A Case Study Research Approach

This study is based on a case study research approach. Gerring (2007: 37) elucidates that a case study is “an intensive study of a single unit or a small number of units (cases), for the purpose of understanding a larger class of similar units (a population of a case)”. Three major reasons led to my choice of a case study research approach.

First, studying institutions as well as actor interactions, relationships, and motivations in urban land delivery is intricately intertwined with context. It also involves a complex set of both historical and contemporary events. Therefore a research approach that recognises complexity, context, and detail in its choice of methods fits this study. Yin (2009…..) posits that case studies are typically relevant

A major critique of the approach emanating largely from the natural sciences and proponents of positivism relates to the issue of generalisation. They often argue that a single case provide little basis for generalisation and scientific development (Yin, 2009; Flyvberg 2006). This critique has been subjected to deep debate even among supporters of the case study method. While some argue that the critique is misdirected and that it is possible to make results from case studies generalizable (Flyvbjerg, 2006; Schonfield, 2000), others question whether case studies should make claims about generalisation in the usual sense of statistical generalisations (Yin,2009; Mitchell, 2000). Flyvbjerg (2006) for instance argue that it is misleading to conclude that one cannot generalise from a single case, but that it depends on the type of case one is considering and how it is chosen. He postulated that the strategic choice of a case can contribute to its generalisability. Yin (2009) on the contrary argue that case studies are generalizable to theoretical propositions (analytic generalisations) and not to populations or universes (statistical genearalisation) and that “in analytical generalisation, the investigator is striving to generalise a particular set of results to some broader theory” p.43). A third group of the proponents of the

It is argued that case studies are subjective and allow for the introduction of researcher bias into research findings and conclusions. However, proponents of the method argue that, bias is a fundamental human element that is always present in any form of human endeavour including case study research (Yin, 2009; Flyvberg, 2006). Flyvbjerg (2006:21) states that “[t]he 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 toward falsification of preconceived notions than toward verification”. Since the case study method seeks to understand real-life situations as they unfold in practice, just like this study, the critique on the presence of subjectivity in case study research though useful could be considered misplaced. This is because, to achieve an advanced stage of learning and understanding of a complex and context-dependent phenomenon like hybridity in urban land governance, it beholds on the researcher to deeply ‘immerse’ him/herself within the context being studied. Therefore claiming a value-neutral approach in case study approach is somewhat inappropriate. Nonetheless, steps will be taken to ensure a fair representation of all evidences collected through triangulation. Likewise, general principles of ensuring trustworthiness in