An iterative approach to case study analysis: insights from qualitative analysis of quantitative inconsistencies

Large-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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Allain J Barnett, Jacopo A Baggio, Hoon C Shin, David J Yu, Irene Perez-Ibarra, Cathy Rubinos, Ute Brady, Elicia Ratajczyk, Nathan Rollins, Rimjhim Aggarwal, John M Anderies, Marco A Janssen
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Utrecht University Library Open Access Journals (Publishing Services) 2016-09-01
Series:International Journal of the Commons
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.thecommonsjournal.org/articles/632
id doaj-a4387538fa9d47bf817b870b4f70b85e
record_format Article
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Allain J Barnett
Jacopo A Baggio
Hoon C Shin
David J Yu
Irene Perez-Ibarra
Cathy Rubinos
Ute Brady
Elicia Ratajczyk
Nathan Rollins
Rimjhim Aggarwal
John M Anderies
Marco A Janssen
spellingShingle Allain J Barnett
Jacopo A Baggio
Hoon C Shin
David J Yu
Irene Perez-Ibarra
Cathy Rubinos
Ute Brady
Elicia Ratajczyk
Nathan Rollins
Rimjhim Aggarwal
John M Anderies
Marco A Janssen
An iterative approach to case study analysis: insights from qualitative analysis of quantitative inconsistencies
International Journal of the Commons
case study analysis
common pool resources
coupled infrastructure systems
design principles
institutional analysis
large-n
mixed methods
author_facet Allain J Barnett
Jacopo A Baggio
Hoon C Shin
David J Yu
Irene Perez-Ibarra
Cathy Rubinos
Ute Brady
Elicia Ratajczyk
Nathan Rollins
Rimjhim Aggarwal
John M Anderies
Marco A Janssen
author_sort Allain J Barnett
title An iterative approach to case study analysis: insights from qualitative analysis of quantitative inconsistencies
title_short An iterative approach to case study analysis: insights from qualitative analysis of quantitative inconsistencies
title_full An iterative approach to case study analysis: insights from qualitative analysis of quantitative inconsistencies
title_fullStr An iterative approach to case study analysis: insights from qualitative analysis of quantitative inconsistencies
title_full_unstemmed An iterative approach to case study analysis: insights from qualitative analysis of quantitative inconsistencies
title_sort iterative approach to case study analysis: insights from qualitative analysis of quantitative inconsistencies
publisher Utrecht University Library Open Access Journals (Publishing Services)
series International Journal of the Commons
issn 1875-0281
publishDate 2016-09-01
description Large-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 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 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 hence de-facto reconciling 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.
topic case study analysis
common pool resources
coupled infrastructure systems
design principles
institutional analysis
large-n
mixed methods
url https://www.thecommonsjournal.org/articles/632
work_keys_str_mv AT allainjbarnett aniterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT jacopoabaggio aniterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT hooncshin aniterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT davidjyu aniterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT ireneperezibarra aniterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT cathyrubinos aniterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT utebrady aniterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT eliciaratajczyk aniterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT nathanrollins aniterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT rimjhimaggarwal aniterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT johnmanderies aniterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT marcoajanssen aniterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT allainjbarnett iterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT jacopoabaggio iterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT hooncshin iterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT davidjyu iterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT ireneperezibarra iterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT cathyrubinos iterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT utebrady iterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT eliciaratajczyk iterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT nathanrollins iterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT rimjhimaggarwal iterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT johnmanderies iterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
AT marcoajanssen iterativeapproachtocasestudyanalysisinsightsfromqualitativeanalysisofquantitativeinconsistencies
_version_ 1724746172521775104
spelling doaj-a4387538fa9d47bf817b870b4f70b85e2020-11-25T02:48:52ZengUtrecht University Library Open Access Journals (Publishing Services)International Journal of the Commons1875-02812016-09-0110246749410.18352/ijc.632303An iterative approach to case study analysis: insights from qualitative analysis of quantitative inconsistenciesAllain J Barnett0Jacopo A Baggio1Hoon C Shin2David J Yu3Irene Perez-Ibarra4Cathy Rubinos5Ute Brady6Elicia Ratajczyk7Nathan Rollins8Rimjhim Aggarwal9John M Anderies10Marco A Janssen11Department of Anthropology, University of New Brunswick Center for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment, Arizona State University School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State UniversityCenter for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment, Arizona State University Department of Environment and Society, Utah State UniversityCenter for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment, Arizona State University School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State UniversityCenter for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment, Arizona State University Lyles School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University Department of Political Science, Purdue University Center for the Environment, Purdue UniversityCenter for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment, Arizona State UniversityCenter for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment, Arizona State University School of Sustainability, Arizona State UniversityCenter for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment, Arizona State University School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State UniversityCenter for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment, Arizona State University School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State UniversityCenter for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment, Arizona State UniversityCenter for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment, Arizona State University School of Sustainability, Arizona State UniversityCenter for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment, Arizona State University School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University School of Sustainability, Arizona State UniversityCenter for Behavior, Institutions and the Environment, Arizona State University School of Sustainability, Arizona State UniversityLarge-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 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 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 hence de-facto reconciling 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.https://www.thecommonsjournal.org/articles/632case study analysiscommon pool resourcescoupled infrastructure systemsdesign principlesinstitutional analysislarge-nmixed methods