Action research with small communities can be regarded as case studies, which by their nature represent human beings and their way of knowing (Hodkinson & Hodkinson 2001). Case studies operate with a restricted focus, enabling detailed in-depth understanding of the phenomenon being studied and therefore enables understanding of complex inter-relationships. They allow a researcher to explore or describe a phenomenon in context using a variety of data. They also provide multiple lenses through which to explore the phenomenon and thus reveal multiple facets of that phenomenon (Stake 1995; Yin 2009; Hodkinson & Hodkinson 2001). Examining the two cases enables the researcher to understand the similarities and differences between the cases in order to “(a) predict similar results (a literal replication) or (b) predict contrasting results but for predictable reasons (a theoretical replication)” (Baxter & Jack 2008: 550). Stake differentiates the intrinsic from the instrumental case studies; in studying an intrinsic case, the researcher focuses on understanding the uniqueness of that specific case whereas with the instrumental case, the researcher’s intention would be to draw out
insights towards a defined purpose (Stake 1995). In this research, the cases are instrumental in “gaining insights and understanding through particular narratives” (Shekdi 2005:21). Merriam describes the critical focus of case studies; “the interest is in process rather than outcomes, in context rather than a specific variable, in discovery rather than confirmation” (Merriam 1998: p. 19). In this way, case studies generate new thinking as they facilitate “exploration of the unusual and the unexpected” (Hodkinson & Hodkinson 2001). This particular action research is a case study as it involves small communities and aims to explore the unspoken assumptions behind poor people influencing decisions that benefit them through dialogue (Hayes et al 2011).
The philosophical essence of case studies is built upon the premise of a social construction of reality which recognizes that truth is relative based upon one’s perspective and subject to human creation of meaning (Stake 1995; Merriam 1998; Miller & Crabtree, 1999). Human narratives help to “understand the situation as it is constructed by the participants” (Shekdi 2005:5). Among the conditions that Yin recommends for case study design is when a researcher wants to cover contextual conditions because of their relevance to the phenomenon under study and when the researcher cannot manipulate the behaviour of those involved in the study (cited in Baxter & Jack 2008). This approach is relevant to the whole research project: the Chinyika community managed to achieve food security as an aspect of sustainable livelihoods; the COSUN group was part of a community-driven empowerment project from a financing perspective; and designing the loan product as part of the action research process is done within a group. The activities under study were community-driven, suggesting some level
of engaging poor people’s voices in informing emergent solutions. The assumption therefore is that the communities had developed a narrative that informed their understanding of supporting livelihoods. The analysis and comparison of the two communities enable an understanding of the factors that enable or disable dialogue space and these will inform an analysis of the findings from the COSUN group designing a loan that responds to their needs.
Working with COSUN women is within a restricted focal area, enabling in-depth conversations to understand their experiences with microfinance. Action research with this community is done in the context of a social construction of their reality which can be wrought with multiple and sometimes conflicting views that are subject to change (Guba and Lincoln 1994). The reality that is constructed exists in the mind of an individual concerned at a specific point in time. This reality may fall short of other realities beyond the knowledge and understanding of the community, thereby opening up possible impressions of solipsism: that the self is all that can be known to exist. It also becomes prone to instability as the constructors acquire new knowing. Case study findings are specific to the phenomenon being studied and cannot be readily generalised thus rendering them “neither ubiquitous nor a universal panacea” (Hodkinson & Hodkinson 2001). In this research it is likely that the invitation to participate in an action research process may have been understood within their reality that placed a higher focus on repaying the loan and therefore neglected the cardinal part of continuous mutual inquiry and learning for better and improved financial services. This became a weakness in the research. The objective of the research was for both the group and the researcher to
engage in a dialogue towards a new way of both informing and responding to livelihood needs with appropriate financial service. The dialogue space that culminated into a loan was meant to continue through the repayment period to inform further cycles of the research. The reality that this group created at the beginning of the research seems to have been focused more on the loan and not the process, and that derailed the process. While acknowledging these limitations, this research still utilises the case study approach, as a means of generating a new way of thinking regarding listening and responding to the voices of poor people (Engeström 2001).