This study is methodologically anchored in qualitative case-based theory building (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Xiao & Smith, 2006; Yin, 2012, 2014). The research questions, along with the conceptual frameworks developed and presented in the previous chapters, reflect the appropriateness of a case study approach in this research. This research frames a participative decision-making structure pertaining to various tourism resources (identified as capitals) for sustainable livelihood outcomes within the setting of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHTs), Bangladesh. The distinctive nature and feature of the case study region within Bangladesh is described in Chapter Four. The case in this research offers diverse relationships, functional and dysfunctional structures and components (Stake, 2006) to be studied in view of the conceptual framework developed. The framework provides the opportunity to bring together general constructs into intellectual 'bins' (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 18) within the case setting.
Yin (1993) suggested some specific types of case studies: exploratory, explanatory and descriptive. Exploratory cases are sometimes considered as a prelude to social research for focusing on a concept, people, or situation that researchers know little about. Explanatory case studies may be used for carrying out a causal investigation, which involves testing a hypothesis derived from the available theories. Explanatory cases come into action especially when the causal links in real-life interventions are too complex or unexplored (Yin, 2009). Descriptive cases require descriptive theory to be developed before starting the research on a concept, people, or situation that researchers know to some degree, but just want to describe what they found or observed. Thus, the descriptive cases explain an interposition or phenomenon and the real-life context in which it occurred (Yin, 2009). Apart from these types, Stake (1995) recommended intrinsic and instrumental types of cases. Intrinsic cases present the integrity of the case by its distinctiveness while instrumental cases provide insight into an issue or help to build or modify a construct or theory, thereby facilitating understanding of something. The case chosen for this research represents typical features of Yin’s ‘descriptive’ case linked with Stake’s ‘instrumental’ category of cases. This is particularly due to the fact that the researcher develops an initial framework and tests the framework within a case study context (CHTs) for further refinement and to contribute to the existing body of knowledge.
52 In principle, (Yin, 2014) identified at least four archetypes as a means of framing the investigation of a phenomenon within a case study method. These are: single-case (holistic), single-case (embedded), multiple-case (holistic) and multiple-case (embedded). The following diagram (Figure 3.3) illustrates those four variants.
Figure 3.3 Design options for case studies (Source: Adapted from Yin, 2014, p. 50)
In Figure 3.3, the horizontal axis focuses on the number of cases in consideration while the vertical axis, labelled as ‘holistic’ and ‘embedded’, represents the units of analysis. In holistic cases, the unit of analysis is singular and embedded cases support more than one unit to be analysed. The current study stands on a Type 2 or single- embedded classification where multiple units are analysed within a single context. More precisely, two ‘Upazilas’ or sub-districts namely Bandarban ‘Sadar’ (central) and Rangamati ‘Sadar’ (central) from the CHT in Bangladesh were considered for study purposes in this research. The case units were chosen based on a number of factors including the intensity of social capital, locational importance, tourism significance, and expert’s opinions. These criteria are elaborated in Chapter Four (see Section 4.3).
3.3.1
Justification for the Case Study Approach
Case studies have been used so extensively in tourism research that Beeton (2005, p. 37) asserts: “It is such a pervasive methodology in tourism research that it appears that its justification is no longer deemed necessary, if it
53 ever was.” This may partly due to the fact that tourism experiences and processes happen within a social context and the case study research induces the researchers to examine the context along with other complex components or conditions within a ‘case’. Yin (2009, p. 18) defines the case study approach to research as-
An empirical inquiry about a contemporary phenomenon (e.g., a “case”), set within its real- world context-especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.
Yin (2003) identifies a number of situations that direct a researcher to select a case study research strategy. The situations are outlined when the research is addressing ‘how’ and ‘why’ type questions (although applicable for quantitative studies as well); when the contextual backgrounds or conditions are unavoidable and have a bearing upon the phenomenon under investigation; when the manipulation of the behaviour of those involved in the study is not possible; and when the boundaries between context and phenomenon are not clear. These situations, together, led the researcher to choose a case study strategy to investigate the current research issues. For example, the contextual background in this research is particularly significant for interpreting the meaning of ‘reality’ and generating knowledge. Accordingly, a whole chapter (Chapter Four) in this thesis is designed on the research setting to understand the context. Yin (2009) also recommends a case study when multiple sources of evidence are used. The conceptual framework of this research requires the researcher to compile evidence from multiple sources to address a particular problem domain. Moreover, holistic and in-depth investigations underpin the researcher in adopting the case study method (Feagin, Orum & Sjoberg, 1991).
The use of case study research strategy is not free from critical comments; Shone (2013) summarises such critiques under two broad labels: lacking academic rigour and capability for scientific generalisation. The first criticism focuses mainly on the processes of evidence collection, analyses and subsequent reporting; where, it is argued, biases may prevail (Bailey, White, & Pain, 1999; Feagin et al., 1991; Flyvbjerg, 2006). Thus, biases remain instilled in human interpretations. Qualitative researchers respond to this criticism by emphasising the research design and methods; for example, the case study design establishes a chain of evidence through data flows from multiple sources (Yin, 2012, p. 4).
While the first criticism is process oriented in nature, the second one is very much place or location-specific (Feagin et al., 1991; Shone, 2013), indicting the degree to which the case findings can be deployed in other cases or locations. To face this challenge, Yin (2010, p. 21) proposed a two-step process and termed it as ‘analytic generalisation’. Yin described the process as follows:
The first involves a conceptual claim whereby investigators show how their case study findings bear upon a particular theory, theoretical construct, or theoretical (not just actual)
54 sequence of events. The second involves applying the same theory to implicate other, similar
situations where analogous events also might occur.
This view is strengthened by the ‘empirical generalisation’ concept of Tsang (2014, p. 371). Empirical generalisation in case studies identifies and isolates the ‘common patterns among diverse cases’ (Burawoy, 1998, p. 19), described as ‘empirical regularities’ by Tsang (2014, p. 379). These regularities, together, form the basis of ‘theoretical generalisation’ (Tsang, 2014, p. 371) and facilitate the second step of Yin’s ‘analytic generalisation’ process. Analytic generalisation influences the overall research process since the research is purposefully designed to test a conceptual framework (reflecting theoretical constructs from existing literature) within a case study setting. In this regard, the strength of a case study approach is observed through the ‘falsification’ (Tsang, 2014, p. 379) test of generalisation, which is associated with the testing of a conceptual framework. The falsification aspect, in general, adds an inductive feature where the initial framework remains open for adjustments based on the case findings. Thus, the case findings can reject the initial hypotheses or conceptual linkages for building a new conceptual framework that can be generalised under specified conditions.
3.3.2
Justifying Single-Embedded Case Study Approach
The underlying motivation for this research lies in developing a theoretical or conceptual framework, and subsequently testing the framework for its applicability that enables wider reflection to the framework. In this respect, the literature claims that a single-case design can be helpful to serve these purposes (Benbasat, Goldstein & Mead, 1987; Dyer & Wilkins, 1991). A single case study can increase the theoretical robustness by elaborating ‘the context of the constructs and the role these constructs play in a particular setting’, which ideally suits the interpretive social sciences paradigm (Dyer & Wilkins, 1991, p. 614). However, such a view is countered by researchers, such as Yin (2010) and Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007), who believed in the analytic power of multiple cases or situations to provide accuracy and greater generalisability being multiplied with the number of cases in consideration. In order to mitigate this limitation and to provide greater integrity to the conceptual framework, this research uses a single case with two embedded units. Baxter and Jack (2008, p. 550) prefer single case with embedded units when:
The ability to look at sub-units that are situated within a larger case is powerful when you consider that data can be analysed within the subunits separately (within case analysis), between the different subunits (between case analysis), or across all of the subunits (cross- case analysis).
The embedded units are considered as separate cases, which are believed to normalise the context or background significance while examining situations to strengthen the generalisability. These two issues are closely associated such that Sechrest and Sidani (1995) observe that without a clear understanding of the contextual nature, the reported data are not generalisable. Moreover, the diverse nature of stakeholder groups, especially community
55 residents, direct the current research to adopt a single-embedded case strategy. This is signified in the conceptual development phase where broader (tourism) stakeholder involvement and participation remains a key consideration for sustainable tourism development and the destination communities’ wellbeing.