CHAPTER FIVE – RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
5.3 Research method – case study
Data for this research project was collected through multiple case studies. According to Kothari (2004), the case study method is a technique by which an individual factor or group is analyzed in its relationship to any other in the group. Yin (2003) defines a case study as an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its natural context especially when the boundary between the “phenomenon” and “context” are not clearly evident. Case studies can also be perceived as methods for learning about a complex instance, based on a comprehensive understanding of that instance, obtained by extensive description and analysis of the instance, taken as a whole and in its context (Stake 1995; Yin 2003). Robson (2002) adds that case studies are detailed and reveal intensive knowledge about a single case or a small number of related cases. He also identifies the typical features of the case study research approach as (1) selection of a case(s) of a situation; (2) study of the case(s) in context; and (3) collection of information through a number of data collection techniques. Sommer and Sommer (2002) point out that due to its cost-effectiveness and intensiveness, case study, as a research methodology, is more appropriate to investigate innovations, their adoption and impacts. Sommer and Sommer (2002) also laud the richness and breadth of the materials in this research technique which facilitate in-depth reporting.
Case studies are not new to research. However, the history and development of the case study as a method of research is ridden with controversy. Tellis (1997), for instance, explains that the case study has been adopted and rejected in different periods in research history. The methodology was disused in the 1920s because it was not considered scientific when compared to statistics but it
135
returned to favour in the 1930s with the rise of positivism. The main criticism of the case study method was its reliance on single or limited number of cases giving it a “microscopic view” of the research issue making the findings hard to generalize. In spite of all these challenges, the case study remains one of the most common methods of qualitative research (Yin 2003). Yin (2003) attributes this apparent popularity to the fact that case studies investigate contemporary phenomena within their real-life contexts, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident and multiple sources of evidence are used. This research methodology has been associated more with sociological and anthropological research studies which seek more in-depth information than quantitative research methods can deliver.
Case studies can be very complex (Stake 1995). The case study technique assumes that social reality is created through social interaction, albeit situated in particular contexts and histories, and seeks to identify and describe before trying to analyze and theorize (Stark and Torrance 2005). Case studies also assume that things may not be as they seem; the truth can only be laid bare after an in-depth inquiry. Another major challenge of the case study as a research method is the difficulty of drawing the boundaries of cases and how far their results can be generalized (though generalization of research results is limited in qualitative research). This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that cases are not independent but are influenced by other factors which may not be captured in the study (Stark and Torrance 2005).
The benefits of the case study method for this project include: (1) its capacity to provide in-depth and richer overall view of the problem of study (Kothari 2004); (2) its ability to provide understanding and experience of the research issues first-hand in real life context (Stark and Torrance 2005); (3) its engagement of a wide range of respondents in data gathering and generation of findings (Sommer and Sommer 2002; Yin 2003); and (4) its potential to provide data not yet available quantitatively (Yin 2003).
Case studies also have some latent disadvantages that the researcher was cautious about. These include: (1) case studies are time consuming and labour intensive; (2) cause-effect conclusions are not easy to substantiate; (3) case studies may be subjective due to their contextual interpretation and the desire of the researcher to emphasize particular points; (4) results of case studies are difficult to generalize because they are specific and contextual; and (5) case studies are relatively expensive
136
compared to other research methods. These disadvantages notwithstanding, a case study was the best method for this project.
Yin (1993) identifies three categories of case study as: 1) Exploratory – condensed case studies, undertaken before implementing a large-scale investigation; 2) Explanatory – used to demonstrate or unravel causal situations; and 3) Descriptive – aimed at describing situations and often applying appropriate theories. Stake (1995) on the other hand suggests three other categories: 1) Intrinsic – when the researcher has more than a research interest in the case; 2) Collective – when more than one case is studied; and 3) Instrumental – when the case is used to understand what is more than obvious to the observer. Still, Davey (1991) identifies six categories:
1. Exploratory – preliminary studies preceding the main study;
2. Critical instance case studies – examination of a single or a few cases with no expectation of generalizability;
3. Programme implementation case studies – investigates whether a programme is being implemented as intended;
4. Programme effects case studies – evaluates the impact of a programme;
5. Illustrative case studies – utilizes one or more instance to show what a situation is like; and 6. Cumulative case studies – aggregate different information collected from different sites at
different times.
It is not easy to determine the case study typology applied in this study based on the categorizations above. Definitely, it was a combination of explanatory and descriptive as suggested by Yin (1993);
collective and instrumental as proposed by Stake (1995); and critical instance and illustrative as argued by Davey (1991).
The researcher‟s choice to conduct multiple case studies was not aimed at gathering a sample of cases for some sort of generalization for the population. Conversely, the researcher viewed the multiple cases as multiple scenarios which complement each other. The study was not concerned with statistical generalization but with analytic generalization (Yin 1993; Robson 2002). An important feature of the case study is that if more than one investigator is involved, they typically take on essentially similar roles. The tasks cannot be reduced with rigid formulae with division of function as in other research methods (Robson 2002). Though the researcher collected most of the
137
data himself, he was also supported in this study by five research assistants who were all recent graduates with Bachelor of Science degrees in Information Science from Moi University, Kenya. To reduce the possible error levels, the researcher trained all the assistants and closely supervised their work on a daily basis. The assistants were very useful in observations and mystery shopping88 in the libraries.
The case study sites were:
1. African Medical and Research Foundation‟s (AMREF) The Mahler Library based at the organization‟s headquarters and training school on Langata Road, Nairobi;
2. International Livestock Research Institute‟s (ILRI) InfoCentre at the organization‟s Nairobi Campus, off Naivasha Road;
3. Kenya Medical Research Institute‟s (KEMRI) Library at the headquarters in Ngumo area in Nairobi;
4. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute‟s (KARI) Library at the headquarters in Loresho, Nairobi; and
5. The International Centre for Agroforestry Research‟s (ICRAF) Library in Gigiri, Nairobi.
The researcher applied the information-oriented case study sampling strategy. Flyvbjerg (2006) explains that while random sampling focuses on representativeness alone, information-oriented sampling also focuses on expectations of information content of the cases. Thus, the researcher selected cases based on the amount and quality of information he expected them to generate about the research problem. The following specific criteria were applied:
1. Potential of the libraries to help the researcher maximize what he could learn due to their perceived commitment to modernize;
2. Variety of scenarios through the inclusion of local (KEMRI and KARI) and international (AMREF, ICRAF and ILRI) libraries which enabled the researcher to obtain rich and diversified findings applicable both locally and internationally;
3. Ease of access and anticipated cooperation from the librarians due to rapport established between them and the researcher;
88 This is the research information collection technique in which the researchers pose as ordinary members of the public so as to evaluate customer service related issues or assess quality of service.
138
4. The current level of adoption of new technologies in the delivery of library information services to the users;
5. The large and remarkably diverse population of the research communities served by these libraries; and
6. The expressed desire and willingness of the libraries to participate in the development and evaluation of new knowledge in librarianship.