EQUIPO SELECCIONADO TIPO TECHO (ROOFTOP)

In the literature, different authors refer to case study as a method, methodology or a philosophy and not always consistently (Hammersley and Gomm, 2000; Simons, 2009).

Frequently, definitions of case studies merely repeat the topics to which the case study has been applied (Yin, 2009). In general, however, it is agreed that a qualitative case study is a research approach that facilitates exploration of a phenomenon within its context using a variety of sources of data (Yin, 2009; Guest et al., 2013). Case study enquiry allows for the situation in which there will be many variables of interest and therefore it benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis (Yin, 2009).

This methodology therefore provides the opportunity to explore the conceptual framework of multi-hazards framed in the literature and how they might be assessed, utilising a triangulation of different sources of data.

As noted by Bryman (2008), there is a tendency to associate case studies with purely qualitative research, when in fact they lend themselves to both qualitative and quantitative lines of enquiry (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Simons, 2009; Yin, 2009). Yin (2009) distinguishes case study research from ethnography and grounded theory owing to the role of theory development prior to the conduct of any research – implying a deductive approach. Both the literature and the results of part one of the research help to determine theories regarding the concept of

90 multi-hazards and NGOs capacity to assess these. However, beyond this doctoral research, the existing knowledge base regarding these phenomena (in particular NGO assessments of multi-hazards) is limited.

Opinions differ as to what constitutes a case. Stake (1995) argues that it relates to a specific unit, for example a person or location, whereas others are more open to including processes, policies and events (Simons, 2009). Stake (1995) distinguishes between intrinsic cases (interest in the case) and instrumental cases (gaining insight into a particular research question by studying a particular case) the latter being more applicable to this research. Yin (2003) develops the different cases further, by differentiating between five different types of cases:

 critical case: testing a well-formulated theory;

 extreme or unique case: specific case may be so rare that any single case is worth documenting and analysing;

 representative or typical case: the objective is to capture the circumstances and conditions of an everyday or commonplace situation;

 revelatory case: the opportunity to observe and analyse a phenomenon previously inaccessible to social science inquiry;

 longitudinal case: studying the same single case at two or more different points in time.

For the purpose of this research, the case study of the 2006 Typhoon Reming triggered lahars (introduced in Chapter 6) was selected on the basis of the scoping study to the Philippines.

The aim was to identify a case that elucidated the reality of multi-hazard analysis, arguably (in this context) the ‘representative or typical case.’ At the same time, however, the case selected is situated within one of the most progressive DRR provinces in the Philippines (Albay), which is not only unique to the Philippines (see Chapter 6) but also in relation to many countries in which humanitarian and development actors operate. Whilst it may not be simple to situate this research within one of Yin’s (2003) categories, it is important to have these categories in

91 mind when analysing and discussing the results of the case study, especially in terms of explaining and generalising results and being aware of any potential bias.

Making generalisations from a single case

Many researchers harbour prejudices against the case study method, particularly owing to their concern over lack of rigour in case study research, evidenced by examples of case study research being deliberately altered to demonstrate a particular point more effectively (Yin, 2009). However, bias can creep into any research method (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Yin, 2009). In view of the criticisms and perceived limitations of a case study approach emanating from critics, Flyvbjerg (2006) has identified five common misunderstandings of case study research and instead highlights the value of such an approach (see Table 3.3).

These criticisms particularly relate to the generalisability of case studies and the perceived associated biases. Indeed, a pervading concern amongst critics is that case studies provide little basis for scientific generalisation (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Yin, 2009). Yin (2009) argues that case studies, like experiments, are generalisable to theoretical propositions and not to populations or universes. Bazeley (2007) observes that:

it is not that we can describe the characteristics of a larger population, survey style, but rather that we gain understanding of the way some aspect of society works – an understanding of processes and principles, theory rather than facts (2007: 411).

It is by virtue of the above that Bazeley (2007) considers, with appropriate modifications to account for variations in context, such theory might then be applied to a new setting within that society, or perhaps even more widely, for example a multi-hazard framework for a setting beyond the Philippines.

92 Table 3.3 Common misunderstandings of case study research and alternative points of view. Source of information: Flyvbjerg (2009).

Misunderstanding Alternative

(1) General, theoretical (context-independent) knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical (context-dependent) knowledge.

Predictive theories and universals cannot be found in the study of human affairs. Concrete, context-dependent knowledge is, therefore, more valuable than the vain search for predictive theories and universals.

(2) One cannot generalise on the basis of a single case and that the case study cannot contribute to scientific development.

One can often generalise on the basis of a single case, and the case study may be central to scientific development via generalisation as supplement or alternative to other methods. But no formal generalisation is overvalued as a source of scientific development, whereas “the force of example” is underestimated.

(3) The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses; that is, in the first stage of a total research process, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypothesis testing and theory building. tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived studies.

The case study contains no greater bias toward verification of the researcher’s preconceived notions than other methods of inquiry. On the contrary, experience indicates that the case study contains a greater bias towards falsification of preconceived notions than toward verification.

(5) It is often difficult to summarise specific case studies into general propositions and theories.

Whilst, qualitative researchers may claim to adopt a generalisation free approach to their data interpretation, Williams (2000) states that generalisation is ‘inevitable, desirable and possible’

in interpretivism. Additionally, Stake notes that seldom is ‘case-by-case uniqueness’ a component of scientific theory (2000: 439). It is therefore necessary for the researcher to be conscious of the tendency to generalise, aiming for analytic generalisation (expansion and generalisation of theories) and not statistical generalisation (enumeration of frequencies; Yin, 2009). At the same time, it is necessary to avoid the danger of overly focusing on generalisation at the expense of understanding the details of the case itself (Stake, 2000).

93 Case study researchers encounter circumstances to generalise by drawing on observations from comparable cases investigated by others (Williams, 2000). In addition, combined with the findings from part one of the research, this case can provide informative results for shaping future NGO approaches to hazard assessment more generally.

Bazeley (2007) suggests that methods are directed but not prescribed by a particular philosophical or methodological view. For example, Charmaz (2006) states that grounded strategies can be used with a variety of data collection methods and that she treats these methods as ‘tools to use rather than as recipes to follow’ (2006: 28). Case study research also lends itself to a number of methods, both qualitative and quantitative. The following section outlines methods used in both parts of the research, but the specific implementation of methods and the data collected for part two are outlined in Chapter 6. A discussion of the research evaluation criteria applicable to these methods then follows.