HANING

Name
Address
Student ID
Title
Paper Coordinator
Paper
Assignment

: Jermi Haning
: 1/284 Botanical Road, West End,
Palmerston North, 4412
: 14029575
: MR
: Ass Prof. Christine Cheyne
: Applied Research in Planning
:2

Title

: A critical essay of case study research design

HANING
Case study research, either single or multiple, has been
increasingly used in a number of disciplines in the last few years
(Creswell, 2007; Yin, 2014). However, at the same time, there has
been an increasing number of critics as well. The critics argue that
case study research is problematic. The arguments include that case
studies lack methodological rigor (Gibbert, Ruigrok, & Wicki, 2008),
are ambiguous in data collection methods (Verschuren, 2003), and
have limited generalizability (Hillebrand, Kok, & Biemans, 2001;
Kennedy, 1979). Despite the criticism, some experts argue that case
studies offer a better understanding of specific phenomena that is
often neglected by ordinary research designs that focus more on the
generalization (Creswell, 2007, 2014; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2014).
This essay reviews a collective case study design by Ho,
Woodley, Cottrell, and Valentine (2014) in Vietnam, entitled A
multilevel analytical framework for more-effective governance in
human-natural systems: A case study of marine protected areas in
Vietnam. The purpose of the essay is to critically highlight the case
study strengths and weaknesses based on a range of issues. It
addresses research approach and research design, theoretical
framework, data collection methods, validity, data analysis and
findings, and generalization. The essay found that the case study has
some minor weaknesses, but overall it is methodologically vigorous.
It is acknowledged that, as this essay only relies on the final report of
the case study, this essay itself has limitations in assessing validity
and reliability of the research.

HANING
Ho et al. (2014) found that there have been numerous studies
about institution, institution analyses, and governance processes
for natural resource management. However, there have been limited
studies trying to integrate the components of institutions and
governance into a comprehensive framework to study the
complexity and particularity of human-nature systems in a Marine
Protected Area (MPA) context (2014, p.12). They defined the humannature system as dynamic symbiotic relationships between people
and nature in complex institutional structures and governance
processes. While the research questions are: 1) How problems
occurred because of improperly formed institutions affect the
governance among state-actor groups and subsequently non-state
actors; and 2) How problems occurred with non-state actors affect
the governance undertaken themselves and the state actors?
The framework for the phenomenon reflects Hos et at. (2014)
worldviews of existence, how it is built and how to be understood.
The ontological question is what is the form and nature of reality
and, therefore, what is there that can be known about it (Guba &
Lincoln, 1994, p. 108). The answer is that the human-nature system
is very complex, involving various institutions and governance
processes, but the meanings are chaotic, evolved, hidden, and little
is known (Andrade, 2009; Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Stake, 1995). While
the epistemological question is what is the nature of the relationship
between the knower or would-be knower and what can be known
should consistent with ontological view (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, p.
108). The answer is that the researchers had limited knowledge of

HANING
human-nature system, including their knowledge of what has been
known, while what have been known varying, changing and often
conflicting among the stakeholders. (Creswell, 2007, 2014; O'Leary,
2014; Trent, Artiles, & Englert, 1998). Therefore, the researchers
have to work closely with the stakeholders, make interpretation and
become insiders, but the negative consequence is the researchers
can make bias based on their own values (Creswell, 2007). These
ontological and epistemological assumption justified the worldviews
of social constructivism in this case study research (Miles &
Huberman, 1994) which emphasize that the world is constructed by
human being as they interact and engage in interpretation (O'Leary,
2014, p. 293), and if so little is known... then the naturalistic
approach with its more qualitative methods might be used
(Westbrook, 1991, p. 242).
In a more specific argument for assessing rationale for using a
research design, some expert arguments that case study is used for
particular phenomena and settings is in accordance with the nature
of Hos et al (2014) study including the research questions (Berg,
2009; Creswell, 2014). The uniqueness, and complexity of the
phenomena are the first two reasons to use case study research
(Anderson, Crabtree, Steele, & McDaniel, 2005; O'Leary, 2014).
While the research questions should begin with how and why, the
temporal of the phenomenon should contemporary, and the setting
should natural or without manipulation or control (Yin, 2014).
However, Yin (1994) argues that case studies with what question

HANING
are used to explore new phenomena. Understanding context and
related factors are the keys to asking and answering the questions
(Hakim, 2000; Ragin, 1997). These requirements are to produce a
specific time and place report that is deep, detailed and life (Miles,
Huberman, & Saldaa, 2014).

The framework Ho et al. (2014, p.11) built has four

interdependent components: (i) organizational structure; (ii) informal
institutions; (iii) institutional performance; and (iv) governance. From
these components they identified 20 principles and groups of themes
which serve as operational definitions and measure of empirical
phenomena (Modell, 2005, p. 237). The framework reflects the
theoretical underpinnings and serves as a map to see causal logic
among the components. The benefit of a clear and detailed
framework is to structure data collection enough to provide
comparability across cases without overly constraining the search for
site-specific explanations (Greene & David, 1984, p. 75). It helps the
researchers to select the cases and variables, draw their
relationships, collect and analysis data, find rival theories, and make
generalization (Miles et al., 2014; Yin, 2014). Therefore, the
framework leads the study to investigate what it claims to
investigate (Gibbert et al., 2008, p. 1466; Greene & David, 1984).
Ho et al. (2014) found from secondary data that MPAs in
Vietnam are managed under three different jurisdictions, and different
management approaches, involving National Departments (ND),
Local Communities (LC), and Private Sectors (PS). Therefore they

HANING
put the MPAs into three categories. O'Leary (2014) and Creswell
(2014) argue that case selection takes into account the research
problems and research questions, and consideration on the
characteristics of a case that has rich information, accessible, and
strong theoretical relevance. Further Yin (2014) adds that case
selection needs to consider represent confirmatory cases (i.e., to
replicate identical phenomenon), contrasting cases (e.g., a success
vs a failure; top-down vs participatory approaches), or theoretically
diverse cases (e.g., location, level, size). This could be argument of
Ho et al. (2014) to select three case studies. However, they did not
provide information on the total number of MPAs. Greene and David
(1984) argue that the number of selected cases should represent the
number of cases in each category. The benefits are that researchers
can do replications and extension to produce a better understanding
of theory (Eisenhardt, 1991; O'Leary, 2014) and improve the ability to
theorize about a broader context (Stake, 1994). Replication refers to
collective support for a proposition from a number of individual cases;
meanwhile extension refers to elaboration of a theory (Eisenhardt,
1989).

The requirement to do analytical generalization is that it needs

at least four to ten cases to undertake a vigorous cross-case analysis
(Eisenhardt 1989). It will be difficult to build theory if there are less
than four cases, but it will be hard to manage if more than ten cases.
It is debatable as Hakim (2000), and Johnson and Christensen
(2004) argue that two or three is appropriate, depends on the

HANING
research problem. This can justify Hos et al (2014) choice on the
number of cases. Gerring (2004) argues that the size of sample
shapes the trade-off between comparability and representativeness.
Single-unit

case

studies

allow

comparability,

but

they

lack

representativeness. On the contrary, multiple case studies excel in

representativeness but they lack comparability. Therefore Yin (2014)
suggests that in order to do comparative (cross-case) analysis, the
researchers can undertake a number of case studies (different levels,
programs, departments etc.) or embedded case studies in a context,
instead of undertaking multiple case studies in a number of contexts.

From the three case studies, Ho et al (2014) chose 83

participants, represented National Departments (N), Provincial
Agencies (P), Local Governments (L) and Local Communities (C).
The absent information is that Ho et al. (2014) did not elaborate on
how they selected the participants, the representatives of each group
of stakeholders and whether in numerous stages or once-off
selection. In selecting samples, case studies purposely select the
participants based on theories rather than using random sampling.
The number of respondents does not matter. It can be a single
person, an organization, a unit or a community. It focuses more on
finding individuals that provide rich information about the uniqueness
of the phenomenon and on answering research questions (Stake,
1995). However, within-case sampling should ensure a balanced
representation of each unit/case so that cross-case analyses can be
undertaken (Greene & David, 1984).

HANING
In order to select the right participants, phased selection can
offer better choices. However, Ho et al. (2014) did not elaborate on
this issue. Miles and Huberman (1984) argue that good data
collection in qualitative approach is iterative, not a linier process. At
the beginning, the selection of respondents might not satisfy the
needs of studies. As Charmaz (2006, p. 102) argues, theoretical
sampling involves starting with data, and then examining these ideas
through further empirical enquiry. Therefore, researchers need to
have alternative participants, keep evaluating their representations,
and seek information from other previous studies (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). The iterative process means that the focus should
be on the sufficient theoretical meanings for researchers to build and
work on constructs that emerge during data collection and analyses
(Straub, Boudreau, & Gefen, 2004). Therefore the duration of data
collection continues until the researchers find no theoretical insights
any longer (Ford, 2010).

Another unclear information related to unit of analysis. Ho et

al. (2014) did not provide explicit information on the selection of unit
analysis, but in data collection and analysis, they treated the groups
of stakeholders (N, P, L and C) as units of analysis or embedded
case studies (Yin, 2014). It means that there were twelve units of
analysis, or four units of analysis per case. Previously they selected
three MPAs as the cases. Therefore, they could have undertaken a
number of data analyses at different levels, and produce rich data
and strong findings. As Baxter and Jack (2008) argue that

HANING
researchers can undertake data analysis within the subunits (within
case), between the subunits (between case), and across the subunits
(cross case).

The strength of the case study research is in using

triangulation to collect, analysis and confirm data (Gibbert et al.,
2008). Ho et al. (2014) undertook data collection through a variety of
methods and sources. First stage, they used semi-structured and
open-ended questionnaires before holding focus-group discussions
with the participants. Stakes (2009, p.64) argues that from all various
sources of the information, interview is the main road to multiple
realities. It enables the participants to express their views freely,
covers many aspects of an issue, does not comply to certain
structure, and often leads to unexpected discoveries (Creswell,
Hanson, Plano, & Morales, 2007). Second stage, they undertook
personal observations, and held workshops and conferences. The
benefits of triangulation are to enrich collected data, avoid personal
and methodological biases, and provide the researchers with better
understanding and various perspectives of the phenomena (Decrop,
1999). These data collection methods provided Ho et al. (2014) with
holistic data and understanding of the phenomenon (Verschuren,
2003). The agreement of data from the two stages, including allowing
participants to review and provide feedback on the draft of case, is
the most critical approach to establish construct validity (Beverland &
Lindgreen, 2010), but it cannot be assumed that the research has
achieved construct validity (Andrade, 2009). Construct validity has

HANING
been also linked to achieving theoretical sufficiency, instead of data
saturation, which refers to build up and work upon constructs which
emerge from problem under investigation (Andrade, 2009, p. 48).
Another approach is to prolong involvement for building trust with
participants while identifying bias that originated from anomalies
brought by both the participants and the researchers (Flyvbjerg,
2006).

In addition to the framework and triangulation methods, Ho et

al. (2014) enhanced internal validity for data analysis by identifying
themes during interviews using identified institutional problems
(Gibbert et al., 2008). The themes were grouped according to the 20
principles they had identified. These principles can serve as
propositions to guide data collection and discussion (Baxter & Jack,
2008, p. 552). Then they held some sessions with the participants for
further explanation building, including contrasting opinions of
identified causes and reasons for the outcomes and consequences
of governance. Together with the participants, they identified,
analyzed and summarized barriers and factors that shape humannature system. This data collection procedure is in accordance with
Yins identified tactics for internal validity (2014). Some of the tactics
are matching similar patterns of inputs (themes) from all the groups
with the patterns that have been proposed in theories and asking for
justification of answers provided by groups, including opposing
opinions from other groups (Gibbert et al., 2008). It means that data
analysis is undertaken together with data collection. Stake (1995)

HANING
refers to it as direct interpretation; collected data are reviewed, tested
and analyzed over and over until the researchers find the realistic
answers to the research questions.
From data analysis, Ho et al. (2014) identified eight thematic
findings. The findings were compared with patterns (themes) that had
been identified in the framework of the research; it means that they
had both predicted identical findings (literal replication) and
anticipated different findings (theoretical replication). However, they
did not explain if the findings from each unit/case were converted into
a set of propositions to facilitate replications of the three MPAs, nor
did they link the kind of replications to certain phenomena and cases
(Greene & David, 1984). A finding is robust if it holds in a case, also
holds in a comparable case, but not in contrasting cases (Miles et al.,
2014), and if a finding does not hold in comparable cases, it
demands for either theory change or refutation (Lloyd-Jones, 2003).
They had demonstrated that these findings came from the units of
analysis (N, P, L and C), but they did refer these units to their original
cases (ND, LC & PS) to identify their comparability and contractibility.
As the result, it is unknown if the three approaches of MPAs produce
different or similar outputs of human-nature system. Therefore it is
unknown to what extent and under what management approach the
framework works as expected (literal replication) or does not work
for predictable reasons (theoretical replication) (Yin, 2009, p.18).
Ho et al. (2014) undertook generalization by referring the
thematic findings to theories, and not to other cases as the contexts
of the three cases are different (Creswell, 2007). This aligns also with

HANING
the argument of Stake (1995) that the focus of case study is on
analytical generalization of the particularities, instead of statistical
generalization. They identified the similarities and explain the
reasons. By doing so, they determined the level of confidence of the
findings (Eisenhardt, 1989). The findings were correct and similar,
there were some differences but none was in conflict with theories,
which led them to adjust the framework. Therefore the findings
strengthen internal validity, increase the cover of generalization and
support their analytical framework (Eisenhardt, 1989). The missing
thing is that Ho et al. (2014) did not identify and explained the
theoretical perspectives on the differences in findings. Onwuegbuzie
and Leech (2007, p. 245) argue that reporting cases that do not fit
the framework allow readers to evaluate them and to draw their own
conclusions. However, Yin (1994) argues that exploratory and
descriptive cases do not look for negative cases or alternative
explanation.
Based on the generalization, Ho et al. (2014, p.16) identified
and classified factors that shape (restrain) governance of the MPAs
in Vietnam to answer the research questions. The factors were put
into three groups, instead of four as they identified earlier in the
framework. The institutional performance in the initial framework
was taken out; it contrasts with the findings. The new factors related
to (i) formal institutions, (ii) political behaviors and organizational
structure and (iii) social capital and socio-economic conditions. In
the second stage of primary data collection, they identified specific
factors that shape each group of stakeholders in order to answer

HANING
research questions. However, they left a number of unanswered
questions such as which case(s) posed contradictive findings to the
framework, what factors in each case differed from the initial
framework, and what revision they did to the framework before being
tested with the other cases (Johnston, Leach, & Liu, 1999).
To sum up, from ontological and epistemological perspectives,
the researchers have demonstrated a strong argument for using case
study design. The researchers established a clear framework for the
case study, employed a number of triangulation techniques to portray
and confirm the findings of the phenomenon. Therefore they have
strengthened construct validity, internal validity and external validity.
The essay found some issues related to missing information on
sampling methods, population, proposition, and replication, but this
essay treats them as the result of limited available space for the
researchers to provide the information in their report.
Overall, the researchers have tried to a build an analytical
framework

for

assesment

of

institutional

and

governance

arrangement of MPAs from a human-nature system perspective.

They made some claims about three interdependent issues that
shape relationships of a number of stakeholders and policy
outcomes. Their final recommendation is about establishment of a
body to manage governance processes in MPAs. Therefore they
suggested further research to understand governance proceses in
order to avoid unnecessary problems as the result of establishing a
bridging body.

HANING
Most importantly, this research has refuted some critiques on
the weakness of case study research design. The research has
demonstrated that case study research vigorously uncovers
particular and complex issues that are overlooked by other research
designs that tend to focus more on drawing statistical generalization.
Case studies have vigorous methodology, employ numerous data
collection methods and analysis, and therefore have strong validity
and reliability.
Reference:
Anderson, R., Crabtree, B. F., Steele, D. J., & McDaniel, R. R.
(2005). Case study research: The view from complexity
science. Qualitative Health Research, 15(5), 669-685.
Andrade, A. D. (2009). Interpretive research aiming at theory
building: Adopting and adapting the case study design. The
Qualitative Report, 14(1), 42-60.
Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology:
Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers.
The Qualitative Report, 13(2008), 544-559.
Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative Research Methods. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Beverland, M., & Lindgreen, A. (2010). What makes a good case
study? A positivist review of qualitative case research
published in Industrial Marketing Management, 19712006.
Industrial Marketing Management, 39(2010), 56-63.
Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide
through qualitative research. London: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). London: Sage
Publication Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design : qualitative, quantitative,
and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). California: Sage
Publication Inc.
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Plano, V. L. C., & Morales, A. (2007).
Qualitative research designs selection and implementation.
The Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236-264.
Decrop, A. (1999). Triangulation in qualitative tourism research.
Tourism management, 20(1), 157-161.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research.
Academy of management review, 14(4), 532-550.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1991). Better stories and better constructs: the
case for rigor and comparative logic. Academy of
Management Review, 16(3), 9-41.

HANING
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study
Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.
Ford, K. (2010). Reframing a sense of self: a constructivist grounded
theory study of childrens admission to hospital for surgery
(PhD), University of Tasmania Tasmania.
Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for?
American political science review, 98(02), 341-354.
Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a
rigorous case study? Strategic management journal, 29(13),
1465-1474.
Greene, D., & David, J. L. (1984). A research design for generalizing
from multiple case studies. Evaluation and program planning,
7(1), 73-85.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105-117). California:
Sage Publication Inc.
Hakim, C. (2000). Research design: Successful designs for social
and economic research. . London and New York: Routledge.
Hillebrand, B., Kok, R. A. W., & Biemans, W. G. (2001). Theorytesting using case studies. Industrial Marketing Management,
30, 2001.
Ho, T. V. T., Woodley, S., Cottrell, A., & Valentine, P. (2014). A
multilevel analytical framework for more-effective governance
in human-natural systems: A case study of marine protected
areas in Vietnam. Ocean and Coastal Management, 11.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research:
Qualitative, quantitative and mixed approaches. Boston:
Pearson Education.
Johnston, W. J., Leach, M. P., & Liu, A. H. (1999). Theory testing
using case studies in business-to-business research.
Industrial Marketing Management, 28(3), 201-213.
Kennedy, M. M. (1979). Generalizing from single case studies.
Evaluation Review, 3(4), 661-678.
Lloyd-Jones, G. (2003). Design and Control Issues in Qualitative
Case Study Research. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 2(2), 33-42.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaa, J. (2014). Qualitative data
analysis : a methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). California: SAGE
Publications Inc.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis :
an expanded sourcebook (2nd ed ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Modell, S. (2005). Triangulation between case study and survey
methods in management accounting research: an assessment
of validity implications. Management Accounting Research,
16(2), 231-254.
O'Leary, Z. (2014). The essential guide to doing your research
project (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publication Inc.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Validity and qualitative
research: An oxymoron? Quality & Quantity, 41(2), 233-249.

HANING
Ragin, C. C. (1997). Turning the tables: How case-oriented research
challenges variable- oriented research. Comparative Social
Research(16), 27-42.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage
Publication.
Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C., & Gefen, D. (2004). Validation
guidelines for IS positivist research. The Communications of
the Association for Information Systems, 13(1), 63.
Trent, S. C., Artiles, A. J., & Englert, C. S. (1998). From deficit
thinking to social constructivism: A review of theory, research,
and practice in special education. Review of research in
education, 277-307.
Verschuren, P. (2003). Case study as a research strategy: Some
ambiguities and opportunities. International Journal of Social
Research Methodology, 6(2), 121-139.
Westbrook, L. (1991). Qualitative research methods: A review of
major stages, data analysis techniques, and quality controls.
LISR, 16(1994), 241-254.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case Study Research, Design and Methods (2nd
ed.). California: Sage Publication Inc.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research : design and methods (5th
ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publication Inc.