The over-arching approach adopted for ‘field’ investigations is that of ‘case study’. The data generation strategy is that of ‘mixed method’. ‘Case study’, on the one hand, is traditionally a method of qualitative analysis. Developed first within the context of social research by the North American Chicago School, the approach has since then been differently defined by scholars. The generally acceptable understanding of ‘case study’ is that it is a method of intensive study of social ‘cases’ and ‘actors’, so as to identify patterns of social relations, influences, processes, and existential complex situations (Hamel et al., 1993; Ghosh & Chopra, 2003; Gray, 2004; Braun & Clark, 2006; Deacon et al., 2007; Yin, 2009; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). But within the context of this study, the qualitative case study is taken to mean an evidence-based descriptive, analytical, and interpretative process that has inductive implication.
Within the context of this definition, ‘case study’ as an approach is distinguishable from its ‘methods’ of inquiry. While case study signifies the ‘process’ of making decisions about every aspect of the study and about what is to be studied, the ‘methods’ highlight the wide range of ‘techniques’ for generating and analyzing data about the subjects of study (Mason, 2002: Thomas, 2011). The kind of case study model I have adopted for
Page | 121
this work is that of ‘multiple case study’ or ‘cross-case analysis’, whereby selected
cases are studied as ‘parallel’ and ‘comparative’ reality and not as ‘sequential’ or
‘nested’ occurrences (Thomas, 2011). With regards to the ‘methods’ of investigation, emphasis is placed on the use of oral interviews, direct personal observation, questionnaire, documentary study, and general analytical strategy. The practical and strategic reasons for their choice are explained later in the chapter.
However, the central methodological logic that underpins the entire case study is, fundamentally, defined by its argument-building potential, whereby comments from activists, academics, regulatory and community media institutions are approached as the primary sources of descriptive and interpretative information. How social actors (as ‘insiders’) make meaning of their experiences and activities in relation to their community media formations also remain the issue of primary concern. This inductive logic is context and process-sensitive. Within this theory-building approach, my mind remains focused on my research questions and open to the themes or interpretations suggested by my data.
‘Mixed method’, on the other hand, is one of the common elements of qualitative research. The strategy is underlined by the integration of a survey or statistical instrument, such as a questionnaire, into a qualitative study (Mason, 2002). The adoption of the mixed method of qualitative orientation is informed, firstly, by the need to ‘triangulate’ empirical data so as to approach research questions from a variety of angles (Thomas, 2011; Mason, 2002). Secondly, it is motivated by the need to avoid an ‘elite bias’ in the study by talking only to high-status respondents and neglecting the valuable views of other (‘non-elite’) employees of community media establishments. Thirdly, the mixed method is significant in highlighting the fact that ‘numbers and
Page | 122
words are both needed if we are to understand the world’ around us (Miles & Huberman, 1994: 40).
Both the qualitative methods and the survey instrument introduced into this study are used at the level of data presentation and analysis, not as separate entities, but in an
interactive and corroborative way, to explore, describe and interpret the same
phenomena (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Mason, 2002). The qualitative data are coded
thematically, and the survey data numerically in terms of percentage scoring. The use of
mixed methods will enable an expansion in the scope and breadth, not only of empirical findings and information sources, but also of research arguments in relation to how community media groups impact on media policy changes.
Thus, the use of case study approach and mixed-methods is aimed, firstly, to enable one establish a close tie with alternative media groups and coalitions within the three selected countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, so as to provide conversational opportunities for in-depth examinations of the state of community media and the impact of alternative media activism on media policy developments. Secondly, the approach is considered flexible enough to allow the transition from mere empirical details and analysis to the definition of hypothesis or arguments with regards to the objects of study. Thirdly, they provide means by which practical solutions could be proffered to address specific issues that could hinder the future contributions of alternative media organizations (albeit civil societies) to policy developments.
In pursuing these goals by way of mixed methods of case study, I am also conscious of the political requirement of the academic community in terms of the representativeness and rigorousness of the qualitative method in yielding data that could be considered as scientific for the purpose of fruitful theoretical analyses and practical suggestions.
Page | 123
While there are competing claims with regards to the authority of qualitative case study that seeks to create spaces for empirical findings, generally the arguments of the critics of empirical case study methodologies (e.g. the experimental analytical researchers of the Columba University in New York and the structural analytical strategists of the French Anthropological tradition founded by Claude Lévi-Strauss) have been based primarily on three factors:
• The presumed lack of representativeness of a single case used as a vantage point for the study of social phenomena;
• The presumed lack of rigour that often accompany the collection, construction, and analysis of empirical data; a lack that presumably arise from the subjectivity of the researcher and the subjective bias contained in the comments of field respondents; and,
• The presumption that qualitative narratives and criticism offer very little ethical gain to the field of objective social science (Hamel et al., 1993).
Thus, at the heart of the criticisms (especially those of the Realist and Poststructural traditions) surrounding the use of qualitative method for any research work is the politics and ethics of evidence and the value of qualitative work in addressing matters of equity, social justice, and minority empowerment (Denzin & Lincoln, 2001).
In this regard, the credibility of the adopted case study approach shall rest on its descriptive, illustrative, and critical interpretative frameworks. This position is solidly affirmed by Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln, when they rightly observe that ‘the province of qualitative research, accordingly, is the world of lived experience; for this is where individual belief and action intersect with culture’ (2011: 2). Under this model, the authors maintain that it is the empirical materials generated from social actors and
Page | 124
institutions that enable illustrative and interpretative practices and constitute the very representativeness and credibility of qualitative research data.
Consolidating this argument, Maanen et al. (1993) argue that the representational value of case study methodologies is best appreciated when it is understood that the wealth of empirical materials they generate could be valuably used for sound theoretical and sociological arguments that could either consolidate aspects of already established general theories or resolve issues raised by rival hypothetical theories, through the discovery of additional units of information that improves on what is already known. In this regard, the authors maintain that qualitative researchers should be perceived as
journalists, whose works are authoritative because the scientific nature of those works
are essentially informed by the ability of researchers to explore, critique, and interpret the subject-matter of their research on the basis of their empirical investigations. Secondly, their works are credible because their chosen strategies allow them to examine, illustrate, and confront both the constraints of everyday life of social actors and connect those constraints with the very research questions they raise for the purpose of practical recommendations.
Seen in the light of these arguments, the justifications for adopting a qualitative research approach for this work may be said to rest on the following factors:
• The need to generate extensive empirical materials for the analysis of particular
cases of media policy changes and of the ‘active’ (or passive) role of alternative
media institutions within Ghana, Nigeria, and South Africa in the processes of policy reforms;
• The method will help the identification and explanation of the complexities and diversities of alternative media structures and policy visions/values and how these
Page | 125
interrelate with the policy visions of national governments and/or mainstream media professionals;
• The method will be useful in highlighting the essential elements of reformed media policies of 1990 – 2010 that operate to strengthen (or weaken) community media practices across the three countries of Anglophone Sub-Saharan Africa;
• The method is employed because it generally draws on the benefits of applied qualitative traditions, which purposes are to expand our knowledge of the organizational processes and problems of small media institutions; indicate the possible solutions to organizational problems; and help develop findings of practical relevance for institutional stakeholders, within the context of their cultural and social differentiations (Gray, 2004);
• Finally, the employment of qualitative methods will make ‘the careful selection of the research ‘site’ the most critical decision in the analytical process of the experiences of alternative media groups and of their involvements in policy reforms.