Journal of Planning

Education and Research

http://jpe.sagepub.com/

N of One plus Some: An Alternative Strategy for Conducting Single Case Research
Vinit Mukhija
Journal of Planning Education and Research 2010 29: 416 originally published online 11 March 2010
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X10362770
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/29/4/416

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning

Additional services and information for Journal of Planning Education and Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jpe.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://jpe.sagepub.com/content/29/4/416.refs.html

>> Version of Record - May 28, 2010

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 11, 2010
What is This?

Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on January 6, 2014

Article

N of One plus Some: An Alternative

Strategy for Conducting Single Case
Research

Journal of Planning Education and Research

29(4) 416426
The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0739456X10362770
http://jpe.sagepub.com

Vinit Mukhija1

Abstract
Case study researchers choose between single and multiple case research approaches. The literature recommends single
cases for gaining in-depth understanding and multiple cases for acquiring broader understanding. This article presents
the unconventional approach of a primary case informed by multiple secondary cases. It suggests that focusing on one
case while following some additional secondary cases may, paradoxically and under certain conditions, be a better way of
conducting in-depth, single case research. The secondary, or assisting, cases can help the researcher to identify issues to
expect, questions to ask, and data to look for in the primary case.
Keywords
case study, research methods, slums, housing, NGOs, SPARC, Mumbai
In the late nineties, while conducting fieldwork in Mumbai
(formerly Bombay), I serendipitously stumbled upon an
unconventional research strategy. I was evaluating the citys
unusual, and controversial, policy of redeveloping slums and
resettling former slum-dwellers in fully cross-subsidized,
new housing on the original sites (Mukhija 2000, 2003).
Developers were allowed to build additional, market-rate
housing on the former slum sites, or transfer the development
rights, to pay for the cost of the replacement housing. My
intention was to examine multiple projects to understand why
and how redevelopment was taking place. I was interested in
understanding how projects were being implemented, what
kinds of problems were encountered, and how they were
addressed in practice. I assumed that multiple cases, four to
be precise, would allow me to select research projects with
different organizational actorsnonprofit organizations;
community-based cooperatives; public sector agencies; and
market-based, private developersas the project developers.
Each project would have related but also distinct problems
and approaches to the hurdles in redevelopment, and the multiple cases would allow me to generalize my findings with
adequate robustness. But after the preliminary research phase,
I decided to focus on a single case of redevelopment.
There were three main reasons for the adjustment. First,
my preliminary fieldwork revealed that the redevelopment
projects were far more complicated than I had anticipated. It
was unlikely that I would be able to conduct four case studies
with a desirable level of detail in my remaining eight to nine
months of fieldwork. Second, accessing information on the

cases was more difficult than I had assumed. Stakeholders

were reluctant to share their experiences with me, particularly when their real estate practices were less than completely
legal. In one of the cases, however, I seemed to have a better
chance at accessing the complete story because of the
involvement of a well-known and internationally recognized
nongovernmental organization (NGO), the Society for the
Promotion of Area Resource Centres (SPARC). SPARC, one
of Indias leading shelter and empowerment NGOs, was
exceedingly generous in its willingness to share its project
documents with me. It also offered to help me gain access to
the other actors in the case. Third, I realized that all my
potential case studies were institutionally complex, with
multiple stakeholders involved in the redevelopments and
playing pivotal roles. It was difficult to consider or analyze
the cases as dominated by a single organizational actor.
Thus, I decided to change my multiple case research design
to a single case study. I wanted to know as much as possible
about the case study, even if it meant that I had to be
Initial submission, September 2007; revised submissions, June and December
2009; final acceptance, January 2010
1

University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:
Vinit Mukhija, University of California, Los Angeles, Department of Urban
Planning, 3250 Public Affairs Building, Box 951656, Los Angeles,
CA 90095, USA
Email: vmukhija@ucla.edu

Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on January 6, 2014

417

Mukhija
extremely cautious and avoid broad generalizations from the
research. However, contrary to the conventional practice of
focusing on a single case, I continued exploring the other
casestwo of them in particularalthough in a limited
manner. I had developed some useful contacts or informants
in the rejected case studies, and I continued to meet them,
interview them, and learn from them. I call this research
strategy of a single, primary case informed or assisted by
multiple secondary cases N of One plus Some. In this article,
I share my experience, explain the strategy, and discuss its
advantages and disadvantages as a single case approach.
Although research design methods and decisions are integral and crucial in the discipline, planning scholars rarely
focus on them or analyze the choices explicitly in the literature. There are, for example, only a few papers on the subject
in this journal (Dandekar 1986; Gaber and Gaber 1997; Innes
de Neufville 1987; Madsen 1983). In part, an explanation for
this gap is the professional nature of planning and our practice
of drawing research methodologies from other disciplinary
traditions. Nonetheless, we tend to innovate and adapt conventional research methods for our specific needs. Critical
reflections on such practices and methodologies are likely to
interest other planning researchers.
The literature recommends single cases for gaining an
in-depth and detailed understanding. Multiple case study
research, on the other hand, is recommended as more helpful
in acquiring a broader understanding and in generalizing the
findings. Furthermore, the literature recommends selecting the
primary case as early on in the research phase as possible and
thereafter focusing on it exclusively. This article will illustrate
a counterintuitive approach of conducting single case research
by following, in addition to the main case, some additional
secondary cases as an alternative strategy of developing a
more detailed and in-depth understanding of the primary case.
Researchers, however, need to be cautious about how much
time is expended on the secondary, or assisting, cases. The
secondary cases need to be researched in comparatively less
detail and may or may not be included in the findings. (Alternatively, they also could be includedfully or partiallyin
an appendix.) Their main purpose is to assist in conducting
research on the primary case by helping to identify issues to
expect, questions to ask, and data to look for in the main case.
Thus, the secondary cases can help in achieving sufficient
depth and detail in the primary case study, can assist in corroborating the veracity of its data and information collected,
and can suggest ways in framing its narrative. In this manner,
the supporting secondary cases strategy can help researchers
develop a robust and comprehensive understanding of the primary case. The key characteristic of useful assisting cases
might be the presence of a friendly and knowledgeable informant, who can help the researcher appreciate issues that are
underplayed in the literature and might be missed in the main
case. In my exposition I will reflect on the potential advantages and the possible trade-offs of this research approach.

In addition to an explicit discussion of the research methodology argument, like the chapters in the edited volume
Methodology for Land and Housing Market Analysis (Jones
and Ward 1994; also see Tipple and Willis 1991; Vestbro,
Hurol, and Wilkinson 2005), I use the articles narrative as
an opportunity to raise an issue of interest for scholars and
practitioners of housing policy and nonprofit organizations.
I deconstruct the institutional relationship between nonprofit
organizations as housing developers and the communities they
serve. I suggest that the real asset-based nature of housing, and
the difficulties associated with real estate development in
markets and institutional contexts in which petty corruption is
often endemic, can undermine the amicable relationship
between progressive nonprofit organizations and ordinary
community groups. I will elaborate on this argument in the
main narrative of the article. My focus, nonetheless, is on the
methodological suggestion in the article.
After this introduction, in a brief literature review, I discuss the value of case study research and some of its criticisms.
My focus in the review is to introduce the underlying ideas of
case study research, elaborate on the differences between
single and multiple case studies, and discuss the trade-offs
between intensive and extensive research. Subsequently, in
the narrative body of the article, I will suggest that secondary
cases can improve the robustness of single-case-based, intensive research. While it is impossible to prove that I would
have missed crucial aspects of the primary case without the
assistance of the secondary cases, I will illustrate how the
secondary cases may have helped me conduct in-depth and
detailed research on the primary case by revealing useful
lines of inquiry. The concluding section reiterates the main
argument, discusses the trade-offs of the N of One plus Some
approach, elaborates on when and how to employ the strategy,
and shares some necessary caveats.

Case Study Research

Case studies are an in-depth, multifaceted exploration of a
single social phenomenon and have a methodological
affinity with, but are not limited to, qualitative and inductive approaches in the research investigation. They are
popular, even pervasive, in planning, policy, and business
education and research (Schon 1990). Lisa Peattie, the urban
anthropologist, perhaps as well as anyone, has employed case
studies in her research (1968, 1987) and has eloquently
explained the strategy and its advantages (1983, 1990, 1995).
She describes case study researchqualified by her as the
dense data case study approachas a sharper manner of
looking at particular situations (1995, 392) and as useful
for understanding issues in which processes and connections are imperative but are misunderstood or incompletely
comprehended (1983).
With this credo, exemplary case study research has often
been paradigm-generating and seminal. It has helped develop

Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on January 6, 2014

418

Journal of Planning Education and Research 29(4)

new understanding and knowledge, particularly in the context of novel institutional arrangements and understudied
organizations and communities. Examples familiar, and of
interest, to planners include Jane Jacobss classic and unsurpassed reading of New Yorks urbanism (1961), Robert
Dahls insights on power and plural governance in New
Haven (1961), Herbert Ganss revelation of a diverse and
lively community of immigrants in Bostons West End
(1962) and of suburban social vitality in Levittown (1967),
Alice Amsdens analysis of the South Korean governments
active involvement in the countrys late industrialization
(1989), and Sudhir Venkateshs affirmation of community
life in Chicago public housing (2000). Similarly, there have
been numerous noteworthy contributions of multiple case
studies in planning and allied fields. Prominent examples
include Douglass North and Robert Thomass explanation of
the primacy of institutions and property rights in the economic development of Western European nations (1973);
John Mollenkopfs theory of politics and progrowth coalitions based on research in Boston and San Francisco (1983);
Jackie Leavitt and Susan Saegerts story of successful tenant
organizing in abandoned housing developments of Harlem
(1990); Judith Tendlers analysis of successful public bureaucracies, good governments, in northeast Brazil (1998); Jason
Corburns examination of citizens using community knowledge to act as change agents for policy amendments and
environmental health justice (2005); Lance Freemans demonstration of the complexity of gentrification in the Harlem
and Clinton Hill neighborhoods of New York (2006); and
Xavier Briggss recent work on civic capacity and problem
solving around the world (2008).
As the above examples suggest, case study research tends
to be nuanced, unconventional, and often controversial. The
basic approach in many of these studies is to start with contrarian cases, where the orthodox expectations and theories
are insufficient to explain what is happening. The emphasis
of research is to understand how and why things are different in the cases being studied (Orum and Feagin 1991).
Robert Yin, author of the seminal Case Study Research,
emphasizes the approachs ability to reveal nuance and intricacy, and claims that overall, a significant trend may be
toward appreciating the complexity of organizational phenomena, for which the case study may be the most appropriate
research method (1994, 12). A characteristic of many past
examples is also the underlying belief and optimism that
under the right conditions, human agency can overcome
institutional or structural limitations (Peattie 1990). A key
objective of such research, therefore, is to identify the necessary circumstances under which typical constraints can be
prevailed over.
The open-endedness and inductive nature of many case
study research projects might also help explain some of the
strategys success. Case study researchers are faced with the
question posed by Charles Ragin and Howard Becker, What

is this a case of? (1992, 6). The problem is familiar to

researchers that follow an inductive approach but can be
vexing to others. In the inductive framework, the answer to
Ragin and Beckers question is fluid and alters. The categorization of a case can change and evolve as the research
progresses. Ragin and Becker refer to this as the fluidity of
casing (p. 225). For example, a case study might start out as
an example of active community engagement in upgrading
neighborhood infrastructure, but as the research proceeds, it
might be better described as a case of community disagreements resolved through negotiation and compromise. By the
time the study is completed, the researcher might conclude
that it is a case of a skilled, elite leader resolving conflicts
and unilaterally making crucial decisions for the community.
Such open-endedness, with continuous rejection and generation of hypotheses, is characteristic of case-study-based
inductive research. As Louise Kidder and Michelle Fine
describe the fluidity or openness of such research, The difference between deductive and inductive research lies not in
the percentage of structured and unstructured questions but
in how open-ended the research process itself is. Researchers
who work deductively gather data to test specific hypotheses, not to generate new hypotheses, and serendipitous
findings are considered interesting but unreliable. By contrast researchers who work inductively continue to generate
hypotheses and look for new questions even as they gather
data (1987, 60).1

Criticism of Case Studies, and Responses

For many practitioners of case study research, it is the intrinsic malleability of the approach that makes it feasible,
powerful, and capable of revealing insights in complex situations. Practitioners of case study research, nonetheless, are
regularly compelled to defend the strategy and make A Case
for the Case Study (Feagin, Orum, and Sjoberg 1991; also
see A Case for Case Studies, Abramson 1992). Critics accuse
case studies of being at the nonrigorous and nonscientific
end of the research spectrum.2 They raise concerns of both
internal validityability to interpret causalityand external
validityability to generalize findings. Some case study
researchers, the nonpositivists in particular, take the approach
that case studies are suitable for generating paradigms or
hypotheses, and concerns of external validity are less relevant. They tend to conduct single case studies and focus on
addressing the internal validity criticisms. Like Robert Stake,
they take the position that we do not study a case primarily
to understand other cases. Our first obligation is to understand this one case (1995, 4). The emphasis, thus, is on
revelatory cases and particularizing, not generalizing.
Others, in a more positivist vein, are interested in hypothesis
testing, and they tend to focus on multiple case studies, and
often mixed methods, for addressing concerns of robustness
and external validity.3

Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on January 6, 2014

419

Mukhija
Single case study researchers try to address the concerns of
internal validity by immersing in the literature, adding depth,
details, and richness to their narratives, and by subdividing
single cases into multiple observations. All case study
researchers emphasize the necessity of being immersed in the
literature and how knowledge of the literature guides the
research and data collection process. Their trying and rejecting of ideas is done in response to the literature, as researchers
attempt to frame the case by identifying where and how it
departs from the literature, and has the potential of making an
interesting theoretical contribution. Similarly, Barney Glaser
and Anselm Strauss, the proponents of grounded theory,
emphasized the importance of theoretical sensitivity,
researchers ability to compare their case with the literature
and see relevant data in their case study (1967).
Depth, detail, and richnessoften referred to as thick
description, dense data, rich data, and so forthmay be the
most important attributes of case study research, particularly
single cases. They also provide researchers a potential strategy
to address concerns of internal validity while being relatively
less concerned about achieving generalizable findings.4
Joseph Maxwell (2004, 255) quotes Howard Becker (1970,
53) to explain how most case study researchers negotiate the
problem of veracity through details and rich data to counter
the twin dangers of respondent duplicity and observer bias by
making it difficult for respondents to produce data that uniformly support a mistaken conclusion, just as they make it
difficult for the observer to restrict his observations so that he
sees only what supports his prejudices and expectations.
Maxwell adds, In both cases, rich data provide a test of ones
developing theories, as well as a basis for generating, developing, and supporting such theories (p. 255). Depth, details, and
richness, thus, can help researchers verify their data and their
theoretical interpretations.
Another typical strategy engaged by case study researchers to achieve robust findings is to subdivide a single case
into multiple cases. John Gerring calls this the within-case
approach (2004, 2007). He claims that in exemplary casestudy-based research, single case study research is a
misnomer. In most accomplished examples of single case
study research, he argues, researchers do not typically work
with a single case. On the contrary, they focus on a single
unit but employ multiple cases. The single unit is seen as
comprising several repetitive episodes or cases. For example, the governments involvement in a single nations
economy might be studied through its role in multiple sectors of the economy. Time can be another strategy of
subdividing a single unit. For example, a national governments involvement in a single arena, say housing, may be
analyzed temporally, decade by decade. Alternatively, relationships between different stakeholders can be another
approach to subdividing a case. For example, a governments
policies towards for-profit housing developers, nonprofit
housing developers, and community cooperatives can be

studied as separate case studies of state housing policy.

Moreover, different perspectives, say the viewpoint of forprofit housing developers, nonprofit housing developers, and
community cooperatives on public support for their endeavors, can be yet another approach to subdividing a single
case.5 Gerring also suggests that the within-case strategy can
allow researchers greater latitude in generalizing findings,
and this approach helps blur the conventional boundary
between single and multiple case research.
Robert Yin (1994) and John Gerring (2007) have played an
important and constructive role in detailing how to plan, conduct, analyze, and report case study research. In addition to the
ideas of theoretical sensitivity, finely detailed descriptions,
and within-case strategy discussed above, Yin and Gerring
suggest the incorporation of rational choice tools with the
analysis of case studies and the employment of mixed methods to complement case studies, and they recommend case
study researchers to be cautious with sweeping generalizations. They also argue that multiple case studies are more
likely to be convincing and successful in analytical generalization and hypothesis testing.6

Depth or Breadth?
Even with the within-case approach as an option, a key
choice that case study researchers must make is between
single and disparate multiple cases. The general advice in the
literature is that this decision needs to be made prior to
investing a substantial amount of time on data collection
(Yin 1994, 46). Less typical, but not unusual, is the practice
of selecting a single case from among multiple pilot case
studies (Yin 1994, 59). Researchers, nonetheless, are advised
to not spend too much time on the multiple cases before
selecting the single case. In a way, the choice between single
and multiple case research is similar to the selection between
case-oriented research and variable-oriented research. The
later derives its confidence from breadth, while in the former
it comes from depth (Ragin 2000). Conducting case study
research with multiple cases is a strategy of adding breadth
to the investigation. The breadth, however, inevitably comes
with a trade-off in depth and poses a dilemma for researchers. This is how William F. Whyte, the participatory action
research sociologist and author of the trailblazing Street
Corner Society (1943), a study of Italian American gangs in
the North End of Boston, put itI see no general answer to
the breadth versus depth question, but in general I lean
toward depth. To be sure, at first we need to reconnoiter the
social terrain so as to focus on a case or a problem worth
studying, but then I think it better to spend time on intensive
work on that part of the terrain than to continue studying all
of the terrain (1984, 249-50).
In contrast, Robert Yin, with an eye on achieving analytical generalization, suggests that more cases are preferable to
one: Regardless of any resource constraints, if multiple

Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on January 6, 2014

420

Journal of Planning Education and Research 29(4)

candidates are qualified to serve as cases, the larger the

number you can study the better (2009, 92). John Gerring
takes a more open-ended position on the question of single
or multiple case study research, noting, Whether to strive
for breadth or depth is not a question that can be answered in
a definitive way. All we can safely conclude is that researchers invariably face a choice between knowing more about
less or less about more (2007, 49). Both methods have their
strengths and weaknesses. Like Gerring, I am less interested
in taking a definitive position on the merits of single or multiple case study research, but I do have a slight bias toward
single cases. As the review indicates, case studies are ideal
for understanding complex and misunderstood phenomenon.
Case study researchers, however, are often criticized for
their generalizations. In response, many case study researchers have turned to multiple case studies as an approach to
generalizing. But multiple case studies often come at the cost
of an in-depth exploration of the cases. For me, it is primarily
the depth of the case study that makes it attractive, convincing, and useful. My aim in this article, nonetheless, is
relatively modest and narrow. I am less interested in arguing
for a single-case-based research strategy, but more interested
in sharing an alternative strategy of conducting single case
research. I suggest that with the approach of N of One plus
Some, researchers can pursue secondary cases to better
understand the primary case. The assisting cases can help to
add depth to the primary case, rather than detract from its
richness. The subsequent depth, details, and richness are
likely to help contribute to a more robust understanding of
the main case. The following narrative illustrates how my
secondary cases helped me in my data collection and interpretation of the primary case.

Framing the Case: Nonprofit

Organizations and Real Estate
Development
The Background Story
My research focused on slum redevelopment in Mumbai
(Mukhija 2000, 2003). Conventionally, slum improvement
strategies have followed two distinct paths (Abrams 1964;
Turner 1967). One is based on slum clearance and off-site
resettlement of former slum-dwellers. The second, more
enlightened approach involves the in situ upgrading of slums
through a focus on infrastructure provision and security of
tenure. Mumbai was implementing an unconventional policy
of slum redevelopment with the on-site resettlement of former
slum-dwellers in cross-subsidized housing. The redevelopment
policy was controversial and widely criticized, but it also
enjoyed the support of some of the citys more progressive
actors. The policy makers had structured the policy to allow for
community cooperatives and NGOs, in addition to public
agencies and market actors, to become project developers. At

the time of my research, only a few projects had been fully

completed or were close to completion. But my evidence indicated that despite the problems, many slum-dwellers were
interested in the redevelopment option. I was interested in
understanding how projects were being implemented, what
kinds of hurdles were encountered, and how they were
addressed in practice.
I intended to analyze four case studies, each with a different institutional actor as the project developer. The first case,
Markandeya Cooperative Housing Society (MCHS), included
the nonprofit organization SPARC as its initiator and codeveloper. In the second case, Scion Shivaji CHS, an architect
helped the community engage a private developer to finance
and control the redevelopment. The third case, a tenants
cooperative in central Mumbai, involved a group of tenants
controlling the redevelopment process. At the time, it was the
only example of its kind in the city. Finally, in the IshwariKailash CHS, a government agency was the initiator of
redevelopment. I planned to spend three to four months conducting preliminary fieldwork in Mumbai, then leave the city
to reflect on and finalize the research design, and subsequently spend another eight or nine months in the field to
complete the project. This plan, however, went awry. Instead
of persisting with the four case studies, I decide to focus only
on the MCHS, the NGO case. The case studies were more
complicated than I expected, and it was difficult to get the
complete stories of four cases. SPARC, however, was open to
helping me understand and analyze its case. Thus, the research
strategy moved from a multicase approach to a single case
study, selected through multiple pilot case studies. By the
time I completed the fieldwork, however, I had made another
adjustment to the research strategy. I focused on a single case,
but I did not completely abandon the other cases. The secondary cases informed my research in the primary case and
enabled me to ask the right questions. They assisted me in
probing deeper and forced me to search for additional details,
data, and explanations in the main case.

The NGOs Case

SPARC is one of the leading NGOs in India, and its grassrootsbased, innovative work has been widely recognized and
applauded in the literature (Appadurai 2002; Briggs
2008). In the mid-eighties, it had opposed the initial redevelopment policy in Mumbai and fought for changes in it
(Sanyal and Mukhija 2001). Policy makers in the city had
disagreed with many of the NGOs ideas and claimed that
they were impractical and unrealistic. SPARC was keen to
set the precedent of a community-managed, low-rise
housing project, with shared social spaces around a central courtyard. It saw community power as an antidote to
the corruption it associated with government-controlled
and private-sector-managed projects. With a group of
slum-dwellers, it initiated the Markandeya redevelopment

Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on January 6, 2014

421

Mukhija
project. This heroic story of an NGO and a community
cooperative fighting against the state and market forces to
produce an innovative, precedent-setting project, however,
started to unravel. Redevelopment is capital intensive, and
access to adequate funding became a problem. Banks
were reluctant to lend to the slum-dwellers cooperative.
The project was in the midst of construction, but because
of a lack of sufficient funding it was repeatedly delayed,
first by months and later by years.
Meanwhile the slum redevelopment rules were changed
by the state government. The revised policy allowed for a
higher density of development, including market-rate housing. Originally, the redevelopment projects were based on a
partial subsidy from the state government (around 15 percent
of the total cost) and beneficiary contributions for the balance. The additional market-rate housing, however, would
provide a cross-subsidy for the slum-dwellers replacement
housing. Subsequently, the slum-dwellers cooperative was
approached by a private developer with a proposal to complete their project. He proposed to build market-rate housing
on top of the cooperatives ongoing project and to finance and
cross-subsidize their housing. The cooperative, attracted by
the cross-subsidy and keen to move into their houses, agreed.
SPARC was less enthusiastic. It, however, had little choice
and was also interested in seeing the project completed. But
as a consequence, the project was no longer the precedentsetting project that the NGO had hoped. It was not entirely
community-managed or completely low-rise. This experience, nonetheless, had a profound effect on SPARC. It
decided to become a developer. It would finance and manage
redevelopment, create cross-subsidies through medium-rise
developments, and have more control of projects. This was an
interesting metamorphosis and institutional change for the
advocacy-focused nonprofit organization. But my research
also suggested that SPARC was likely to face some more
nuanced and fundamental challenges as a developer. Its admirable ethics of honesty and egalitarianism could lead to
problems with ordinary community members and cooperatives. I had continued my research on two of the secondary
casesthe Scion Shivaji CHS and the tenants CHSand
they helped reveal these challenges.7

The Ethics of Honesty

Soon after I reached Mumbai, I heard of Ranjit Naik. The late
Mr. Naik was an architect. He was also an active member of
the Banjara community. The Banjaras are an economically
disadvantaged, nomadic group or tribe in India. Conventional
wisdom suggests that they and the Roma (Gypsies) of Europe
are related. Naik had also initiated an NGO, the Peoples Participation Programme (PPP). PPPs work in housing delivery
has been recognized by the United Nations Centre for Human
Settlements (UNCHS) as a best practice. However, most of
the government officials and representatives of NGOs in

Mumbai that I interviewed considered him a deal maker

rather than a civil society representative.
Naik was also a champion of slum redevelopment in
Mumbai. At the time of my research, he was involved in
implementing more than fifteen redevelopment projects,
including the Scion Shivaji CHS. Some of these projects were
under construction, while others were in their planning
phase.8 In almost all of them, members of community groups
approached Naik for assistance with redeveloping their
slums, and the architect introduced them to private developers willing to finance their redevelopment. His architectural
firm provided design and construction management services for these projects. Naiks critics argued that he was
too market-oriented in his work. He, however, considered
himself merely pragmatic. For example, he argued that he
was uninterested in battling petty corruption in his projects.9
Bribesfor planning approvals, construction permits, building permits, occupancy certificates, infrastructure (water,
sewer, and electricity) connections, and so forthwere
endemic in Mumbai. Naik recognized that he could protest
and fight the bribes, but this would delay his projects. Redevelopment was slow and often held up for numerous reasons.
He did not want to compound those delays, and he considered
the bribes as a part of the cost of doing business in the city.
Petty bribes, he explained to me, were regarded by most private developers as de facto development fees and were
included in their financial analysis of projects. Most developers, including the developer of the Scion Shivaji CHS, would
sell their market-rate units through advance bookings and
prepayments. Typically, home buyers would make a part of
their payments through checks and a part in cash. The check,
or bank draft, paymentswhite money paymentswere
recorded for income tax accounting purposes, but the cash
paymentsblack money paymentswere not. Developers
used their black money to pay for the bribes.
Although the academic literature seldom discusses these
aspects, like bribes, black money was common in Indian
property markets. Black money is still prevalent, but due to
some tax reforms and better enforcement its salience and
magnitude is declining. Black money was also involved in the
tenants CHS redevelopment project. Their original housing
was a chawl, a medium-rise (four floors high), dilapidated
tenement. Similar to other chawls, it had single room, rental
units, which included a kitchen and a bathing space, with
shared toilets connected by wide corridors. Using a regulatory provision that allowed for tenants to buy their buildings
from owners by paying them a lump-sum payment of a hundred months rent, the tenants cooperative owned the chawl.
The cooperative decided to finance and manage their redevelopment project, rather than partner with a private developer
and cede control. Their leader knew a progressive architect,
and he was commissioned to design and manage their project.
The architect was willing to share details of the project with
me, and he helped me gain access to other stakeholders in the

Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on January 6, 2014

422

Journal of Planning Education and Research 29(4)

project, including members of the cooperative and its leader.

The architect had designed a separate, street-facing tower (of
eight floors) for the market-rate housing. When the cooperative started booking buyers for the market-rate housing, they
were faced with a predicament. Their buyers wanted to pay
for their units with check and cash payments. They proposed
the prevailing rate in Mumbai of 70 percent as check payments and 30 percent as payments in cash. Although the
cooperative was reluctant to accept the cash payments, they
agreed. Saying no to the payments meant forgoing 30 percent
of the potential sales price. But subsequently, they had to be
creative with their accounting to hide the cash payments.
SPARC, on the contrary, was strongly against bribes and
black money payments. But its insistence against bribes is
likely to have caused additional delays, and probably resentment, in the MCHS project. Its honest attitude may have
contributed to the cooperatives willingness to partner with
the private developer. SPARC, however, suspected corruption between the community leaders and the private
developer as the key explanation for their coming together.
Unlike Ranjit Naik, it was reluctant to talk about corruption.
Nonetheless, after my repeated probing, I got the impression that SPARCs representatives believed the private
developer shared part of the black money from the sale of
the market-rate units with the community leaders. The
MCHSs community members, however, seemed to be
happy with their leaders for bringing the developer on board
and completing the project.
SPARCs admirable insistence against bribes and black
money may continue to create some problems for it as a
nonprofit developer undertaking slum redevelopment projects. Communities working with SPARC might consider
potential delays in their projects as a deterrent. Similarly,
some might worry that the NGOs desire to keep projects
clean, sans black money, might make it more difficult to
structure redevelopment projects financially.10

The Ethics of Egalitarianism and Sharing

Another aspect that may be a challenge for SPARC, and
similar progressive NGOs, is their underlying faith in the
importance of egalitarianism. Again, my two secondary
cases helped throw this potential problem into relief. For
example, in the tenants CHS, after the cooperative completed its sale of market-rate units, it had a larger profit than
initially anticipated. Its architect proposed that the cooperative establish an endowment to provide scholarships for all
of the members school- and college-going children. This
utopian proposal, however, was opposed by households that
did not expect to benefit from it as much as their neighbors.
Instead, the cooperative, by consensus, used some of the surplus to improve the quality of the finishespaint, fixtures,
and so forthin all the replacement units. Earlier, the cooperative had rejected the architects initial design proposal for

wide corridors (hallways) to serve as semipublic communal

spaces in the replacement housing. The proposed design
re-created the social space of wide corridors in traditional
chawl layouts. Instead, the cooperatives members wanted
narrower corridors but larger individual units. Not only were
they motivated by the extra, private usable space, they were
also interested in the potentially higher market value of
housing units with more private but less shared space.
Triggered by this story, I found a parallel in my primary
case, the MCHS. It had been designed with individual bathrooms and shared toilets. SPARC saw the shared toilets as a
strategy of re-creating the social space of common toilets in
slums. It also thought that the shared toilets would act as a
deterrent to gentrification. The original architecture of shared
toilets in the Markandeya project, however, was being gradually subverted by the cooperatives members. Households
that could afford the cost of an individual toilet were asking
the private developer to add a toilet seat in their internal
bathrooms. Personal convenience was an important motivation for the upgrading. In addition, community members and
the developer also told me that the market value of the
improvement exceeded its construction cost, and the higher
real estate value was also an incentive for the change. Only a
few households had installed the individual toilets at that
time, although many others had expressed an interest in the
upgrading. But as a consequence, all the replacement housing units were not equal anymore, and there was also less
sharing of amenities. SPARC was unhappy with this transformation, but again it was powerless.
Something related was apparent in my other secondary
case, the Scion Shivaji CHS. It also suggested likely problems
for NGOs like SPARC. According to the slum redevelopment
rules, all slum-dwellers should receive similar housing in the
new buildings.11 Mumbais slums, however, can be extremely
heterogeneous with a range of housing sizes and conditions.
Households with larger and higher-quality units resent receiving replacement housing of the same size and quality as
slum-dwellers with smaller, simpler units. Most often, the elite
of a slum own the largest and most expensive housing units.
For redevelopment projects to proceed, it is necessary to have
these leaders on board. In the Scion Shivaji CHS case, and in
his other projects, Ranjit Naik had found a way to address this
problem. His strategy was to compensate the elite households
with better-finished and larger units. Although all housing
units for beneficiaries were supposed to have the same
specifications, the developers completed some units with
higher-quality finishessuch as marble floorsto create a
differentiation. In certain cases, where the elite families had
houses substantially larger than their neighbors, Naik would
plan for them to receive two units in the redevelopment, or if
they desired, they could have a unit twice as big as the others.
To orchestrate this, the developer, with the tacit approval of
the community, added fictional beneficiaries to the cooperatives list of members. Subsequently, units allotted to the

Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on January 6, 2014

423

Mukhija
fictional beneficiaries were transferred to the elite families or
combined with their original allotments to create a larger unit,
twice the size of the typical unit.
SPARC could never endorse such a practice. In the MCHS
case, it was upset by a few households opting for individual
toilets. Most of these households were the leaders and
wealthier members of the cooperative. It is also possible that
the private developer paid for some of the toilets. The community members, nonetheless, were nonchalant about the
issue. In many slum redevelopment projects, community
leaders spend extra time negotiating projects, obtaining
permits, and keeping an eye on the construction process.
Community members tend to see their special treatment by
developers as just compensation for their time and efforts.
For SPARC and other similar-minded NGOs, such privileges
contradict their sense of fairness and equality. SPARC still
continues to be active as a developer in slum redevelopment
projects in Mumbai. But its ethics of honesty and egalitarianism may present unusual challenges in some of its projects.
These challenges and problems also help to explain the
MCHS case more robustly.

Discussion and Conclusion

N of One plus Some is a potential alternative strategy of conducting research that builds on the existing methods of case
study research but departs from the convention in a small but
clear way. Similar to the typical single case research strategy,
it provides an opportunity for conducting interesting, openended inductive research with dense and copious details.
However, in contrast to the conventional single case study
approach, and the single case selected through pilot case
studies method, N of One plus Some is based on a primary
case informed by multiple secondary cases. It follows an
intermediate path between accepted single case research and
multiple case research design. Typically, multiple case
research addresses concerns of external validity and increases
the potential for generalizing on the basis of case studies.
The accepted trade-off is in the depthand thus potentially
the internal validityof the cases. Interestingly, my experience suggests that the multiple casesas strategic and
focused secondary casescan also add to the strength and
robustness of the primary case. The secondary cases can contribute to the primary cases depth, details, and richness; aid
in assessing its veracity and completeness of collected information; and provide help in its framing and interpretation.
Most case studies selected for an in-depth analysis are
intricate and complicated. It is easy for researchers to
miss crucial aspects and episodes of the case narrative. The
secondary cases in my research experience assisted me in
gathering details and comprehending the complexity of
slum redevelopment in Mumbai. I focused on a redevelopment project in which a socially committed nonprofit
organizationSPARCplayed a central role. SPARC was

extremely cooperative in my research process and also

helped me gain access to other stakeholders in the project.
SPARC, however, was less enthusiastic about criticizing, and
discussing in detail, specific instances of corruption or selfcenteredness by community members that it was keen to trust
and support. As a progressive organization, it was committed
to pursuing an egalitarian and honest approach in project development, and this guided its behavior and narrative. Similarly,
most of the community members were also less eager to volunteer details of irregularities. In contrast, in two of my
secondary cases, I succeeded in developing acquaintances who
helped me appreciate and understand the almost inevitability
of petty corruption and irregular practices in redevelopment
projects and the possibility of project beneficiaries being
more interested in individual rather than group benefits.
I respect SPARC tremendously for trying to fight against
petty corruption and for pursuing an egalitarian outcome.
These laudable attributes, however, may put it, and other
progressive NGOs, in conflict with some of the communities
they serve. Communities can be less heroic, with simple
goals and dreams. Community members might be less interested in fighting corruption at the cost of delaying their
housing projects. They might also be more interested in private amenities at the expense of community solidarity and
shared facilities. These are pragmatic and everyday aspects
of communities that we rarely discuss in the literature. But
without appreciating the dimensions of corruption, selfcenteredness, and ordinary aspirations, I would not have
collected the complete data for my primary case study; nor
would I have been able to adequately comprehend it. The
secondary cases, and the key informants in them, helped in
this task. But it is also possible that a better understanding of
the urban development context in Mumbai, and a comprehensive and critical reading of the literature on institutional
relationships between communities and nonprofit organizations, would have allowed me to achieve the same outcomes
as the secondary cases. Since my research arguments and
insights stem from the primary case, I cannot undeniably
demonstrate that without the secondary cases I would have
necessarily missed the evidence. In my personal reflection of
events, however, I am suspicious that without the secondary
cases I would have left out some key aspects of the primary
case. The secondary cases also helped me feel confident that
my main case study was not unique and that its story was
likely to be general. Their key contribution, though, was to
assist in achieving a more robust understanding and interpretation of the primary case, and I tried to draw a convincing
narrative in the previous section.
I will now briefly discuss when and how to pursue this
strategy. As noted earlier, the literature on research methods
suggests that case studies are particularly useful for understanding novel and contrarian institutional arrangements
with intricate processes and connections. These tend to be
rich cases with layers of complexity. It is necessary to be

Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on January 6, 2014

424

Journal of Planning Education and Research 29(4)

immersed in the academic literature to unravel and comprehend such cases. But the literature might be less developed
or uncritical for new and unprecedented cases, and the extant
writings might be less helpful in adequately guiding the
researcher. In such situations, where the cases are novel and
the literature is limited, researchers may find the N of One
plus Some approach particularly helpful. Similarly, researchers who typically focus on low-income housing and land
development in developing countries, usually in the context
of widespread informal and illegal practices, strongly
endorse case study research as a strategy to counter the
unavailability and unreliability of secondary data (Doebele
1994; Peattie 1995; Payne 1997). Such researchers are
also likely to find the alternative strategy of secondary
cases helpful and constructive because of the literatures
limited comprehension of informal practices in property
markets.
Successful case study research is contingent on the cooperation of stakeholders and their willingness to openly
discuss the complexity of institutional processes. In certain
situations, however, key stakeholders are likely to be reluctant to share all the relevant details of their case. For example,
private developers might be less inclined to talk about illegal
real estate practices. Similarly, some NGOs might hesitate to
criticize the communities and community members they
work with. In such situations, where key actors are likely to
withhold information, secondary cases with a different set of
institutional actors can guide researchers in collecting the
data and help in developing a more complete understanding
of the primary case. Thus, a key, pragmatic determinant in
pursuing the alternative strategy is the availability of a gracious contact, who is willing to teach and guide the researcher
through some underappreciated intricacy of the cases. Without easy access to helpful and knowledgeable informants,
the secondary case strategy is not likely to be fruitful.
In addition, the secondary cases need to be near the primary case and physically accessible with ease. Their spatial
proximity is also likely to ensure that the secondary cases
will have an institutional context similar to the main case,
making it easier to learn from them. The research strategy,
nonetheless, will be impossible and impractical at times. For
example, single case studies are often selected for research
because of their uniqueness, and therefore secondary cases
may not exist. Researchers practicing the strategy also need
to be cautious of the time spent on the secondary cases. While
I have no definitive advice for this predicament, I committed
almost two to three times as much attention to the primary
case than all the secondary cases put together. There is,
however, no precise or formulaic answer. Similarly, there is
no mechanical answer to the question of how extensively the
secondary cases need to be examined. The context-specific
answer is likely to depend on how useful the assisting cases
turn out to be. For example, I stopped pursuing the IshwariKailash project (the third secondary case) early on, after it

became evident that I was not learning anything particularly

new, interesting, or informative. Finally, the strategy is not
likely to work unless the researcher is planning to spend a
substantial amount of time conducting fieldwork. Trying to
research additional secondary cases, along with the primary
case, in a short period of time is more likely to be distracting
and counterproductive. For example, in my research I spent
almost a year collecting data in Mumbai, and there was
sufficient time for examining the secondary cases.
N of One plus Some may have other small advantages too.
The secondary cases offer potential insurance in case the primary case becomes inaccessible during the course of the
research. They can also provide a welcome distraction and a
partial break from the monotonous stress of focusing on one
case. They might also present productive opportunities for
future research. It is, nonetheless, worthwhile to emphasize
once again the supporting role of the secondary cases. Their
main objective and value is to assist in research of the
primary case. They should not detract from the primary
cases position as the principal focus of the research endeavor.
Finally, I do not offer this strategy as dogmatic advice. It is
possible that a robust engagement with the development context and the relevant literature can sufficiently provide all the
advantages the secondary cases offer. With these caveats, I
share my personal experience as a case, which might resonate with some and may be useful for others.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the
authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.

Notes
1. In a similar manner, Egon Guba and Yvonne Lincoln sympathetically consider the inductive approach in case study research as
essential to nonpositivist or constructivist thinking and knowledge generation (1989). Also see Grey Ryan and H. Russell Bernards similar discussion on theme identification and fluidity in
case study research (2003).
2. Christine Meyer summarizes the disparate perspectives
succinctlyThere are virtually no specific requirements
guiding case research. This is both the strength and the weakness of this approach (2001, 329).
3. Almost all case study researchers, nonetheless, realize the need
to be more systematic in collecting, documenting, and reporting data (for example, through audit trails that maintain a systematic record of all data sources, including interviews).
4. Policy-oriented researchers like Lisa Peattie conceive of particularizing in a manner that may be generalized, but only under
certain and specific conditions. She describes dense case studies
as a strategy to reveal principles of functioning and to develop

Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on January 6, 2014

425

Mukhija
an understanding of how specifics of particular circumstances
shape the unique outcome (1995, 397). The implication is that
if specific circumstances or conditions are met, similar outcomes
can reasonably be expected. But Peattie and other researchers
recognize and emphasize that if outcomes are to be matched,
the research needs to robustly explain and meticulously detail
the conditions under which the specified results are achieved.
5. Robert Yin refers to this strategy as the embedded case study
design (1994). Most case study researchers also point out that
the literature is a repository of additional cases to be analyzed in
conjunction with the primary case, or cases. Similarly, Michael
Burawoy argues that the virtue of case studies is that they build
on and reconstruct existing theory or generalizations (1991),
implying that the burden of external validity may be less on
case studies because they do not typically suggest a radical
departure from the existing literature but rather a nuanced and
incremental repositioning of theory.
6. Multiple case studies also present the opportunity of including
negative or deviant cases in the study group. These negative
cases, which seemingly appear to follow a different logic than
the other cases, force a researcher to revise initial hypotheses or
explanations to account for the deviance. The strategy is likely
to increases the robustness of the findings and the analytical
generalization that follows.
7. In the Ishwari-Kailash Cooperative Housing Society, the third
secondary case, I found it more difficult to both access key
stakeholders and get them to share their experiences with me.
As a result, I drastically reduced my efforts to pursue the case.
8. According to Naik, his firm and nonprofit were implementing
or exploring the feasibility of slum redevelopment in almost
fifty projects.
9. I would often get to Naiks office in the evenings and wait for
him to finish his work. Then I would join him in on his ride
back home, and he would patiently explain to me some of the
intricacies of local real estate practice.
10. One of the Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centress
(SPARCs) comparative advantages is that it is more interested
than private developers in providing slum-dwellers with replacement housing of a higher quality. But by avoiding black money,
it might reduce the profitability of its projects and make it more
challenging to provide slum-dwellers with better quality housing.
11. Before 1995, slum-dwellers were eligible for replacement housing units with a usable area (referred to as carpet area in
Mumbai) of 180 square feet. The regulations were changed in
1995 to increase the size of the replacement units to 225 square
feet. Recently, in accordance with the new National Housing
Policy, the size has been further increased to 269 square feet
(25 square meters).

References
Abrams, Charles. 1964. Mans struggle for shelter in an urbanizing
world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Abramson, Paul R. 1992. A case for case studies: An immigrants
journal. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Amsden, Alice H. 1989. Asias next giant: South Korea and late
industrialization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Appadurai, Arjun. 2002. Deep democracy: Urban governmentality
and the horizon of politics. Public Culture 14 (1): 21-47.
Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 2008. Democracy as problem solving:
Civic capacity in communities across the globe. Cambridge,
MA: MIT.
Burawoy, Michael. 1991. The extended case method. In Ethnography unbound: Power and resistance in the modern metropolis,
ed. Michael Burawoy, Alice Burton, Ann Arnett Ferguson, and
Kathryn J. Fox, 271-87. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Corburn, Jason. 2005. Street science: Community knowledge and
environmental health justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who governs? Democracy and power in the
American city. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dandekar, Hemalata. 1986. Some uses and potentials of qualitative methods in planning. Journal of Planning Education and
Research 6 (1): 42-49.
Doebele, Williams A. 1994. Urban land and macroeconomic development: Moving from access for the poor to urban productivity. In Methodology for land and housing market analysis, ed.
G. Jones and P. Ward, 44-54. London: University College of
London Press.
Feagin, Joe R., Anthony M. Orum, and Gideon Sjoberg, eds. 1991. A
case for the case study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press.
Freeman, Lance. 2006. There goes the hood: Views of gentrification from the ground up. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Gaber, John, and Sharon L. Gaber. 1997. Utilizing mixed-method
research designs in planning: The case of 14th Street, New York
City. Journal of Planning Education and Research 17 (1): 95-103.
Gans, Herbert J. 1962. The urban villagers: Group and class in the
life of Italian-Americans. New York: Free Press.
Gans, Herbert J. 1967. The Levittowners: Ways of life and politics
in a new suburban community. New York: Pantheon.
Gerring, John. 2004. What is a case study and what is it good for?
American Political Science Review 98 (2): 341-54.
Gerring, John. 2007. Case study research: Principles and practices.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm Strauss. 1967. The discovery of
grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company.
Guba, Egon G., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth generation
evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Innes de Neufville, Judith. 1987. Knowledge and action: Making the
link. Journal of Planning Education and Research 6 (2): 86-92.
Jacobs, Jane. 1961. Death and life of great American cities. New York:
Random House.
Jones, Gareth, and Peter M. Ward, eds. 1994. Methodology for land
and housing market analysis. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute
of Land Policy.
Kidder, Louise, and Michelle Fine. 1987. Qualitative and quantitative methods: When stories converge. New Directions for Program Evaluation 35:57-75.

Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on January 6, 2014

426

Journal of Planning Education and Research 29(4)

Leavitt, Jacqueline, and Susan Saegert. 1990. From abandonment

to hope: Community-households in Harlem. New York: Columbia University Press.
Madsen, RoJean. 1983. Use of evaluation research methods in planning and planning contexts. Journal of Planning Education and
Research 2 (2): 113-21.
Maxwell, Joseph A. 2004. Using qualitative methods for causal
explanation. Field Methods 16 (3): 243-64.
Meyer, Christine B. 2001. A case in case study methodology. Field
Methods 13 (4): 329-52.
Mollenkopf, John H. 1983. The contested city. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mukhija, Vinit. 2000. Squatters as developers? Mumbais slum
dwellers as equity partners in redevelopment. Doctoral diss.,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Mukhija, Vinit. 2003. Squatters as developers? Slum redevelopment in Mumbai. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
North, Douglass C., and Robert P. Thomas. 1973. The rise of the
Western world: A new economic history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Orum, Anthony M., and Joe R. Feagin. 1991. A tale of two cases.
In A case for the case study, ed. J. R. Feagin, A. M. Orum, and
G. Sjoberg, 121-47. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press.
Payne, Geoffrey. 1997. Urban land tenure and property rights
in developing countries: A review. London: IT Publications/
Overseas Development Administration (ODA).
Peattie, Lisa. 1968. The view from the barrio. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Peattie, Lisa. 1983. Realistic planning and qualitative research.
Habitat International 7(5-6): 227-34.
Peattie, Lisa. 1987. Planning: Rethinking Ciudad Guyana. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Peattie, Lisa. 1990. Anthropology and planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research 9 (2): 101-6.
Peattie, Lisa. 1995. An approach to urban research in the 1990s. In
Perspectives on the city, ed. R. Stren, 389-415. Toronto, Canada:
Center for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.
Ragin, Charles, C. 2000. Fuzzy-set social science. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.

Ragin, Charles C., and Howard S. Becker. 1992. What is a case?

Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Ryan, Grey W., and H. Russell Bernard. 2003. Techniques to identify
themes. Field Methods 15 (1): 85-109.
Sanyal, Bishwapriya, and Vinit Mukhija. 2001. Institutional pluralism and housing delivery: A case of unforeseen conflicts in
Mumbai, India. World Development 29 (12): 2043-57.
Schon, Donald A. 1990. The reflective turn: Case studies in and on
educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Stake, Robert E. 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Tendler, Judith. 1998. Good government in the tropics. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tipple, A. Graham, and Kenneth G. Willis, eds. 1991. Housing the
poor in the developing world: Methods of analysis, case studies
and policy. London: Routledge.
Turner, John F. C. 1967. Barriers and channels for housing development in modernizing countries. Journal of the American Institute
of Planners 33 (3): 167-81.
Venkatesh, Sudhir A. 2000. American project: The rise and fall
of a modern ghetto. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Vestbro, Dick Urban, Yonca Hurol, and Nicholas Wilkinson, eds.
2005. Methodologies in housing research. Gateshead, UK:
Urban International Press.
Whyte, William F. 1943. Street corner society: The social structure
of an Italian slum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Whyte, William F. 1984. Learning from the field: A guide from
experience. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Yin, Robert. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, Robert. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. 4th ed.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bio
Vinit Mukhija is an associate professor of urban planning at
the University of California, Los Angeles. His research focuses
on slums, housing and the built environment, and planning
institutions.

Downloaded from jpe.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on January 6, 2014