3.2 Rationale for research decisions: the “why?”
3.2.3 Case study methodology
This dissertation answers the research question primarily by applying a qualitative case study approach. The case study methodology is grounded in an constructivist (sometimes also referred to as interpretive) research philosophy, the aim of which is not to seek causal links so much as to understand complex social phenomena (Schutt, 2012). Selecting the qualitative case study as a strategy of inquiry enables researchers to study complex phenomena within their context (Baxter & Jack, 2008), without attempting to either extract these phenomena from the context or control the context or behaviour of actors within it – both of which may be impossible (Yin, 2003). Case studies are useful in instances when the “case” is inextricably linked to its context and the context itself might be a pertinent subject of the study (Yin, 2003). In the case of India, and specifically its role in the climate change negotiations, its role is difficult to delineate or separate out from its interactions with other sovereign states at negotiations and meetings. Furthermore, its role internationally is continuously mediated and negotiated at a national level. This is particularly true when contemplating the state as part of a greater state- society complex, a formulation that is fundamental to the Coxian theoretical framework employed in this dissertation. Thus seeing the state as part of, and embedded in, society renders a case study approach both useful and necessary.
A case can be a range of subjects or objects from individuals to institutions, from responsibilities to outcomes (Stake, 1978), or "a phenomenon of some sort occurring in a bounded context"
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). Given the qualitative nature of the study (discussed below) and the chosen conceptual framework introduced in Chapter Two, this dissertation asserts the constructivist stance that “cases” are theoretically and socially constructed by researchers in order to answer questions, rather than simply existing “out there in the world” and ripe for the
9 http://www.mapsprogramme.org
picking (Burton, 2000). As such the case, as defined by the researcher, effectively becomes the unit of analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
Robert Yin and Robert Stake both suggested a taxonomy of case studies;10 both are useful ways of considering the case study and are not to the researcher's mind mutually exclusive (Baxter &
Jack, 2008). Thus this case study is considered to be an explanatory, intrinsic case study. There will certainly be elements of description but predominantly (and in keeping with the theory of change espoused by Cox) the research question seeks to understand the role played by India in the negotiations.
For reasons elaborated upon above the study of India's role at the climate change negotiations as a case is considered of interest not because it necessarily illustrates other cases, issues or characteristics but "because in all its particularity and ordinariness, the case itself is of interest.
The purpose is not [necessarily, though this is an option] to come to understand some abstract construct or generic phenomenon" (Stake, 1995).
3.2.3.1 Methodological critiques of the case study approach
One of the most widely levelled critiques against the case study as a research strategy is that its findings lack representativeness, being the product of “too small a sample” (Burton, 2000: 224), and thus that the findings of a case study are not generalisable beyond the particular case.
Given these limitations, the case study cannot further scientific development nor are its outcomes replicable in the manner of quantitative experiments (Tellis, 1997; Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). For many researchers trained in quantitative research methodology and steeped in the positivist world view, these limitations were grounds enough to claim that the scientific credentials of the case study as a research strategy were “ambiguous” at best (Lijphart, 1971).
These critiques are primarily rebutted by emphasising that the case study as a research strategy is not intended to produce statistical inferences, but rather to deepen the knowledge of the case being researched and to test theoretical propositions in order to produce analytical – not statistical – generalisations (Burton, 2000; Yin, 2003). The aim of qualitative researcher after all is not to seek causality or generalisability in the way quantitative researchers might, but rather to find illumination, understanding and, if possible, theoretical or analytical transferability to similar situations (Golafshani, 2003). The link between case study findings and the theory being
10 Yin distinguishes between exploratory, descriptive, and explanatory case studies (Yin, 2003) and Stake between intrinsic, instrumental and collective case studies (Stake, 1995).
___________________________________________________________________________ Chapter 3. Research Design
tested is of prime importance and any attempt to make statistical generalisations is to attempt to have the case study strategy produce what it was never intended to (Burton, 2000).
A further critique is that the case study is effectively one of the “lesser” research methodologies, only appropriate for generating hypotheses in the initial, exploratory phases of a larger research strategy and not for the weightier tasks of description and explanation (Yin 2003, 3). This hierarchical view has been repeatedly disputed in more recent literature on research methods (Yin, 2003; Flyvbjerg, 2006; Baxter & Jack, 2008). As Yin points out, one of the best-selling analyses of the 1962 Cuban missile crisis is Graham Allison's single-case explanatory case study, "Essence of the Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis" (Yin, 2003:
3–4).
A serious critique is that case studies lack rigour and have a bias toward verification (Yin, 2003;
Flyvbjerg, 2006). However, this is a critique that cannot be levelled at the case study strategy to the exclusion of other methodologies. For instance, as much as quantitative data appear unbiased and objective, the collection thereof is guided and moulded by the research question, chosen methods, and even the selection and phrasing of questions (where appropriate). Thus there is a distinct element of potential subjectivity even to quantitative data (Wisker, 2008).
Lastly, the experience of many case study researchers reveals that the very depth of understanding gleaned frequently reveals initial assumptions to be incorrect and therefore not verifiable (Flyvbjerg, 2006)
The last of the major critiques is that case studies can be too time-consuming to undertake and (often) to read (Yin, 2003; Flyvbjerg, 2006) as well as difficult to summarise. In relation to the latter point, case studies should be read as narratives in and of themselves that do not need to be summarised (Flyvberg 2006, 239-241). These narratives can sometimes be long as they contain detailed, highly nuanced understandings of complex cases, and not necessarily because researchers are particularly verbose. A strength of the case study strategy is that it is an
“expanding” and not an “expounding” strategy. It opens up enquiry by producing a depth of understanding, rather than narrowing down inquiry by distilling essences and looking for universal laws and rules (Stake, 1978); that said, the process of concluding such studies would also include drawing out lessons to be learnt from the study. In other words it is a comfortable
“fit” with a qualitative approach that seeks to elaborate understanding and considers knowledge creation to be an emergent enterprise – how that emerging knowledge is generated is the subject of the following section.