Estructura causal de la soluci ´on de Schwarzschild

Having looked at the different methodological and philosophical issues concerning the case study method, it is imperative to explore some definitions of case studies that have been offered by different scholars, and to determine which of these best describes the research discussed in this thesis.

Various authors have also looked at the definition of case study research in terms of data collection. For instance, Hamersley (2004) noted that a case study carries implications for the kind of data that are to be collected and perhaps also how these are to be analysed. In that sense, Hammersley (2004) argues that frequently, but not always, it implies the collection of unstructured data, and a qualitative analysis of those data. Similarly, Simons (2009) opined that case study is research based, inclusive of different methods and is evidence-led (Simons, 2009). In addition, Simons (2009) argued that case study is an in-depth exploration from multiple perspectives, of the complexity and uniqueness of a particular project, policy, institution, programme or system, in a „real-life context‟. The primary purpose is to generate an in-depth understanding of a specific topic (as in a thesis), programme, policy, institution or system, in order to generate knowledge and/or inform policy development, professional practice and civil or community actions (Simons, 2009).

138 Eisenhardt (1989) noted that case studies typically combine data collection methods such as archives, interviews, questionnaires and observations, and evidence that may be qualitative, quantitative, or both. It has been argued that by so doing, case studies aim to capture cases in their uniqueness, rather than use them as a basis for wider empirical or theoretical conclusions. What this methodological or philosophical position demonstrates is that general conclusions are to be reached by means of inferences from what is found in particular cases, rather than through the cases being selected in order to test a hypothesis. In line with this, it has been argued that case studies adopt an inductive orientation (Hamersley, 2004). It has also been argued that the method can be used to accomplish various aims; for example, to provide description, test theory or generate theory (see Eisenhardt, 1989:535).

Gerring (2007) synthesised the work of Eckstein (1975), George and Bennett (2005), Orum et al. (1991), Goode and Hart (1952), Ragin (1987, 1997), Hammersley and Goom (2000), Yin (2003) and Campbell and Stanley (1963) and proposed that a case study might mean that:

(a) the method is qualitative, Small-N( Single Case),

(b) the research is holistic, thick (a more or less comprehensive examination of a phenomenon),

(c) a particular type of evidence is utilized such as ethnographic, clinical, non-experimental, non-survey, participant-observation, process-tracing, historical, textual, or field research,

(d) the method of evidence gathering is naturalistic (a “real-life context”), (e) the topic is diffuse (case and context are difficult to distinguish), (f) the research employs triangulation (“multiple sources of evidence”), (g) the research investigates the properties of a single observation, or that

139 (h) the research investigates the properties of a single phenomenon, instance, or example

(cf. Gerring, 2007:17).

Bogdon and Biklen (1992) defined a case study as a detailed examination of one setting or a single subject, a single depository of documents or one particular event. Similarly, Becker and Bryman (2004) regarded a case study as a detailed and intensive examination of one or a very small number of cases. A much more interesting and academically stimulating definition of case study is the one provided by Yin (2003) who defined a case study as an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon (or problem) within its real-life context, when boundaries between the phenomenon and context are not clearly evident (Yin, 2003:13-14). This is what makes the case study a research method that is appealing to social scientists, providing the opportunity to study the social world in a real life context in order to provide more or better understanding of a social problem or phenomenon. It was this quality of the case study method that urged the researcher to choose the method for this research.

Furthermore, according to Riege (2003), a case study is about theory construction or building, based on the need to understand a real-life phenomenon, with researchers obtaining new holistic and in-depth understanding, explanations and interpretations. Based on an analysis of the variety of different roles that case studies can play when lined up along an imaginary continuum stretching from descriptive to theoretical designs, Lijphart (1971:691) distinguished between six types of case studies, namely:

1. Atheoretical case studies 2. Interpretive case studies

3. Hypothesis-generating case studies 4. Theory-confirming case studies 5. Theory-infirming case studies

140 6. Deviant case studies

In the first two types of case study – atheoretical and interpretive - cases are examined because of an interest in the case per se. There need not be a generalizing dimension to such cases. According to Lijphart (1971), these types of case study are uninteresting, and they fit uncomfortably with the analytical ambitions of the naturalist, although they would be gleefully embraced by historians.

The third type of case study referred to by Lijphart (1971) as „hypothesis-generating‟, or what Eckstein (1975) termed as a „heuristic case study‟, is generally seen as a theory building method. In this type of case study, the author exploits his/her familiarity with a given case to generate new hypotheses or theories, which can be subsequently tested in a more rigorous design. According to Moses and Knutsen (2007:136), the researcher adopting this type of case study, studies a given case in order to generate a preliminary theoretical construct. But, because this construct is based on a single case, it can do little more than hint at a more valid general model. In other words, the hypothesis-generating case study method adopts an inductive approach, the aim being to use the case to help formulate hypotheses or theories for further or subsequent testing (see Moses and Knutsen, 2007). Although naturalists are loathe to generate theories (or to generalize broadly) on the basis of a single case, they do recognise the „heuristic‟ value (cf. Eckstein, 1975) of case studies.

The last three types of case study (theory-confirming, theory-infirming, and deviant case studies) are case studies that aim to test an existing hypothesis or theory. In other words, they

141 are deductive. According to Lijphart (1971), these types of case study fit most easily under the naturalist‟s rubric.

Building upon Lijphart‟s (1971) classification, Moses and Knutsen (2007) emerged with three categories of case studies namely: fitting, misfitting and generalizing. However, misfitting is a combination of the theory-infirming and deviant case studies in Lijphart‟s (1971) classification. ‘Fitting‟ („theory-confirming‟) case studies investigate the degree to which a given case fits a general proposition. Therefore, this type of case study tends to provide a descriptive framework based on an existing conceptual scheme. In other words, a fitting case study serves to demonstrate the explanatory power of a particular theory. In this sense, it is a fitting exercise whereby a case is chosen as an empirical venue for applying a particular theory (see Moses and Knutsen, 2007, op.cit.).

One of the most common applications of a fitting case study is what Harry Eckstein referred to as a plausibility probe, whereby a researcher might choose to run a trial test of a given theory on a particular case (before investing too much time and money on a full-blown test).

In essence, plausibility probes involve attempts to determine whether potential validity may reasonably be considered great enough to warrant the pains and costs of full testing, which is almost always considerable; especially so if broad, painstaking, comparative studies are undertaken (Eckstein, 1975:108). According to Eckstein, to be able to find a case that „fits‟ or illustrates a particular general proposition or claim, may have some scholarly promise.

Consequently, it might be worthwhile to pursue the claim and perhaps develop it into a full-fledged theory later. This is what plausibility probes aim to accomplish (see also Moses and Knutsen, 2007:134).

142 Misfitting (theory-infirming and deviant) case studies seek to show how a case does not easily fit a general or a universal claim (Moses and Knutsen, 2007). Misfitting case studies combine the features of both the infirming and deviant case studies in Lijphart‟s (1971) typology. In other words, they are case studies that „weaken theory marginally‟ and/or attempt to „deviate from established generalizations‟ (cf. Lijphart, 1971). A well-chosen misfitting case study will aim to strongly support or falsify a given theory. Using the famous phrase “all swans are white” as an illustration, a misfitting case study will mimic Popper‟s (1959) falsification principle, whereby he proposed that just one observation of a single black swan would falsify the proposition that all swans are white – an observation that could stimulate further investigation and theory building. The „misfitting‟ case study is well suited for identifying „black swans‟ because of its in-depth approach. What appears to be „white‟

often turns out on a closer examination to be „black‟. The point is to choose a case, which is, in theory, falsible and which tests a central theoretical claim (Moses and Knutsen, 2007:134).

As such, misfitting is a more critical approach to research than its fitting counterpart. By employing either fitting or misfitting types of case study, it is possible to anchor the case study approach firmly in the naturalistic tradition. Moses and Knutsen (2007) argued that generalizing case studies can be assembled like building blocks into a stronger theoretical edifice (this is further explored in Section 4.1.4).

Moses and Knutsen (2007:138) summarised the different ways in which naturalists employ case studies.

143 misfitting case study approach was the most appropriate for this research because it offers the best research design within which to challenge conventional presuppositions about inner-city communities and disorder, and addresses the set research questions.

The researcher contends that the case study method is the best approach when it comes to

144 about the area. The richness of data that the case study method offers is its key strength as a research method. The „confined‟ nature of the study area means that the investigation is more detailed, profound and grounded than if one was studying a „mass society‟ (cf. Harper, 2000).

Moreover, as a key focus of the research is a critique of government policies with regard to urban regeneration and renewal, multi-agency working and community engagement, a case study approach offers an opportunity to evaluate the delivery of these concepts more deeply within the defined community of Chapeltown in Leeds. In addition, the researcher is of the opinion that naming the area would empower the community and as such disabuse the minds of an outsider that the community is criminogenic. As mentioned above, case study is an ideal method for carrying out the research; the researcher will like to add that key studies on communities in the field of sociology and criminology have adopted this method, thus proving the fact that it is an reliable method of social inquiry.

Other reasons why the researcher chose a case study approach are:

1. It allows for a more intensive and fruitful use of multiple sources of evidence gathering.

2. It can provide an in-depth understanding of the problematic, and is quite useful for testing theories. According to Yin (2003), a single case study can represent a significant contribution to knowledge and theory building. The theories and propositions that this research sets to explore are those on the concept of disorder and the proposed link between the ethnic composition of a community and the community members‟ experience of „disorder‟. In addition, the research proposes to explore how, through its urban regeneration policies and efforts in the Chapeltown community, the government perpetrates dominant perceptions of the problematic citizen.

145 3. It helps to capture the circumstances and conditions of an everyday or common place situation. In other words, it could provide a holistic “thick description” that is, a rich account of events and issues (Geertz, 1973). According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), a thick description provides others with a database for making judgements about the possible transferability of findings to other milieux.

4. It opens the door to the process created and used by the individuals involved in the phenomenon, and the event, group, or organisation under consideration.

5. It allows the researcher to examine a phenomenon from different perspectives, and to see the connection between them (Wieviorka, 2000).

In a nutshell, the case study method enables the researcher to shed light on the fine-grain detail of social processes, and is „meaningful‟ and „rich‟ when compared to other research strategies. As Henn et al. (2006) observed, the purpose for using case study design is to examine the intricacies and complexities of a situation (setting or group). This does not mean, however, that the case study method is always appropriate or relevant, or that large random samples are without value.