how‟ or „why‟ questions are being posed, (b) the researcher has little control over events, and (c) the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context” (Yin, 2009, p. 2). Yin went on to say that research methods are chosen to address one of the following purposes, exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory. The „what‟ questions address the exploratory matters in studies, while the „why and how‟ seek out explanations. However, missing in this classification are interventionist research efforts, which I would say are concerned with so what questions beyond the exploring, understanding and explaining.

4.2.2.6 Case study protocol

As part of the case study design process, I developed a case study protocol as recommended by Yin (2003). The protocol was made up of the following:

a. Field procedures: I developed and presented a letter of introduction ahead of going into the field. In addition to sending the letter (see Appendix 1) I made phone calls to introduce myself and the purpose of the research. I further developed and sent to each key informant a document outlining what the study was about and what it would require of them and those who would take part. At the end of each field visit I made a point of writing thank you letters (see Appendix 2). I also shared the interview scripts with those interviewed (except farmers in Lesotho because of language problems) and elicited feedback. For each case study visit, I wrote a report and shared it with the research participants for comments and corrections (Case Record 2.5.1; 3.5.1 and 4.5.1). At the end of the data analysis for both phases, I went to each group of participants and debriefed them regarding what had emerged from the research process as well as to ask for feedback from them.

122

b. Case study questions: For the first round of data gathering with research participants, I developed a list of questions ahead of the field work and shared them with colleagues for critiquing. I piloted tested the questions before going to the field. For the set of data generation tools used in the first phase see Appendix 3.

c. A guide for case study report: I developed a framework for analysing data from each case study and the framework was informed by the research questions and well as the theories that I was using (see Sections 1.5; 3.1; 3.2 and 3.3). The discussion of the case record is discussed below (See Section 4.2.2.7).

4.2.2.7 Compiling a case record (CD ROM attached)

In order to ensure that data gathered on each case was properly kept for future use in the writing of the thesis and for evidence of my engagement with research participants, I compiled a record for each case study. In each case record, I kept:

Samples of key communication with research participants; Samples of interview records;

Plans for Change Laboratory Workshops;

Reports made on each of the three trips made to each case study;

Samples of comments on the reports and associated feedback from research participants;

Selected transcripts of Change Laboratory workshops;

My reflections on the research processes, including moments where there was need to make adjustments to the research design or process.

When I wrote this thesis, the case study record provided one of the richest sources of data, some of which was semi-processed. I would recommend the use of this strategy to any researcher working with multiple case studies.

4.3 RESEARCH PROCESS