Research Strategy – why a case study approach

The literature review has identified the gaps to be researched. This section justifies the use of a case study, and in particular, why a city with an established rights-based approach to governance was selected.

In social science research, theories have traditionally been generated by ‘combining observations from previous literature, common sense and

experience’ (Eisenhardt 2002, p.5). However there is also the need to collect empirical data to prove the reality; case studies are one way of collecting data from a particular vantage point and using this data to build theory on the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of wider societal trends and developments (May 2011). Given the impossibility of knowing society as a whole, case studies are a method of understanding the dynamics within a single, or a small number of settings; they are the ‘empirical investigation of a specified or bounded phenomenon’ (Smith 1978 cited in Mabry 2008, p. 214) and are used to understand complex social phenomena’ (Yin 2009, p. 4).

Case study research uses a combination of data collection methods such as ‘archives, interviews, questionnaires and observations’ (Eisenhardt 2002, p.9) and can also include a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, although understanding a case must go ‘beyond countable aspects and trends’ (Mabry 2008, p. 215). The driving force behind decisions about which sites and questions to examine, which methods and participants to use is a ‘deep understanding of particular instances of phenomena’, and this is why

Schramm (1971 cited in Yin 2009, p. 17) states that the ‘essence of a case study….is that it tries to illuminate a decision or set of decisions: why they were taken, how they were implemented, and with what result’. This quote

exemplifies the reason behind choosing a case study for this piece of research, which focuses on the decision making process behind public transport

investment.

There are however, concerns about reliability to be addressed in case study research as well as recognised limits to the extent in which findings from one, or a small number of case studies, can be generalised to pertain to wider society. Generalisability ‘refers to the capacity of the case to be informative about a general phenomenon’ beyond the case studied (Mabry 2008, p. 222). In most cases, the findings from a case cannot be generalised to whole populations, a point that is particularly relevant for single case studies, because in order to relate findings to another situation, other factors need to be standardised. Such standardisation is particularly difficult for studies of urban planning where

demographics and social and political contexts will always vary (Yin 2009, Mabry 2008). However, given the focus on the ‘right to the city’ and the small number of cities with rights agendas embedded in their political frameworks, it might be possible to generalise to some degree about how a legalistic right to the city plays out in practice and differs from other practices (inferred from the literature review). Such a limited degree of generalisation and theory-building, or the making of a ‘logical inference’ (Mitchell 1983 cited in May 2011, p. 223) may be permitted on a small-scale although the temptation to generalise widely must be resisted. This cautious approach to theory-building is supported by the

inductive nature of the study i.e. theory development occurs after data collection and during the analysis to attempt to explain the dataset (see section 4.2).

Another issue worthy of consideration is externality and culture. A case study researcher is usually an outsider to and can have a useful ‘external analytic perspective’ to objectively observe and critique the situation (Mabry 2008, p. 220). They also have no vested interest, which alleviates bias and promotes the credibility of the research. However, each culture develops particular narratives and norms around the social world and the initial lack of familiarity with the case can be a hindrance to the researcher. An absence of cultural competence can manifest itself in an inability to pick up on subtle or hidden meanings suggested by a multitude of actions, such as the offering of refreshments during an

interview. Familiarisation both with the case study setting through a period of observation can minimise any cultural gaps, as can purposive discussions with key informants to unearth local meanings (Mabry 2008). Cultural competence is a common issue in qualitative research but should not be seen as a barrier to good research as it can arise even when languages and backgrounds are the same between the researcher and participants; however, it is an important issue to register and reflect upon during analytical stages.

Building on grounded theory, Eisenhardt proposed an eight-step process to using case studies to build theory, which is to be followed in this study;

1. Getting started - defining the research question to focus the effort

2. Selecting cases - specifying the ‘population’ and identifying the sampling strategy

3. Crafting instruments and protocols - choosing the data collection methods in an attempt to triangulate the evidence

4. Entering the field - data collection stage, field notes, flexible and opportunistic data collection.

5. Analysing data - within-case analysis to gain familiarity with the data and generate preliminary theories

6. Shaping hypotheses - replication of logic across the cases, searching for evidence of ‘why’ behind the relationships presented to confirm and sharpen the theory.

7. Enfolding the literature - comparisons with similar and conflicting literature to build internal validity and extend the generalisability.

8. Reaching closure - ending the process when few improvements can be made. (Eisenhardt 2002, p7)

In terms of selecting cases to study, as Pettigrew (1988 cited in Eisenhardt 2002, p.12) noted, ‘given the limited number of cases which can usually be studied, it makes sense to choose cases such as extreme situations and polar types in which the process of interest is ‘transparently observable’’. This approach is the basis of theoretical sampling where case studies are chosen when something is known about them and their ‘alignment’ with the emergent theory. In this research, theoretical sampling determines that the case study must be one where the right to the city agenda is being progressed through some legalistic means, a situation which is recognised to be the atypical case in terms of transport planning and operation models (Mabry 2008). The extent to

which this approach is successful in terms of dealing with social exclusion is the topic to be studied.

The process of selecting cases was relatively straightforward due to the fact that there are only limited countries or cities in Latin America with a rights-based approach to governance formalised through administrative practices. These include Mexico City and its City Charter, Brazil and its constitution, and Ecuador with its constitution right to public participation in public policy (see Chapter 5). A single case study was chosen in order to study in depth such a ‘revelatory or unusual’ case and to avoid a focus on comparison rather than depth and understanding (May 2011, p. 233). The selection of Quito was made given the existence of mass public transport systems (three Bus Rapid Transit routes) and the plans to develop a Metro network in 2016, affording the opportunity to study a transport planning process ‘in action’.

Latin American cities have been well-researched from a mass transport system innovation point of view. Both Curitiba in Brazil and Bogotá in Colombia have Bus Rapid Transit systems that are emulated throughout the world. As these two cities have been researched before in the context of social exclusion, in view of aim of this research it was thought appropriate to study another city, one with a legal framework for rights-based approaches to governance, and thus Quito was selected as the case study for this research.

In summary, case studies are useful approaches to qualitative research allowing a deep understanding of the how and why behind certain social

to be aware of the cultural differences between the researcher and the researched.