Determinación de la viabilidad celular

The research design can be seen as the empirical backbone of the entire thesis. It is the connecting logic that links the data with the research question, allowing synthesis to occur and conclusions to be formed. As a “comprehensive catalog of research designs” has yet to be created, Yin lays out what he calls a “basic set of research designs,” (Yin 1994: 19) but acknowledges the need for continual modification and improvement. As this juncture in the development of case study research designs, many different theorists describe the major conceptual responsibilities that should be adhered to in order to ensure a rigorous case study that is methodologically sound (see Yin 1994; Stake 2000; Maylor and Blackmon 2005; Punch 2005). This section will explore the case study research design, describing how each component pertains to the case of community planning in Fife.

Maylor and Blackmon (2005) describe three key elements of a case study design: defining the case to be studied; determining what data is needed and how to collect it; and, deciding the method of analysis and how to present the data (see Maylor and Blackmon 2005: 243). In a similar but more detailed way, Punch (2005: 148) and Stake (2000: 448) both list six principles, or major conceptual responsibilities, that should make up the case enquiry. In parallel with Maylor and Blackmon’s (2005) guidelines, Punch (2005) and Stake (2000) argue the need for definition of the case, its boundaries, the need for the case and its general

purpose. The purpose of these steps is to translate general purpose into specific questions in order to identify an overall strategy for the case study (for example, whether it be single of multiple case) (Punch 2005). Punch’s (2005) final two steps mirror the last two of Maylor and Blackmon (2005) stated above.

Selecting the phenomena and developing the research questions, seeking the data to pursue the issues, looking for patterns in the data, triangulation of observation, alternative interpretations, and the development of assertions or generalisations are all characteristics of other forms of qualitative research (Stake 2000). It is the conceptualisation of the issue and the bounding of that issue into a case form is what separates the case study method from other forms of enquiry.

The guidelines described by Punch (2005) and Maylor and Blackmon (2005) are echoed by both Stake (2000) and Yin (1994). Though all slightly different, they each ponder over the same points. Through the synthesis and amalgamation of these literatures on research design, it is possible to deduce that designing a case study consists of four key components. Firstly, the researcher must know what he or she is asking. The research question sets the tone for the rest of the study, for the method that follows, the data recorded, and the ensuing analysis. Secondly, the researcher must consider what type of data is needed to answer his or her question. Thirdly, a decision must be made regarding where and how to pursue the data required by the research question. Finally, the recorded data must be analysed, processed and presented in a fashion that represents the reality and answers the questions at the heart of the study.

To help clarify the goals and methods of the case study, the following section will examine briefly some of the more important questions of the case method within the context of the five components Yin (1994: 20-27) describes as being crucial to research design.

1. The study’s questions:

• How does an organisation use scenario planning to inform the strategic planning process?

With the key sub-questions being:

• How do cognitive processes manifest themselves physically in an organisation?

• How does an organisation manage the scenario planning process? • How does scenario planning affect policy development?

2. The study’s purpose:

If propositions are difficult to generate, as they are in explorative cases, Yin (1994) states that a purpose of justification will suffice. Therefore, the purpose is to examine how scenario planning informs the strategic planning process. By understanding scenario planning as an activity of episodic, interactive strategizing, findings will address the empirical and theoretical shortcomings in the scenario planning literature, as well as advancing understanding of the growing S-as-P perspective.

3. Unit of analysis:

The specification of the primary research questions should be the first step in selecting appropriate units of analysis. The unit of analysis, a major part of the case study design, can be a group of people, individuals, or even a decision, a program, or an implementation process (Benbasat et al. 1987; Feagin et al. 1991; Yin 1994). However, Yin (1994) warns of using decisions or programs or processes as units of analysis as they are not easily definable. Also, it is not necessary to be restricted to just one unit of analysis; often multiple units are necessary to answer the research questions (Yin 1994).

The case study is about an organisation’s scenario-informed planning process, where the development (and subsequent updates) of Fife’s Community Plan is an embedded unit of analysis (Yin 1994) used as an illustrative product. Maylor and Blackmon (2005) describe the ‘embedded case study’ as involving the multiple studies in a single setting, which affords the researcher the ability to keep the context constant while investigating different elements, for

example, hierarchical levels (Maylor and Blackmon 2005: 247). As the conceptual foundations of thesis lie in the scenario planning and S-as-P literatures, the units of analysis are in keeping with the literature. Therefore, as S-as-P research aims to dig underneath the organisational level, the units of analysis are multiple and concentrate on the episodes of strategizing:

• The scenario planning process

• The strategic planning process

As part of these strategizing episodes, three further units of analysis were required:

• The steering group (Fife Partnership)

• The scenarios

• The Community Plan

After deciding upon the units of analysis, it is important to distinguish whom or what is within or outside of the study (i.e., those whom and that which are an immediate topic of the study and those whom and that which form the context of the study). Specifically, the people within the immediate topic of the study:

• The steering group (members of the Fife Partnership)

• The scenario planning facilitators

• Those responsible for the implementation of the work agreed upon by the Steering Group (specifically, individuals who are members of the Fife Council or are associated to the Fife Partnership but not directly involved in the scenario planning process, and individuals within the implementation areas are external and contextual elements)

Also, internal to the entire process are the following episodes (see Figure 3.2, above):

• The Pre-Scenario Planning episode

• The Scenario Planning 2003 episode

• The Scenario Planning 2003: Follow-through Process episode

• The Scenario Planning 2006 episode

The determination for the timeframe of the beginning and end of the case was made to clarify the length, breadth and depth of the case study. As was mentioned in section 3.1.3, the case begins with the formation of the Fife Partnership and creation of the first Community Plan (c. 1999) and will conclude with the public release of the 2007 edition of the Community Plan in April 2008. It is necessary to consider and answer these queries to help define the unit of analysis and thus determine the limits of the data collection and analysis.

4. Linking data to purpose:

This area of the case study design is underdeveloped (Yin 1994). In this thesis, the case study does not have propositions in so far that it has purpose. However, the prescriptive nature of the literature does allow for reflection and analysis within the guidelines hypothesised.

5. Criteria for interpreting findings:

As with guideline number four, this too is an underdeveloped area of the research design. There is only a hope that patterns are “sufficiently contrasting that…the findings can be interpreted in terms of comparing at least two rival propositions” (Yin 1994: 26). Once again, guidance and reflection is taken from the scenario planning and S-as-P literatures.

3.6.1 Single Case versus Multiple Case Method

The purpose of this section is to justify the reasoning for using an embedded, single case approach. There are many conflicting methods within the case study design, perhaps the most important of which is the decision to do a single case study or multiple ones. Naturally, there are advocates and critics of both approaches. Firstly, the justification for using a single case over a multiple case method will be argued, and then the reasoning for using an embedded approach over a holistic one will be laid out.

There are differing opinions of the rationales of each method, but choosing which one to pursue remains within the same methodological framework. Yin identifies three rationales: 1) a critical case where a well-formulated theory is tested; 2) an extreme, unique or rare case; and 3) a revelatory case (see Yin 1994: 38-41). As with the ontological discussions at the

outset of this chapter, often the pureness with which paradigms and rationales are constructed poses a problem to the researcher. This is a similar situation. Yin (1994) likens the first rationale with an experiment, which, unless using a clear set of propositions, this case study does not follow. The second rationale, however, is more applicable—the timing of the Fife’s community planning cycles and the scenario planning exercises and ensuing policy debates presented a rare opportunity to observe much of the steering group’s discussions. This rationale is substantiated by Maylor and Blackmon’s (2005) argument on when it is suitable to do a case study: when you have “no control over the events you are interested in studying and the phenomenon takes place at least partly during the period you are doing your research” (Maylor and Blackmon 2005: 243). Stake’s (2000) distinction about the instrumental case study is perhaps more helpful when deciding on a single or multiple approach. The instrumental case study is designed to provide insight, to refine and to advance the understanding of the focal point of the issue (Stake 2000: 437).

As an entire study, a multiple case approach is considered by many to be more compelling and more robust (Herriott and Firestone 1983), however the actual cases are sometimes criticised for being too shallow (Dyer and Wilkins 1991). This study requires a great deal of depth from the case study as it is essentially an investigation into three steps of the strategy process. While a multiple case method that follows a ‘replication logic’ (Yin 1994) would likely provide a more robust overall study, the requirement of resources and time and respondents is beyond available means. One of the main motivations of a multiple case approach is to increase the generalisability of the study and remove any doubt regarding the possible effect of idiosyncrasies in the events under study. However, some would argue that generalisation—and the assertion of context-free and enduring values (Lincoln and Guba 2000)—is not the object nor goal of a case study (Denzin 1983; Punch 2005). There is also little benefit in creating multiple cases studies that are simply more of the same, just to increase the statistical significance (Pauwels and Matthyssens 2004). Another downside to a multiple case method is that they tend to be guided by a priori constructs that limits the detail and restricts the richness of the data (Dyer and Wilkins 1991). This is not a problem for single case studies, which are generally accepted for their depth of enquiry and their suitability to exploratory studies (Benbasat et al. 1987) which often lead to path breaking theories (Dyer and Wilkins

1991). Benbasat et al. (1987) state that a multi case method is suitable for description, theory building or theory testing; and while these objectives do seem to be, at surface level anyway, within the parameters of the goals of the study, because of the exploratory nature of the study, the interaction between literature and empirics is more reflective than directive. It is for this reason that a more grounded approach to the coding and analysis of the data is applied. Given the combination of factors listed above, the single case method is more suitable than a multi case method for investigating the phenomenon in this study.

Further refinement of the case study method is needed in determining whether or not the single case method should be of an embedded or holistic nature. This decision was made easier given the earlier choice to use multiple units of analysis. There are, however, some pitfalls associated with an embedded design—for example, when the study locks on to the sub-units of analysis and fails to properly investigate the larger units, which in this case is the process itself. This research will monitor and re-evaluate its focus to ensure that the “original phenomenon of interest” remains the target of the study and not just the context (Yin 1994: 44).