Accessing Hidden and Hard-to-Reach Populations - Essay Example

?Case Study Part I. Feagin, Orum and Sjoberg defined the case study method as “in-depth, multi-faceted investigation, using qualitative research methods, of a single social phenomenon. The study is conducted in great detail and often relies on the use of several data sources. (1991: 2).” As to its purpose, Stake wrote that “(c)ase studies can be used to test hypotheses, particularly to examine a single exception that shows the hypothesis to be false (1978: 7)” but that its best use is “adding to existing experience and humanistic understanding. (ibid.)” The five criteria for case selection according to Smelser (1976: 4) is as follows: “(1) appropriate to the kind of theoretical posed by the investigator… (2) relevant to the phenomenon being studied… (3) empirically invariant with respect to their classificatory criterion… (4) reflect the degree of availability of data referring to this unit… and (5) decisions to select and classify units of analysis should be based on standardised and repeatable procedures. The social issue that I have chosen is the issue of bio-ethanol production and agro-fuels – a contentious issue debated upon in an age of energy vulnerability and land shortages. The proponents of agro-fuels laud initiatives by the US government to embark on massive corn ethanol production, chiefly to decrease reliance on fossil fuels. On the other hand, its opponents argue that there are risks to small-farmers in rural places of production and can deepen inequality. The research that I have chosen was written by Gillon (2010). In the said paper, Gillon (2010, p. 723) looked at corn ethanol production in the state of Iowa, United States and looked at the dynamics and relationships between big business – i.e., the ethanol corporations – and the small farmers. He also examined the policies and politics that surround ethanol production. He began by looking at the related literature from a more global perspective, arguing that “each agrofuels controversy implies a renegotiation of social and ecological relations, whether the issue is food crises, land use change, market relationships, or struggles over industry participation and ownership. (page 726).” His premise is that the ethanol frenzy is emblematic of the tendency of capitalism to rely on “environmental fixes” (ibid.) – whereby bioethanol is promoted to supposedly reduce greenhouse gases, but “consumption levels and accumulation based on extracting cheap corn from the Midwestern landscape. (page 727)”. One of the cental conclusions that Gillon derives from his research is that contrary to the assertions of the proponents of bio-ethanol, small farmers do not stand to gain from the bioethanol boom. This is because, in his words, “despite simplistic assertions that rural benefits will arrive on the heels of an ethanol industry, the risks, costs, and opportunities associated with biofuels industry development fall unevenly. (page 733)” Interviews with the Iowa farmers demonstrated that the rising input prices and land rents made any profits that came their way from corn production negligible. Another conclusion that the research makes is that the depressed rural economies from which the ethanol are sourced are the ones paying the price for the desires of consumers in urban communities. Whilst the urban consumers benefit from the reduced costs of fuel and the so-called environmental friendliness of renewable energy, the rural areas are paying environmental costs that are invisible in the bio-ethanol discourse. The author gave the example of Cargill, a biodiesel plant in Iowa Falls, Iowa that disposed 135,000 gallons of liquid oil and grease into a stream, thus compromising water quality in the area. Another point is that the increase of corn production on the land to feed into the ethanol project puts tremendous pressures on the land and on the environment – more than any other crop, corn production emits the highest levels of green house gases (page 739.) It is also prejudicial to the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), which sets aside land for conservation purposes. According to the research, 4.1 million acres of CRP lands were lost to ethanol production (ibid). Gillon ended by calling upon stakeholders to “challenge an agrofuels future that would reinforce current, unequal configurations of social and ecological relations in the Corn belt. (page 741).” The research question that guided the research of Gillon is not explicitly stated, but taking the research as a whole, it is apparent that the research wanted to find out the extent to which bio-ethanol production leads to beneficial outcomes to small-holder farmers and rural communities in Iowa, United States. Going to the methodology, Gillon used the common research techniques of the case study. His research utilized a combination of techniques, including policy and document analyses, including statements made by government officials in the United States, secondary data on the biofuel industry and statistics of agricultural production and land use, but a huge part relied on qualitative data from field interviews in Iowa from 2006-2009. He interviewed farmers, county conservation officials, related state-level public officials, Iowa residents, industry investors, and refinery owners and operators. (page 728). According to Gillon as well, he employed a “snowball sampling method”, (2010, p. 728) which according to Atkinson and Flint, “consists of identifying respondents who are then used to refer researchers on to other respondents. (2001: 1)”. His primary finding is that the bio-ethanol production has adverse socio-ecological effects on the rural areas that produce the ethanol, in this case Iowa, and that contrary to claims made by proponents of bio-ethanol, the touted benefits of the ethanol boom do not trickle down to the rural communities. I find that his efforts to conduct interviews have benefitted his research greatly. To quote Babbie, “"field research is especially appropriate for the study of those attitudes and behaviors best understood within their natural setting, as opposed to the somewhat artificial settings of experiments and surveys (2010: 297).” Part 2. Yes, I would have conducted the research in the same way, and I would especially follow his track of conducting field interviews with the farmers. Considering that the central theme of his paper is the development outcomes of bio-ethanol for farmers, it was appropriate that he conducted the field interviews. It gave him an opportunity to include their perspectives into the research, take note of the nuances, identify the discrepancies between how they feel and how the official reports and government discourse say they feel. The strength of the case method approach is that it allows one to go in-depth and analyze a case and all its angles and corners. Even if the case is a simple one, if one succeeds in connecting the empirical findings with a larger theoretical framework, then the research can be innovative, insightful and engaging. A case method also gives the researcher the opportunity to directly see and investigate the impacts of a particular variable or the application of a particular theory on a given context set and in a real-life setting. For example, if one wants to know if bio-ethanol benefits the farmers, he or she can perhaps just look at the secondary data or look at statistics, but then there is a lot to be derived by looking at actual case studies and validating the results. More often than not, the statistics can be manipulated by those who have some power or authority – as for instance, government statistics can be packaged in a manner that demonstrates the benefits of bio-ethanol – but a case study that uses ethnography allows a researcher to go beyond the numbers and look at the actual and felt realities of the subjects. One of the disadvantages of the case study method is that without a sound theoretical framework or a good research question, it can very easily turn into a descriptive essay without any analytical contribution. Many papers that purport to do case studies often end up describing the case, rather than analyzing the case and why it confirms or refutes a particular theory or notion. Another criticism is that the findings in a case study research may not easily be replicable to other contexts and situations (Cassell and Symon, 2004, p. 552) but they may be generalizable to others in similar situations. In the paper by Gillon (2010, p. 723), however, I felt that he was able to establish that some general principles and conclusions about bioethanol can be teased out from the Iowa experience, in that he chose to contextualize the findings of the report within a larger framework of the neo-liberal school of thought and he was able to demonstrated that what was happening to the farmers there could also be happening to the small-holder farmers in other parts of the world facing similar incursions and market pressures. This was because he began by looking at the global picture and then narrowing down on the experiences of the Iowan farmers as emblematic of these global imbalances. Moreover, he also had a very sound theoretical framework, using the agrarian political economy as lens of analysis. This helped the credibility of his case study immensely. Overall, however, I still feel that the case study research is of value to the researcher, particularly those doing social research. As long as one has a sound research design and is guided by a useful research question that will illumine the research process and help in the interpretation of the findings, then it is a viable research methodology. The key remains to be, however, a sound theoretical framework. To quote Cassell and Symon, “without a theoretical framework, a case study may produce fascinating details... but without any wider significance. (2004: 552)”. Overall, there is much benefit to be derived from the case study method. If done ethically and sensitively, with analytical rigor and a firm grasp of theory, one can make a solid contribution to the existing body of knowledge. Word Count: 1503 References Atkinson, R. and Flint, J. (2001). “Accessing Hidden and Hard-to-reach Populations: Snowball Research Strategies”. Social Research Update. Issue 33. Available at http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU33.html. Babbie, E. (2010). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (2004). “Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research.” London: Sage. Feagin, J., Orum, A. and Sjoberg, G. (1991). A Case for the Case Study. NC: North Carolina University Press. Gillon, S. (2010). “Fields of Dreams: negotiating an ethanol agenda in the Midwest United States.” The Journal of Peasant Studies. Vol. 37(4). 723-748. Smelser, N.J. (1976) Comparative Methods in the Social Sciences: Neil J. Smelser. Englewood Cliffs, NJ [etc.]: Prentice-Hall. Stake, R. (1978). “The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry”. Educational Researcher, Vol. 7, No. 2. Pp. 5-8. Read More