Consideraciones preliminares

Case studies can provide rich materials for advancing theoretical ideas and also provide insight at all stages of the theory – building process, and probably most valuable in testing theories (Gillham, 2000; Shields, 2009; Yin, 2014). It is often adopted in social science as a comprehensive method.

Yin (2014) states that there are six sources of evidence when understanding case studies: archival records, documentation, interviews, direct observations, participant-observation, and physical artifacts. However, according to

Marshall and Rossman (2006), a complete list of sources can be quite extensive - including films, photographs, and videotapes; projective techniques and psychological testing; proxemics; kinesics; ‘street’

ethnography; and life histories. Most possibly, extensive sources (such as -films, photographs, and videotapes) can provide some resources during the process of applying methodologies of archival records and documentation.

No single source has a complete advantage over all the others. Actually, the various sources are highly complementary, and a good case study will therefore need to explore enough sources via several methodologies (Yin, 2009, p.101). All evidence will be of interest to the case study researcher, albeit varying in relevance and reliability (Knight and Ruddock, 2008).

According to the above review, four main methodologies might be usually accepted for most social science research. They are documentation, direct observation, interviews, and visual mapping.

a) Documentation

This type of information can take many forms and should be the object of explicit data collection plans. These can be letters, memoranda, e-mail correspondence, and other personal documents, such as diaries, calendars, and notes. Drawings and contractual documentation, and bills of quantities are also included as an important form. Moreover, it is necessary to consider agendas, announcements and minutes of meetings, and other written reports of events. In addition, administrative documents should be focused on; for instance, proposals, progress reports, and other internal records.

Furthermore, formal studies or evaluations of the same ‘case’ that researchers are studying should be clearly noted. Finally, it is significant to pay attention to news clips and other articles related to the field of study appearing in the mass media or in community newspapers (Proverbs and Garneson, 2008; Yin, 2014). These above and other types of documents are all increasingly available through internet searches. The documents are useful even though they are not always accurate and may not be lacking in bias. In fact, documents must be carefully used and should not be accepted as literal recordings of events that have taken place. For case studies, the

most important use of documents is to corroborate and augment evidence from other sources. Systematic searches for relevant documents are important in the data collection plan in view of documents that play an explicit role in any data collection in doing case studies (Yin, 2009, p.103).

b) Direct observation

Langley (1988) holds the opinion that observation involves looking and listening very carefully. We all watch other people sometimes, but we don’t usually watch them in order to discover particular information about their behaviour. This is what observation in social science involves (Langley, 1988). According to Gillham (2000, p.45), very simply observation has three main elements which are watching what people do, listening to what they say, and sometimes asking them clarifying questions. Gillham (2000) also defines two types of observation: one is participant: being involved – mainly descriptive, i.e. qualitative, and the other is detached/structured: watching from ‘outside’ in a carefully timed and specified way – counting and classifying what you see, i.e. quantitative. These are categorised into participant observation and direct observation. Participant observation is one of the most common methods for qualitative data collection; it requires the researcher to be a direct participant in the context or culture being observed.

Normally this needs months or years of intensive work because the researcher should become accepted as a natural part of the culture in order to assure that the observations are of the phenomenon in its natural context or setting. Direct observation on the other hand does not require the researcher to become a participant in the context. On the contrary, the direct observer should try to be as unobtrusive as possible in order not to bias the observations. In addition, direct observation suggests a more detached perspective: that is, the researcher is watching rather than taking part.

Moreover, the researcher is observing sampled situations. Therefore, it tends to be more focused on direct observation than participant observation. Finally, direct observation tends not to take as long as participant observation (Social Research Methods, 2013). According to Proverbs and Gameson (2008, p.103), direct observation involves the researcher observing and recording

what they see and hear. The intention is to minimise the effect of the researcher’s presence in order to capture an unbiased and accurate reflection of people’s actions and practices.

Direct observation can range from formal to casual data collection activities.

Most formally, observational instruments can be developed as part of the case study protocol, and the fieldworker may be asked to assess the occurrence of certain types of behaviours during certain periods of time in the field. This can involve observations of meetings, sidewalk activities, factory work, classrooms, and the like. Less formally, direct observations might be made throughout a field visit, including those occasions during which other evidence, such as that from interviews, is being collected. Based on the above discussion, the researcher took the decision to apply direct observation as an exploratory technique in this study.

c) Interviews

Qualitative research is concerned with meaning and not making generalised hypothesis statements (Crouch and McKenzie, 2006). Interviews are one of the major approaches in collecting data in qualitative research (Flick, 2007), so it is important to understand the different interview methods adopted by three aspects: understanding interviews, sample size, and data collection and analysis.

 Understanding interviews

Interviews have long been one of the key data collection instruments in case studies. According to Flick (2009, p.150), several types of interviews may be distinguished including the focused interview, the semi-standardised interview, the problem-centred interview, the expert interview, and the ethnographic interview. There are also other different divisions about the types of interviews. Yin (2014) posits three interview types. One type of case study interview is the prolonged case study interview. The interviewees can be asked about their insights, explanations, and meanings related to certain occurrences (Yin, 2014, p.111). This form of interview may take place over two hours or more. A second type is a shorter case study interview. This

normally takes a shorter period of time - an hour rather than occurring over an extended period of time or over several sittings, for example. In such cases, the interviews may still remain open-ended and assume a conversational manner, but researchers are more likely to be following a certain set of questions derived from the case study protocol (Yin, 2009). A third type entails survey interviews with more structured questions, along the lines of a formal survey. Such a survey could be designed as part of an embedded case study and produce quantitative data as part of the case study evidence (Yin, 2014, p.112). This situation would be relevant, for instance, if researchers were undertaking a case study of an urban design project and surveyed a group of designers about the project (e.g. Crewe, 2001) or if researchers did a case study of an organisation that included a survey of workers and managers. Moreover, Haigh (2008) claims that several types of qualitative interviews exist which are used by researchers in the built environment; for example, topical history, life history, oral history, evaluation interview, focus group interview, and cultural interviews. Topical interviews are concerned with the facts and sequence of an event (Haigh, 2008). The interviewer is interested in a reconstruction of the experience and what happened. Life histories deal with individual experience or rites of passage.

The evaluation interview might be used by a researcher in a construction company or project to review practices and initiate continuous process improvement (Haigh, 2008). The cultural interview is mainly about the norms, values, understandings, and taken-for-granted rules of behaviour of a group or society (Haigh, 2008). This type of interview reports on typical shared activities and their meanings.

This one-to-one interview is arguably the primary form (Crouch & McKenzie, 2006, p.484). In light of the above explanation, shorter case study interviews seem to be appropriate for this research as a certain set of questions derived from the case study protocol could be followed.

 Sample size

Samples for qualitative studies are generally much smaller than those used in quantitative studies like questionnaire (Mason, 2010). Moreover, Crouch and McKenzie (2006, p.484) argue that interview-based studies involving a small number of respondents are becoming more common in social science research (often less than 20). Within a broad research area, different attendants may have varied opinions. For instance, according to Mason (2010, p.8), the most common sample sizes were 20 and 30 (followed by 40, 10 and 25). He also states that the significantly high proportion of studies utilising multiples of 10 as their sample is the most important finding from his analysis (p.8). In addition, Bertaux (1981, p.35) considers that 15 is the smallest acceptable sample size for all qualitative research. However, Jette, Grover and Keck (2003) suggest that expertise in the chosen topic can reduce the number of participants needed – while Lee, Woo and MacKenzie (2002) suggest that studies using more than one research method require fewer participants. As a result, the sample size can be less than 15 in this research in light of the above review.

 Data collection and analysis

There is an accepted interview protocol for data collection and analysis. The following seven stages for the interviewer could be included in this protocol referenced by Kvale (2007, p.35):

 Thematising. Formulate the purpose of an investigation and the conception of the theme to be investigated before the interviews start.

The why and what of the investigation should be clarified before the question of how-method-is posed;

 Designing. Plan the design of the study, taking into consideration all seven stages of the investigation, before interviewing. Designing the study is undertaken with regard to obtaining the intended knowledge and taking into account the moral implications of the study;

 Interviewing. Conduct the interviews based on an interview guide and with a reflective approach to the knowledge sought and the interpersonal relation of the interview situation;

 Transcribing. Prepare the interview material for analysis, which generally includes a transcription from oral speech to written text;

 Analysing. Decide, on the basis of the purpose and topic of the investigation, and of the nature of the interview material, which modes of analysis are appropriate for the interviews;

 Verifying. Ascertain the validity, reliability and generalisability of the interview findings. Reliability refers to how consistent the results are, and validity means whether the interview study investigates what is intended;

 Reporting. Communicate the findings of the study and the methods applied in a form that meets scientific criteria.

Overall, interviews are an essential source of case study evidence because well-informed interviewees can provide important insights into the relevant situations under investigation (Yin, 2014, p.113).

d) Visual research and imagery analysis

We are surrounded by different sorts of visual technologies – photography, film, video, digital graphics, television, acrylics, for example – and the images they show us – TV programmes, advertisements, snapshots, public sculpture, movies, surveillance video footage, newspaper pictures, and paintings, which offer views of the world we live in (Rose, 2007, p.2). There is another view that visual is the most fundamental of all senses. Gordon Fyfe and John Law (1988, p.2) believe that depiction, picturing and seeing are ubiquitous features of the process by which most human beings come to know the world as it really is for them. John Berger (2008) claims that seeing comes before words, and the child looks and recognises before it can speak; however, some writers tend to historicise the importance of the visual sense (Rose, 2007). Schirato and Webb (2004, p.57) argue that seeing is a kind of reading, one which makes use of particular technologies and various skills in framing, selecting, editing and decoding the visual material that surrounds us.

Stanczak (2007, p.10) takes the view that images are direct representations of the field once we have left it. Therefore, as a PhD study of Architecture

and Urbanism, visual research is also one of the most important methodologies to consider the creative ways in which a researcher uses visual techniques and tools in the fieldwork while collecting data.