PARTICIPATORY PROBLEM BASED PHRONETIC RESEARCH
CASE-BASED RESEARCH
As already presented, Flyvbjerg argues strongly for the use of case study as an appropriate method to get closer to the context and particularity of the research. In recent decades the interest in case study research has increased within the social sciences pointing exactly at the appropriate of case studies for research into complex social topics.
… the distinctive need for case studies arises out of the desire to understand complex social phenomena. In brief, the case study method allows investigators to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events – such as individual life cycles, small group behaviour, organizational and managerial processes, neighbourhood challenges, school performance, international relations, and the mature of industries” (Yin, 2009: 4).
Yin (2009) equal to Flyvbjerg also argues for a multifaceted approach in research, viewing case studies as one out of several possible methodical choices. He too argues for the value of combining various methods, and further also opposes some of the common arguments against case studies (Yin, 2009).
I anyhow still find that his approach towards case studies is reminiscent of his basis in the more classical science tradition. In spite of his argument for the case study as an appropriate method for gaining insight into non-controllable events (contrary to laboratory experiments), it seems that his objective with the book is precisely an attempt to take some kind of research control of the knowledge obtaining process using the ideals of laboratory experiments. While as researcher I of course have some preliminary ideas and interest in the field of study that guides my research – also in case studies – I find that Yin’s approach leaves too little room for actually adapting focus and approach to the specific of the field of study in terms of engaging with the specific problems as experienced by the actors of the case. This is e.g. apparent in his emphasis on a preliminary literature review as the departure for formulating the relevant question to be researched instead of engaging with the actual challenges of the actors experienced in the case and field of study (Yin, 2009).
As argued above, I conversely have tried to engage myself with the field of study and let inputs from the key participant actors have a significant effect on the chosen focus of the research, which then directs the literature reviews of past knowledge and conceptualisations relevant to look into. While I also used this participatory approach to distinguish my approach from that of Flyvbjerg, I still find that he - compared to Yin – attempt to get closer to the actual particularity of the context under study.
In the following, I will therefore present Flyvbjerg’s approach to the case study and his arguments for case studies as a valuable method in a progressive phronetic research to get familiar with the particularity central for actual add insight on the societal processes. This also includes what he frames as the “force of the example”
(Eksemples magt) in terms of how even single cases still can add valuable insight and learning relevant in a larger context (Flyvbjerg, 1999; Flyvbjerg, 2006: 228).
Flyvbjerg has in debates with other social science researchers (e.g. Stanford researchers) developed an argument for the case study based on what he describes as the five misunderstandings of the case study (see Flyvbjerg, 1999; Flyvbjerg, 2006):
• Misunderstanding 1: General theoretical (context independent) knowledge is more valuable and truthful than concrete, particular, practical and context-dependent knowledge;
• Misunderstanding 2: It’s not possible to generalise knowledge based on a single case, which is why a case study cannot contribute to building scientific knowledge
• Misunderstanding 3: A case study is most useful to generate hypotheses as the first step in an integrated research strategy, while other methods are more useful to test the hypothesis and the theories
• Misunderstanding 4: The case study has a tendency to verify the researcher’s preconceived ideas and assumptions
• Misunderstanding 5: It is difficult to draw conclusions about specific case studies and to generalise and conceptualise the knowledge.
As Flyvbjerg argues these five misunderstandings of the case study within the social science and humanities relate to the dominant paradigm of natural science being used to judge case studies. In contrast, Flyvbjerg argues that the case study is a proper method for the social sciences, when aiming for the science (knowledge) of the particular and contextual.
Case studies are a way to gain insights into the context-specific knowledge of human actions. A single case does not represent the average of the data under study, however an in depth understanding of the mechanisms of interest in the case will often provide valuable knowledge for learning about similar situations. In that sense
it is not the number of cases that is important for the value of the knowledge obtained, but the character of the cases, and how the cases are worked with. As such the case study can be used in all phases of a study – to inspire and clarify the problem analysis, to inform the research, and to conceptualise the learning and knowledge.
A case study brings the researcher into close relationship with the practice of the actors of the case. Depending on the researcher’s methods by which to listen and learn from the case, they can transcend their original preconceived ideas.
Finally, the researcher needs to be aware that any “generalisation” of a case study has to be modest, and very specific on the political, social and cultural contextual elements that are embedded in the research.
In the following I discuss the character of the Carbon 20 project as a case study.
This discussion is related to the kind of insights and knowledge that can be produced based on the case c.f. Flyvbjerg’s “the force of examples”.
Flyvbjerg talks about a strategic selection of relevant cases for research, and how to find these cases. I agree that it is – if possible18 - important to make some preliminary considerations about the expected values and research perspectives for the selection of cases, deciding which partners to involve in research projects, and/or the decision to join (or co-develop) projects centred on (a) particular case(s).
However, I find that Flyvbjerg’s emphasis on selection criteria as important for the
“case(s)” exemplarity is not entirely true to his own progressive phronetic research ideal and his emphasis on focussing on the particular and contextual. When engaging with the particular case(s), preliminary expectations will likely need adjustments in several different ways. The character of the case can thus change in respect to such preliminary selection criteria, whereas these pre-study selection criteria might need post-study revision19. I actually believe that most cases would be
18 In real life research situations the researcher does not necessarily have the privilege of picking and choosing from various cases. Several aspects will often restrict them. This could e.g. relates to: the question of willingness to participate; circumstances and opportunities;
personal contacts etc. Equally the researcher may also inter an on-going project and or the projects follow in continuing of previous collaborations. Such aspects are often crucial in deciding which actors and cases to base the research on. The use of pre-selection criteria is thereby rather idealised. Neergaard (2007) also add a selection criteria of “opportunistic selection” to catch such situations.
19 Some of the reasons for this focus on selection criteria instead of evaluation criteria might relate to the fact that he wrote against more traditional science approaches (cf. his five misunderstandings). This might also explain his inclusion of sample criteria that clearly resembles something to which more traditional science approaches could relate
useful as the basis for gaining valuable insight in respect to the problems of that case(s). The challenge might be to determine how to broaden the contribution.
I therefore questioning this “ideal” selection of cases, but acknowledge the valuable of discussing the character of the given case in respect to judging its relevance for other situations – both preliminary in the selection of the cases, but equally important to adapt depending on the particular insight obtain from the case. For such discussion of the character of a given case I find Flyvbjerg selection criteria useful – at least for his informative cases. I do however treat such more as post-study “evaluation” criteria rather than pre-post-study selection criteria.
Flyvbjerg (1999: 150) has listed different criteria in respect to both informative selection and random selection. He lists the following selection criteria20 (see Table 1).
20 Neergaard (2007) has attempted to expand Flyvberg’s selection criteria by gather several diverse contributions for setting up such selection criteria. She has both added several different criteria, but also removed one of Flyvbjerg’s criterions. She further renamed Flyvbjerg’s “information oriented selection” approach to “formålsbestemt udvælgelse”
(purposive selection). I find her idea of purposive selection appealing, but I have some difficulties in following her framing of the selection criteria. Several of her criteria seem to be a specification of some of Flyvbjerg’s categories, but still figure at same “level” as the criteria adopted from Flyvbjerg. For my discussion of Carbon 20 as a case, I do not find that the additional criteria add that much. She does add the criterion of “opportunistic selection”
to capture some of the actual reality of the way cases often is selected. She specifically recommend not to follow this selection strategy (alone), but at least acknowledge it as a relevant starting point, that can be adjusted by selecting additional cases (Neergaard, 2007).
Table 1 – Selection criteria for case studies (Flyvbjerg, 2000: 230)
A. Random selection To avoid systematic biases in the sample. The sample’s size is decisive for generalisation.
1. Random sample To achieve a representative sample that allows for generalisation for the entire population.
2. Stratified sample To generalise for specially selected subgroups within the population.
B. Information oriented selection
To maximise the utility of information from small samples and single cases. Cases are selected on the basis of expectations about their information content.
1. Extreme/deviant cases To obtain information on unusual cases, which can be especially problematic or especially good in a more closely defined sense.
2. Maximum variation cases
To obtain information about the significance of various circumstances for case process and outcome (e.g., three to four cases that are very different on one dimension: size, form of organisation, location, budget).
3. Critical cases To achieve information that permits logical deductions of the type, “If this is (not) valid for this case, then it applies to all (no) cases.”
4. Paradigmatic cases To develop a metaphor or establish a school for the domain that the case concerns.
The Carbon 20 project, as the case in this PhD thesis, clearly plays the role of “an information rich case”. What I am interested in is not attempting to make any generalisations about how municipalities everywhere could or should act to influence companies, but to obtain specific contextual knowledge of the particular case, which will hopefully bring about learning and insights that have utility for both the participating municipalities and the specific context, but further also provide relevant experiences and input for similar situations.
I will furthermore characterise it as an extreme/deviant case. The project is supported by the EU Life+ programme. Not all municipalities have the network or the capacity to participate in a EU project. The Carbon 20 project is furthermore also led (or steered) by the municipality interest, and the municipalities have prioritised to engage in the project and to invest themselves. This makes the case
“deviant“, as most (Danish) municipalities do not have such capacity.
As also mentioned in the introduction, the participating municipalities have mutually committed themselves to green targets through the partnership constellation of “Green Cities”21. This implies that the participating municipalities can be expected to prioritise the green agenda beyond that of other municipalities.
This underscores the case as an “extreme” case. For some of the specific assessments, it might even have the character of a “critical” case, if, for example, it is found that even such “frontrunner” green municipalities have difficulties adhering to the green agenda.
Often, when developing new strategies for implementation, it is important to build on the most ambitious and advanced cases in order to learn the most, which can later be spread to the other municipalities. This has been the objective of the Carbon 20 project, and as such this case is exemplary as being an “extreme” case or even
“paradigmatic” in terms of providing advices to follow.
When we take a closer look at the case, we can see that it altogether involves seven municipalities. This provides an opportunity to determine whether there is some
“variation”22 within the case.
Neergaard (2007) adds several variation criteria in addition to Flyvbjerg’s
“maximum”. For me it is not quite clear what the purpose is of such further distinctions is, but neither what the specific purpose of Flyvbjerg’s inclusion of Maximum before the variation. What I find important is how the case(s) vary both from each other and from other cases, so that any reader has the option to judge on which terms the knowledge is based and thus whether it is relevant for their interest or context. Neergaard (2007) specifically name this “analogue generalisation” in terms of providing insight that might be useful for other similar cases. She argues that for such analogue generalisation the judgement about possible utility is not necessarily up to the researcher, but the reader. The task of the researcher is to make such judgement possible (Neergaard, 2007).
21 As also mentioned Næstved is not part of this, but was a candidate at the time of the application for Carbon 20 to the EU Life+
22 I have deliberately chosen to leave out the “Maximum” as it is not quite clear to me what Flyvbjerg actually means by adding this.
In the following, I’m going to briefly present the seven municipalities.
The participating municipalities are quite diverse, including: the main city of Copenhagen, the capital of Denmark; three suburb municipalities of Copenhagen, respective Albertslund, Allerød and Ballerup; and three (bigger) middle-sized municipalities of Herning, Kolding and Næstved each consisting of a city centre,
“suburbs” neighbourhood, and rural areas and smaller villages.
Table 2 - Inhabitant in the Carbon 20 municipalities (Danmarks Statistik, 2014a)
Copenh agen
Allerød Albertsl und
Ballerup
Herning
Kolding
Næstved 572376 24201 27780 48477 86813 90257 81486 Copenhagen, with its almost 600,000 residents, is the largest municipality in Denmark. The next in line are Aarhus, Aalborg and Odense with around 200,000-330,000 inhabitants (Danmarks Statistik, 2014b).
The Copenhagen municipality only includes half the population of greater Copenhagen’s more than 1 million inhabitants, whereas the rest are inhabitants of suburban municipalities. As opposed to Aarhus, Aalborg and Odense, the Copenhagen municipality thus includes only urban areas, whereas the others also include suburbs and even rural areas.
The suburban municipalities of Copenhagen vary in size ranging from 20-30.000 inhabitants to 75.000 inhabitants. Allerød and Albertslund are some of the smallest with between 20-30,000 inhabitants, whereas Ballerup is in the larger end with its almost 50,000. The majority of the suburban municipalities of Copenhagen are in the range – 30-50,000 (Danmarks Statistik, 2014b).
The three middle-sized cities (Herning, Kolding and Næstved) belong to a bigger group of such towns ranging in seize from 40.000 to 115.000, with several around same seize as those three municipalities participating in Carbon 20 (ibid).
The municipalities participating in the Carbon 20 project cover thus a broad variety of the various sizes and types of municipalities present in Denmark, although representation of the most remote (and smallest) rural municipalities is lacking.
I do not, as such, systematically discuss these differences between the municipalities in this thesis, but I highlight it where I have found it to be of significance.