Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.632
DC FieldValue
dc.titleAn iterative approach to case study analysis: insights from qualitative analysis of quantitative inconsistencies
dc.contributor.authorAllain J. Barnett
dc.contributor.authorJacopo A. Baggio
dc.contributor.authorHoon Cheol Shin
dc.contributor.authorDavid J. Yu
dc.contributor.authorIrene Perez-Ibara
dc.contributor.authorCathy Rubinos
dc.contributor.authorUte Brady
dc.contributor.authorElicia Ratajczyk
dc.contributor.authorNathan Rollins
dc.contributor.authorRimjhim Aggarwal
dc.contributor.authorJohn M. Anderies
dc.contributor.authorMarco A. Janssen
dc.date.accessioned2022-03-10T08:38:14Z
dc.date.available2022-03-10T08:38:14Z
dc.date.issued2016-09-09
dc.identifier.citationAllain J. Barnett, Jacopo A. Baggio, Hoon Cheol Shin, David J. Yu, Irene Perez-Ibara, Cathy Rubinos, Ute Brady, Elicia Ratajczyk, Nathan Rollins, Rimjhim Aggarwal, John M. Anderies, Marco A. Janssen (2016-09-09). An iterative approach to case study analysis: insights from qualitative analysis of quantitative inconsistencies. International Journal of the Commons 10 (2) : 467-494. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.632
dc.identifier.issn1875-0281
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/216915
dc.description.abstractLarge-N comparative studies have helped common pool resource scholars gain general insights into the factors that influence collective action and governance outcomes. However, these studies are often limited by missing data, and suffer from the methodological limitation that important information is lost when we reduce textual information to quantitative data. This study was motivated by nine case studies that appeared to be inconsistent with the expectation that the presence of Ostrom’s Design Principles increases the likelihood of successful common pool resource governance. These cases highlight the limitations of coding and analysing large-N case studies. We examine two issues: 1) the challenge of missing data and 2) potential approaches that rely on context (which is often lost in the coding process) to address inconsistencies between empirical observations and theoretical predictions. For the latter, we conduct a post-hoc qualitative analysis of a large-N comparative study to explore 2 types of inconsistencies: 1) cases where evidence for nearly all design principles was found, but available evidence led to the assessment that the CPR system was unsuccessful and 2) cases where the CPR system was deemed successful despite finding limited or no evidence for design principles. We describe inherent challenges to large-N comparative analysis and to coding complex and dynamically changing common pool resource systems for the presence or absence of design principles and the determination of “success”. Finally, we illustrate how, in some cases, our qualitative analysis revealed that the identity of absent design principles explained inconsistencies, and hence reconciled such apparent inconsistencies with theoretical predictions. This analysis demonstrates the value of combining quantitative and qualitative analysis, and using mixed-methods approaches iteratively to build comprehensive methodological and theoretical approaches to understanding common pool resource governance in a dynamically changing context.
dc.publisherUbiquity Press
dc.subjectCase study analysis
dc.subjectCommon pool resources
dc.subjectCoupled infrastructure systems
dc.subjectDesign principles
dc.subjectInstitutional analysis
dc.subjectLarge-N
dc.subjectMixed methods
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentDEAN'S OFFICE (LKY SCH OF PUBLIC POLICY)
dc.description.doi10.18352/ijc.632
dc.description.sourcetitleInternational Journal of the Commons
dc.description.volume10
dc.description.issue2
dc.description.page467-494
dc.published.statePublished
Appears in Collections:Elements
Staff Publications

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
Hoon Cheol_An iterative approach to case study analysis.pdf335.15 kBAdobe PDF

OPEN

NoneView/Download

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

23
checked on Nov 25, 2022

Page view(s)

49
checked on Nov 17, 2022

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.