Selecting  cases

case  study  research  allows  flexibility  in  research  design.  Evidence  can  be  gathered  from   multiple  sources  and  analysed  so  that  the  different  sources  either  support  or  contradict   each   other,   and   hence   may   prompt   further   inquiry   or   confidence   in   the   findings   (Yin,   2009),   while   also   producing   context-­‐dependent   knowledge   (Flyvbjerg,   2011).   Flyvbjerg   argues  that  case  study  method  is  important  to  researchers  for  two  reasons:    

“First,   it   is   important   for   the   development   of   a   nuanced   view   of   reality,   including  the  view  that  human  behaviour  cannot  be  meaningfully  understood   as   simply   the   rule-­‐governed   acts   found   at   the   lowest   levels   of   the   learning   process,   and   in   much   theory.   Second,   cases   are   important   for   researchers’  

own  learning  processes  in  developing  the  skills  needed  to  do  good  research.”  

(Flyvbjerg,  2011,  p.  303)  

Case   studies   are   suitable   for   qualitative   research,   which   seeks   to   include   thorough   accounts  from  a  range  of  different  actors.  As  Lewis  notes,  case  studies  “are  used  where  no   single   perspective   can   provide   a   full   account   or   explanation   of   the   research   issue,   and   where   understanding   needs   to   be   holistic,   comprehensive   and   contextualised”   (Lewis,   2012,   p.52).   This   thesis   is   interested   in   how   innovations   develop   in   local   projects.   Case   study  approach  offers  the  opportunity  to  choose  real-­‐life,  context-­‐situated  experiences  for   analysis,   whilst   also   allowing   the   testing   of   theoretical   statements   relating   to   how   grassroots  innovations  use  and  contribute  to  niche  spaces  (see  for  example  Seyfang  et  al.,   2013a).  

3.2.2 Selecting  cases  

Case   study   research   can   include   a   variety   of   different   types   of   cases   and   a   different   number  of  cases  (Yin,  2009).  Descriptive  or  representative  cases  usually  explain  cases  of   which  there  is  little  previous  knowledge  of,  or  descriptive  illustrations  of  issues  thought  to   be  average  or  typical  (Hakim,  2000,  Yin,  2009).    Homogenous  cases  give  a  detailed  picture   of   a   certain   phenomenon   and   can   be   used   to   analyse   “social   processes   in   a   specified   context”  (Ritchie  et  al.,  2012,  p.79).  Heterogeneous,  or  maximum  variation,  cases  involve   cases   which   vary   from   each   other,   with   an   aim   that   common   themes   can   be   identified   across  the  cases  (Ritchie  et  al.,  2012).  Extreme  or  unique  cases  can  be  used  in  situations  

where  a  specific,  unusual  or  rare  case  occurs  (Hakim,  2000,  Yin,  2009),  and  these  cases  can   be  seen  to  be  potentially  enlightening  about  a  certain  phenomena  (Ritchie  et  al.,  2012).  

Sampling   based   on   intensity   is   similar   to   extreme   cases,   but   “focuses   on   cases,   which   strongly  represent  the  phenomena  of  interest,  rather  than  unusual  cases”  (Ritchie  et  al.,   2012,  p.79).  Critical  or  selective  cases  test  a  well-­‐formulated  and  proposed  theory,  which   the  case  is  testing  and  if  found  valid,  can  be  generalised  to  other  non-­‐critical  cases  (Hakim,   2000,   Yin,   2009).   Critical   cases   can   test   prevailing   ideas   and   are   designed   so   that   they   represent  “experimental  isolation  of  selected  social  factors  or  processes  within  a  real-­‐life   context”  (Hakim,  2000,  p.60).  Longitudinal  cases  follow  certain  cases  over  a  period  of  time   (Yin,  2009).  As  can  be  seen  from  the  literature,  the  definitions  of  cases  can  vary  somewhat   between  the  different  authors  (e.g.  Flyvbjerg,  2011,  Hakim,  2000,  Ritchie  et  al.,  2012,  Yin,   2009).  The  types  of  cases  are  summarised  in  Table  2  below.  

Type  of  cases   Description  

Descriptive/representative/typical  cases   Explains  a  case  of  which  there  is  little  previous   knowledge  of,  or  describes  illustrations  of  issues   which  are  thought  to  be  average  and/or  typical   Homogenous  cases   Gives  a  detailed  picture  of  a  certain  phenomenon   Heterogeneous/maximum  variation  cases   Cases  which  vary  widely,  with  an  aim  to  draw  

common  themes  across  cases     Extreme/unique  cases   Specific,  unusual  or  rare  cases  

Intensity  cases   Strongly  represents  a  phenomenon  of  interest   Critical/selective  cases   Tests  a  well-­‐formulated  and  proposed  theory   Longitudinal  cases   Follows  a  certain  case  over  a  period  of  time  

Table  2:  Summary  of  types  of  cases  (based  on  Flyvbjerg,  2011,  Hakim,  2000,  Ritchie  et  al.,  2012,   Yin,  2009)  

One  of  the  main  aspects  of  case  study  design  is  to  decide  between  a  single  or  a  multiple-­‐

case   design/collective   case   study   (Stake,   2005)   and   what   types   of   cases   to   select   (Yin,   2009).  Case  selection  can  be  based  on  theoretical  considerations  and  some  expectations   of  being  able  to  draw  theoretical  outcomes  from  those  cases  (Flyvbjerg,  2011,  Yin,  2009).  

Flyvbjerg  (2011)  notes  that  strategic  case  selection  is  not  set  in  stone,  but  cases  can  have   different  characteristics,  for  example  a  case  can  be  extreme  and  critical  at  the  same  time,   and  while  research  proceeds  and  more  is  learnt  about  the  case,  the  role  of  the  case  may  

shift.   Strategic   case   selection,   where   cases   are   representative   of   the   parent   population,   and   clear   research   methodology,   can   improve   generalisation   from   a   small   sample   size   (Lewis  and  Ritchie,  2012).  However,  Yin  argues  that  case  study  research  should  not  aim  for   generalisability  in  the  same  way  as  quantitative,  statistical  research  does,  but  rather  aim   for  analytical  generalisation,  in  which  “the  investigator  is  striving  to  generalise  a  particular   set   of   results   to   some   broader   theory”   (Yin,   2009,   p.43).   This   thesis   approaches   generalisation   carefully   and   follows   Yin   (2009)   in   a   sense   that   the   generalisation   is   reflected  on  the  theoretical  framework,  noting  also  the  following  in  relation  to  theoretical   generalisation:  

“It   is   our   view   that   qualitative   research   studies   can   contribute   to   social   theories   where   they   have   something   to   tell   us   about   the   underlying   social   processes  and  structures  that  form  part  of  the  context  of,  and  the  explanation   for,  individual  behaviours  or  beliefs.”  (Lewis  and  Ritchie,  2012,  p.263)    

In  this  thesis,  case  selection  is  based  on  information  oriented-­‐selection,  so  that  “cases  are   selected   on   the   basis   of   expectations   about   their   information   content”   (Flyvbjerg,   2011,   p.307)  and  they  are  expected  to  aid  the  analysis  of  micro-­‐scale  processes  involved  in  local   projects,   especially   in   relation   to   learning,   networking   and   sharing   experience.  

Furthermore,  case  selection  is  based  on  a  multiple-­‐case  design  and  replication  logic:  

“Each   case   must   be   carefully   selected   so   that   it   either   (a)   predicts   similar   results   (a   literal   replication)   or   (b)   predicts   contrasting   results   but   for   anticipatable  reasons  (a  theoretical  replication).”  (Yin,  2009,  p.54)  

The   following   theoretical   considerations,   which   are   key   to   this   thesis,   guide   the   case   selection  strategy:  

• The   thesis   is   interested   in   finding   out   how   new   innovations   develop   in   local   activities  (see  Chapter  2:  Theoretical  Framework).  

• The  theoretical  assumptions  are  that  local  projects,  which  develop  in  niche  spaces,   involve   the   processes   of   (1)   local   contextualisation,   (2)   negotiation   and   engagement  and  (3)  transferable  lessons  (see  Chapter  2:  Theoretical  Framework).  

• The   processes   evolving   from   the   project   are   dynamic   and   interactive,   in   other   words,   they   are   neither   static   nor   one-­‐way.   The   niche   space   can   support   the   development   of   local   projects,   whilst   local   projects   can   in   turn   feed   experiences   back   to   the   global   niche   level,   building   it   further   (Geels   and   Deuten,   2006).   This   suggests  a  constant  moving  relationship  between  phenomena  and  context  (Raven   et  al.,  2008).  One  aspect  to  the  thesis  is  to  explore  these  relationships  further.  

Based   on   these   assumptions,   the   following   criteria   were   used   for   case   selection   in   this   thesis:  

• An   area   of   study,   which   involves   local   innovative   activity.   This   is   why   community   energy  is  interesting  as  a  topic  for  this  thesis.  Community  energy  involves  people   at   civil   society   level,   who   develop   sustainable   energy   activities   that   have   traditionally  been  an  area  for  utilities.    

• An  area  of  study  where  local  innovative  activity  is  taking  place  in  a  niche  space.  As   discussed   in   Chapter   2:   Theoretical   Framework,   niches   provide   supportive   infrastructures  and  intermediary  activity,  where  networks  of  actors  develop  new   path-­‐breaking   innovations   and   help   shape   the   protective   niche   space   further   (Geels,  2002).  Niches  develop  as  sequences  of  innovative  projects,  which  start  to   emerge   and   learn   from   previous   experience   within   the   field   (Geels   and   Deuten,   2006).  Niche  innovations  can  be  supported  by  intermediary  actors,  who  perform   activities   such   as   providing   information   about   funding   opportunities,   creating   space  for  networking  and  developing  best  practice  guidelines  (Geels  and  Deuten,   2006).      

• In   order   to   analyse   the   development   of   community   energy   niches,   two   heterogeneous   contexts   were   chosen,   one   with   an   apparently   more   established   community  energy  niche,  the  UK,  and  another  with  a  less  established  community   energy   niche,   Finland.   Furthermore,   Finland   has   a   different   community   energy   context   to   the   UK.   The   socio-­‐technical   energy   system   in   Finland   is   localised   and  

based  on  municipal  actors,  while  the  UK  system  is  more  centralised.  This  provides   an   opportunity   to   identify   potential   central   themes   across   individual   community   energy  projects,  which  operate  in  those  two  different  contexts.    

• This   DPhil   is   linked   to   the   Community   Innovation   for   Sustainable   Energy   (CISE)   research  project,  which  analyses  the  community  energy  sector  in  the  UK.  Given  the   recent  rise  in  community  energy  activity  in  the  UK,  the  UK  provides  an  interesting   context   in   which   to   analyse   the   development   of   such   projects.   Work   within   the   CISE  project,  to  which  this  DPhil  research  has  also  contributed,  has  identified  that   there  is  evidence  of  a  global  phase  of  a  community  energy  niche  in  the  UK,  with  a   range  of  intermediary  actors  and  networks  operating  in  the  field  (Hargreaves  et  al.,   2013,  Seyfang  et  al.,  2013a,  Seyfang  et  al.,  2013b).  

• Finland  has  a  much  lower  level  of  community  energy  activity  than  the  UK.  There  is   evidence  of  local  projects  emerging,  however,  active  intermediation,  networks  and   policy  support  remain  limited  (Heiskanen,  2010,  Vehviläinen  et  al.,  2010).  Finland   makes   an   interesting   context   to   study   community   energy,   especially   given   the   country’s   strong   municipal   culture   compared   to   the   UK   (Käpylehto,   2011).  

Furthermore,  research  in  this  area  remains  rather  limited  (Heiskanen,  2010),  which   subsequently  provides  also  an  opportunity  to  make  a  contribution  to  this  area.    

• In  order  to  analyse  civil  society,  local  projects,  it  was  important  to  adopt  a  research   design,   which   would   include   empirical   data   collection   with   actual   community   energy   projects.   Key   aspect   of   empirical   research   is   the   practicalities   linked   to   research  in  the  field  (Yin,  2009).  Choosing  UK  and  Finland  provided  an  opportunity   to   analyse   the   development   of   niche   innovations   in   two   different   contexts.   The   researcher  has  lived  in  both  countries  and  is  fluent  in  English  and  Finnish  language,   which   meant   that   it   was   possible   to   conduct   in-­‐depth   case   studies   using   native   languages.   This   provided   access   to   a   potentially   wider   sample   of   literature   and   interviewees,   as   well   as   the   opportunity   to   conduct   in-­‐depth   interviews   and   analysis  as  cultural  and  linguistic  cues  could  be  taken  into  consideration.    

Small-­‐scale  qualitative  cross-­‐national  research  can  have  the  advantage  that  it  allows  the   researcher  to  study  certain  phenomena  “‘from  inside’,  in  their  cultural  and  social  context,   in  actual  local  practices,  and  in  people’s  everyday  life”  (Gómez  &  Kuronen,  2011,  p.  685),   which  can  also  be  seen  to  address  some  of  the  criticism  directed  at  previous  SNM  research   regarding  their  lack  of  incorporating  the  role  of  social  groups  and  every  day  life  (Shove  and   Walker,   2007).   Researching   community   energy   projects   in   two   different   countries   provided  an  opportunity  for  the  identification  of  potential  common  typologies  (Matthews   and   Ross,   2010)   and   narratives   across   multiple   cases   (Abbott,   1992).   Furthermore,   community   energy   was   analysed   in   a   cross-­‐national   context,   i.e.   the   nations/countries   were  defined  as  geopolitical  and  socio-­‐cultural  entities  (Hantrais,  2009),  while  also  taking   into   consideration   how   these   settings   could   produce   differences   in   niche   spaces,   especially  in  relation  to  niche  protection,  learning  processes  and  networking  (Smith  and   Raven,  2012).    

3.2.2.1 Unit  of  analysis  

The   primary   unit   of   analysis   in   this   thesis   is   a   community   energy   project,   allowing   the   analysis  of  local  projects,  while  also  providing  material  on  how  those  projects  interacted   with   global   niche   level   actors,   such   as   intermediary   organisations   (Geels   and   Deuten,   2006).  Given  the  time  and  resource  limitations  of  a  DPhil  research,  two  community  energy   projects  in  the  UK  and  two  in  Finland  were  chosen  for  in-­‐depth  analysis.    

Community   energy   project   selection   was   started   with   the   Finland   context,   as   there   are   fewer  community-­‐led  energy  projects  developed  there.  Projects  were  then  chosen  from   the  UK.  Even  though  previous  research  has  highlighted  the  diversity  of  community  energy   (Walker  and  Devine-­‐Wright,  2008),  in  order  to  match  the  definition  of  community  energy   within   this   research,   the   following   initial   characteristics   were   also   kept   in   mind:  

sustainable  energy  projects  addressing  either  heat  or  electricity  generation  or  saving  (such   as   renewable   energy   installations   or   energy   efficiency   measures),   and   projects,   which  

were  developed  and  owned  by  groups  of  people  who  lived  in  the  same  locality  (e.g.  co-­‐

operatives,  voluntary  resident’s  associations  or  charities).  Furthermore,  the  projects  were   chosen  in  relation  to  evidence  of  them  having  a  vision  (local  contextualisation),  involving   engagement  with  stakeholders  (negotiation  processes)  and  whether  there  was  evidence   of   learning   and   networking   (transferable   lessons).   Table   3   below   summarises   these   in   more  detail.  

Process   Explanation   Empirical  evidence  

Innovation   The  project  is  innovative  for  example   in  the  aspect  of  technology  use  or   group  organisation  

Project  uses  technology  which   is  new  to  the  community   Local  

contextualisation   Project  is  developed  to  fit  its  specific  

local  context,  with  a  clear  vision   Project  which  uses  existing   technology  but  adapts  it  to  its   local  setting  

Negotiation  and  

engagement   Project  plan  is  adjusted  in  negotiation   with  the  local  community  and  

Transferable  lessons   Lessons  from  the  project  are   translated  and  shared  with  other   actors  

Learning  from  project  is   shared  by  an  intermediary   organisation    

Table  3:  Processes  linked  to  project  development  and  niche  building    

The   following   section   explains   the   more   detailed   individual   community   energy   project   selection  for  Finland  and  the  UK.