Allowing context to speak: the progressive case study method for cadastral systems research

References

• Allan, G., 2003. A critique of using grounded theory as a research method. Journal of business research, 2 (1), 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Barry, M., and Kingwill, R., 2020. Community land records development, hybrid governance and organisational culture: eschewing ISO standards in Monwabisi Park informal settlement. In: Annual World Bank conference on land and poverty, 16–20 March 2020, Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Barry, M., and Roux, L., 2012. A change based framework for theory building in land tenure information systems. Survey review, 44 (327), 301–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry, M., and Roux, L., 2013. The case study method in examining land registration usage. Geomatica, 67 (1), 9–20.
   Google Scholar
• Bringer, J.D., Johnston, L.H., and Brackenridge, C.H., 2006. Using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software to develop a grounded theory project. Field methods, 18 (3), 245–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çağdaş, V., and Stubkjær, E., 2009. Doctoral research on cadastral development. Land Use policy, 26 (4), 869–889.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbin, J., and Strauss, A., 1990. Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology, 13 (1), 3–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbin, J., and Strauss, A., 2008. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Cotula, L., 2007. Introduction. In: L. Cotula, ed. Changes in ‘customary’ land tenure systems in Africa. Stevenage: International Institute for Environment and Development, 5–14.
   Google Scholar
• Cousins, B., et al., 2005. Will formalising property rights reduce poverty in South Africa’s ‘second economy’? Plaas policy brief, 18, 1–6.
   Google Scholar
• Cousins, B. 2016. Land reform in South Africa is sinking. Can it be saved? [online]. Available from: https://www.nelsonmandela.org/uploads/files/Land__law_and_leadership_-_paper_2.pdf [Accessed 2 Feb 2017].
   Google Scholar
• Creswell, J.W., and Miller, D.L., 2000. Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into practice, 39 (3), 124–130.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dunne, C., 2011. The place of the literature review in grounded theory research. International journal of social research methodology, 14, 111–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Du Plessis, J., et al., 2016. The continuum of land rights approach to tenure security : consolidating advances in theory and practice. In: World Bank Annual Conference on land and poverty. Washington, DC: The World Bank, 1–48.
   Google Scholar
• Egleston, D.O., 2013. The interactive, progressive case study. Business education innovation journal, 5 (1), 101–104.
   Google Scholar
• Enemark, S., 2005. Understanding the land Management paradigm In: FIG Commission 7 Symposium on Innovative Technologies for Land Administration, 19–25 June 2005, Madison, Wisconsin, Denmark: International Federation of Surveyors, 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Enemark, S., and Mclaren, R., 2017. Fit-for-Purpose land administration: developing country specific strategies for implementation. In: Annual World Bank Conference on land and poverty, 20–24 March 2017, Washington, DC: The World Bank 1–18.
   Google Scholar
• Enemark, S., McLaren, R., and Lemmen, C., 2015. Fit-For-Purpose land administration guiding principles. Copenhagen, Denmark: Global Land Tool Network (GLTN).
   Google Scholar
• Friese, S., 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS.ti. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B.G., 1978. Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B.G., 1998. Doing Grounded theory: issues and discussion. Mill Valley: Sociology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B.G., and Holton, J., 2007. Remodeling grounded theory. Historical social research, supplement, 19, 47–68.
   Google Scholar
• Grimes, M.W., 2019. The continuous case study: designing a unique assessment of student learning. International journal of teaching and learning in higher education, 31 (1), 139–146.
   Google Scholar
• Grindle, M.S., 2004. Good enough governance: Poverty reduction and reform in developing countries. Governance, 17 (4), 525–548.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guba, E.G., 1981. Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ, 29 (2), 75–91.
   Google Scholar
• Gundelsweiler, G., Bartoschek, T., and De Sá, L.A.C.M., 2007. Development in the German cadastre. Boletim de ciencias geodesicas, 13 (2), 423–432.
   Google Scholar
• Hendriks, B., et al., 2019. Pro-poor land administration: towards practical, coordinated, and scalable recording systems for all. Land Use policy, 81 (July 2018), 21–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ho, P., 2005. Institutions in transition: land ownership, property rights, and social conflict in China. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ho, P., and Spoor, M., 2006. Whose land? The political economy of land titling in transitional economies. Land Use policy, 23, 580–587.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobbs, F.D., and Doling, J.F., 1981. Planning for engineers and surveyors. Oxford: Pergamom Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holton, J.A., 2017. From Grounded theory to Grounded theorizing in qualitative research. In: C. Cassell, A. Cunliffe, and G. Grandy, eds. The SAGE Handbook of qualitative Business and Management research methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 233–250.
   Google Scholar
• Hull, S., 2019. A framework for guiding cadastral systems development in customary land rights contexts. PhD thesis, Division of Geomatics, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
   Google Scholar
• Hull, S., and Whittal, J., 2016. Towards a framework for assessing the impact of cadastral development on land rights-holders. In: FIG Working Week 2016: recovery from disaster, 2–6 May 2016 Christchurch, New Zealand: International Federation of Surveyors, 1–26.
   Google Scholar
• Hull, S., and Whittal, J., 2018. Filling the gap: customary land tenure reform in Mozambique and South Africa. South African journal of geomatics, 7 (2), 102–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hull, S., and Whittal, J., 2019. Human rights in tension: guiding cadastral systems development in customary land rights contexts. Survey review, 51 (365), 97–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hull, S.A., and Whittal, J., 2020. Achieving success and sustainability through significance: a cross-case analysis of cadastral systems development. In: FIG Working Week 2020: Smart Surveyors for land and water management. 10–14 May 2020, Amsterdam: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Hull, S., and Whittal, J., 2021. Do design science research and design thinking processes improve the ‘ Fit ‘ of the Fit-For-purpose approach to securing land tenure for All in South Africa ? Land, 10 (484), 26.
   Google Scholar
• Johannessen, G.H.J., and Hornbæk, K., 2014. Must evaluation methods be about usability? devising and assessing the utility inspection method. Behaviour & information technology, 33 (February), 195–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, P., 1998. A study of cognition and Behaviour in Top Management team interaction. PhD Thesis, Cranfield University, School of Management.
   Google Scholar
• Kepe, T., and Hall, R., 2016. Land, politics and policy change in South Africa: what questions for land redistribution policy and practice. In: T. Kepe, M. Levin, and B. von Lieres, eds. Domains of freedom: justice, citizenship and social change in South Africa. Cape Town: UCT Press, 27–40.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, A. 1989. A scientific methodology for MIS case studies. MIS quarterly, (March), 32–49.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y., and Guba, E.G., 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• McAuley, J., Duberley, J., and Johnson, P., 2007. Organization theory: challenges and perspectives. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M.B., and Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Mills, A., Durepos, G., and Wiebe, E. 2010. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research.
   Google Scholar
• Morse, J., 2004. Preparing and evaluating qualitative research proposals. In: C. Seale, G. Giampietro, J. Gubrium, and D. Silverman, eds. Qualitative research practice. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 493–503.
   Google Scholar
• Morse, J., 2007. Sampling in Grounded theory. In: A. Bryant, and K. Charmaz, eds. The SAGE Handbook of Grounded theory. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd, 229–245.
   Google Scholar
• Pelto, P., and Pelto, G., 1978. Anthropological research: the structure of inquiry. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rajabifard, A., et al., 2007. Assessing the worldwide comparison of cadastral systems. Land Use policy, 24 (1), 275–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robson, C., 1994. Real World research: a resource for social scientists and practioner-researchers. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Schwandt, T., 1998. Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In: N. Denzin, and Y. Lincoln, eds. The landscape of qualitative research: theories and issues. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 221–259.
   Google Scholar
• Seale, C., 2008. Researching Society and culture. 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Shenton, A.K., 2004. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for information, 22, 63–75.
   Google Scholar
• Shipton, P., 2009. Mortgaging the ancestors. ideologies of attachment in Africa. New Haven: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Silva, M.A., and Stubkjær, E., 2002. A review of methodologies used in research on cadastral development. Computers, environment and urban systems, 26 (5), 403–423.
   Google Scholar
• Steenhuis, H.-J., and De Bruijn, E.J., 2006. Building theories from case study research: the progressive case study. In: OM in the new world uncertainties. Proceedings of the 17th annual conference of POMS, 28 April–1 May. Boston, USA: Production and Operations Management Society (POMS).
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., and Corbin, J., 1990. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 3rd ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Tanner, C., 2002. Law-making in an African context: the 1997 mozambican land law. FAO legal papers online. Maputo, Mozambique: Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO).
   Google Scholar
• van der Molen, P., and Welter, K., 2004. Authentic registers and good governance. In: UN ECE WPLA workshop on real property administration in developing information society. 22–25 September 2004, Vilnius, Lithuania, 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, V., 2003. Conflicting rationalities: implications for planning theory and ethics. Planning theory & practice, 4 (4), 395–407.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, I., et al., 2010. Land administration for sustainable development. Redlands, California: Esri Press.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, I., and Fourie, C., 1998. Using the case study methodology for cadastral reform. Geomatica, 52 (3), 283–289.
   Google Scholar
• Woods, M., et al., 2016. Advancing qualitative research using qualitative data analysis software (QDAS)? Reviewing potential versus practice in published studies using ATLAS.ti and NVivo, 1994-2013. Social science computer review, 34 (5), 597–617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R.K., 1994. Case study research: design and methods. Newbury Park: (Sage).
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R.K., 2009. Case study research: design and methods. 4th ed. essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R.K., 2018. Case study research and applications: design and methods. 6th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Zevenbergen, J., 2002. Systems of land registration: aspects and effects. Delft: Netherlands Geodetic Commission.PhD Thesis
   Google Scholar
• Zevenbergen, J., et al., 2013. Pro-poor land administration: principles for recording the land rights of the underrepresented. Land Use policy, 31, 595–604.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar