P/ZC 2002-001 Revised: 11 -2 8201 INFORMATION BULLETIN / PUBLIC - ZONING CODE Previously Issued As: IB ZO-1, RGA 3-72 PARKING DESIGN I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A. Minimum 8 ft 6 inches wide for standard stalls serving dwelling units. Minimum 8 ft 4 inches wide for all other standard stalls. 2002 Design Inc. This business is unclaimed. Owners who claim their business can update listing details, add photos, respond to reviews, and more.

• Select a 2002 Design Concepts Model Building utility, mid-engine and other specialty boats, Design Concepts has manufactured marine vessels since 1980. Design Concepts boats were crafted in aluminum to the standards of the National Marine Manufacturers Association as well as the United States Coast Guard.
• Design Curriculum Challenges for Today's University.

Chapter 3: ResearchMethods

This study seeksto provide insight into the process of conducting community-based research. Inorder to do so, the study utilizes a qualitative case study approach to examinethe methodology of community-based research. Twocontrasting cases of CBR are described and analyzed in order to understand theissues that arise when conducting CBR, the factors that facilitate or hinderthe process, and the benefits of conducting CBR. Finally, these contrastingcases are considered to determine what this study can contribute to the fieldof CBR. This chapter details case study methodology as well as multiple casedesign. It also describes the methodology of community-based research, theparticipants of the study, data collection and analysis, and issues aroundcredibility, including my own subjectivities that may have influenced theresearch.

Methodological Framework

In order to explore thecollaborative process of conducting community-based research, this studyutilizes a qualitative case study approach. Case studies can be particularlyuseful for studying a process, program or individual in an in-depth, holisticway that allows for deep understanding (Merriam, 1998). As Merriam points out,

A case study designis employed to gain an in-depth understanding of the situation and meaning forthose involved. The interest is in process rather than outcomes, in contextrather than a specific variable, in discovery rather than confirmation (p. 19).

There are some differences in howresearchers define case study. Some researchers think of case study as theobject to be studied (Stake, 2000), while others define case study as a processof investigation (Creswell, 2002). Creswell defines case study as 'an in-depthexploration of a bounded system (e.g., an activity, event, process, orindividuals) based on extensive data collection' (p. 485). Creswell recommendscase study as a methodology if the problem to be studied 'relates to developingan in-depth understanding of a 'case' or bounded system' (p. 496) and if thepurpose is to understand 'an event, activity, process, or one or moreindividuals' (p. 496). Patton (1990) suggests that case studies are valuablein creating deep understanding of particular people, problems or situations incomprehensive ways.

This study is particularly suitable for a case studydesign because it is a bounded system, it is contextual, and it is a study ofprocess (Merriam, 1998). Like Creswell (2002), Stake (2000) defines case studyas the study of a 'bounded system' (p. 436). According to Creswell (2002),'Bounded' means that the case is separated out for research in terms of time,place, or some physical boundaries' (p. 485). In other words, it is possibleto create limits around the object to be studied (Merriam, 1998). A case studycan focus on a variety of different things. A case could be an individual, a group,a school, a community (Merriam, 1998), or a case could also include 'a program,events, or activities' (Creswell, 2002, p. 485). The bounded systems in mycontrasting case studies are my collaboration with the Coalition for Schools[2]in a western city and my collaboration with community members in a small,rural, mountain community to carry out community-based research. Theboundaries of these two cases are determined by the people and groups that Icollaborate with in the CBR process.

I chose a case study design because it involves'detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of informationrich in context' (Creswell, 1998, p. 61). Context is a key factor. Accordingto Merriam (1998), in focusing on a particular phenomenon in a case study, itis impossible to separate the phenomenon from its context. However, in thisstudy, it is important that the context is understood as part of the process. As Yin (2003) says, 'you would use the case study method because youdeliberately wanted to cover contextual conditions-believing that they might behighly pertinent to your phenomenon of study' (p. 13). Thus, using a casestudy approach allows for the possibility of gaining significant knowledgeabout the process of conducting community-based research in particularcontexts. According to Sanders (1981), 'Casestudies help us to understand processes of events, projects, and programs andto discover context characteristics that will shed light on an issue or object'(p. 44).

The two casestudies each took place over an extended period of time. The first CBR projectlasted nine months, and the second CBR project lasted eight months. I worked with mycollaborative partners to define research problems and questions, developresearch designs, collect data, and analyze data. However, this study does notfocus on the data that I collected as part of that CBR work. Instead, thisstudy focuses on the process of the collaborative experience. Since the studyfocuses primarily on the procedures of conducting community-based research, thestudy is considered a process study. According to Patton (1990), when carryingout a process study, the 'focus is on how something happens rather thanon the outcomes or results obtained' (p.94). And, as Merriam (1998) pointsout, 'Case study is a particularly suitable design if you are interested inprocess' (p.33). Therefore, case study was chosen since it allows for detailedmonitoring of the collaborative process (Merriam, 1998).

Types of Case Studies

Stake (2000) delineatesthree types of case studies: intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. Intrinsic case studies focus on a case that is unusual and is of particularinterest to the researcher (Creswell, 1998; Stake, 2000). The intent is not tobuild theory (Stake, 2000). An instrumental case study is pursued in order toprovide insight about a particular issue that may be generalizable (Creswell,2002). The primary purpose of an instrumental case study is to help advanceunderstanding (Stake, 2000). The collective case study encompasses more thanone case 'in order to investigate a phenomenon, population, or generalcondition' (Stake, 2000, p. 437). Since thepurpose is to help advance understanding, a collective case study is a groupingof instrumental case studies (Stake, 2000). Using a collective case studyapproach can allow for the possibility of stronger interpretation and 'perhapsbetter theorizing' (Stake, 2000, p. 437).

ThoughStake (2000) uses the terminology 'collective case study,' this approach isknown by other names such as, multiple case studies, cross-case studies,comparative case studies, and contrasting cases (Merriam, 1998; Yin, 2003). With multiple case studies, data are analyzed for insights both within eachcase and across cases (Merriam, 1998). Yin (2003) points out that multiplecases may be chosen to try to replicate insights that you find withinindividuals cases or to represent contrasting situations. Regardless ofwhether the purpose is replication or contrast, multiple case studies are'considered more compelling, and the overall study is therefore regarded asmore robust' (Yin, 2003, p. 46).

When this study wasfirst proposed, the original intent was to pursue a single case study of myexperience of collaboration in carrying out a community-based researchproject. After completing my work with the Coalition for Schools, I feltdissatisfied with the experience in that I did not view it to be a success. Instead of focusing on that one experience, I decided to pursue anotherresearch option in the small town in which I live in order to have acontrasting experience to write about. It turned out that the project Icompleted in my small town was more successful, therefore allowing me topresent contrasting cases. Since this study seeks to add insight to the fieldof methodology in CBR, it is important to understand the factors that impactthe process of collaboration and the factors that support successfulcollaborations (Strand et al., 2003a).

Methodology of Community-Based Research

Since the purpose ofthis study is to explore the process of carrying out CBR, it is important tounderstand the methodology of community-based research. As mentioned inchapter two, community-based research is not as concerned with methods as it iswith methodology (Hills & Mullett, 2000; Strand et al., 2003a). Eitherquantitative or qualitative methods may be used; the choice depends on whatwould obtain the most useful data for the community (Greenwood & Levin, 2000). The methodology of CBR is guided by the three principles outlined by Strand etal. (2003a): 1) collaboration, 2) validation of the knowledge of communitymembers and the multiple ways of collecting and distributing information, and3) 'social action and social change for the purpose of achieving socialjustice' (p. 8). Though community-based research is not limited to specificmethods, it does follow the typical stages of research that most traditionalacademic research would follow: defining the research question, developing aresearch design, collecting data, analyzing data, and writing up the results. The difference is that the researcher collaborates closely with the communitythroughout the research process (Strand et al., 2003a). The community is involvedin determining the problem and research questions, creating the researchdesign, collecting data, analyzing data, and creating a presentation offindings (Strand et al., 2003a). The researcher also continues to play a rolein the final stage by assisting with the enactment of solutions to createchange (Greenwood & Levin, 1998).

Regarding knowledge,community-based research seeks to redefine how we conceptualize knowledge inrelation to academic research (Strand et al., 2003a). Researchers who conductCBR projects recognize the important knowledge that community members possesson the subject of their environment and the issues they are dealing with(Cordes, 1998a, No Concrete section, para. 2; Hills & Mullett, 2000, p. 1),what Strand (2000) calls 'local knowledge' (p. 88). This knowledge is keythroughout the research process. This acceptance of community knowledge doesrequire the researcher to rethink his or her role. As Stringer (1996) says,'The role of the researcher is not that of an expert who does research,but that of a resource person' (p. 22). The expertise that the researcherbrings to the equation is still valued; however, the local knowledge that thecommunity brings is recognized as integral to the research process (Strand etal., 2003a).

I have provided a briefoverview of the methodology of CBR. However, the purpose of this chapter is todescribe the case study methods that I used to carry out this process study. The descriptions of data collection and data analysis that are included in thischapter pertain to the data that were collected and analyzed for thecontrasting case studies. A description of the data collection and analysisthat was conducted for the CBR projects in each case study will be included inthe case descriptions in chapters four and five.

Participants and Setting

Though I came intocontact with a variety of people in each case study, my primary researchcollaborators are the main participants of my study. In the first case studythat I carried out, my collaboration with the Coalition for Schools, there wereinitially two primary collaborators, one of the co-chairs of the Coalition,Marge Bowline, and the director of the Coalition, Lisa Brown. As mycollaboration progressed, I worked primarily with Lisa Brown.

The Coalition for Schools is an organization thathas been created to support greater academic achievement in an urban schooldistrict in a western city. The Coalition has focused its efforts toward afeeder pattern of schools in a quadrant of the city that has a high percentageof students who are eligible for free or reduced lunches, a high percentage ofminority students, and a high percentage of English language learners. Thisfeeder pattern includes five elementary schools, two middle schools, and threesmall high schools that were originally part of one large high school and thatare housed in one building. The Coalition is an alliance of non-profitorganizations, foundations, parent organizations, universities and colleges,and the school district working together to support achievement in these lowperforming schools. The Business and Schools United (BSU) organization is thelead partner for the Coalition, and the Coalition is housed at BSU. MargeBowline is the director of BSU and one of the co-chairs of the Coalition forSchools. She helped to create the Coalition and to procure funding for theorganization. The Coalition was a year old when I began my work with them. Lisa Brown was hired to direct the Coalition and replaced the first director. She had been in her position for about six months when I began my work with theCoalition.

The two primary collaborators in my work in a small,western, mountain town are John Brewer and Maria Swenson. The town is a smallrural community that has a rapidly growing immigrant population from Mexico,about half of which are Indians from a remote area of the country. Both JohnBrewer and Maria Swenson work in positions that have direct contact with thispopulation. John Brewer is the director of the literacy program which offersfree English courses for English as a Second Language (ESL) students. He isalso a member of the city council. Marge Swenson, who is herself a formerimmigrant from South America, is the coordinator of the diversity office whichprovides services to immigrants in town. The case descriptions in chaptersfour and five provide greater detail of the participants and setting.

Data Collection

As I progressed througheach case study, I pursued two streams of data collection; the data collectedto pursue the CBR projects and data that were collected as part of this casestudy to study CBR. This section describes only the data that were collectedfor the case studies. A description of the CBR data that were collected foreach collaboration is included in the case descriptions in chapters four andfive.

Since the purpose ofcase study research is to provide an in-depth exploration of the person,program, or process under study, it requires intensive data collection (Merriam,1998; Yin, 2003) using 'multiple forms of data' (Creswell,2002, p. 486). Data collection for case studies usually focuses on threesources of data: observations, interviews, and documents (Merriam, 1998). Though all qualitative research is to some extent based on the idea of emergentdesign, this study was truly emergent. Though the research questions that thisstudy proposed to address did not shift throughout the study, the methods ofdata collection changed to accommodate emerging issues or ideas. According toPatton (1990),

What is certain is that differentmethods produce quite different information. The challenge is tofind out which information is most needed and most useful in a given situation,and then employ those methods best suited to producing the needed information(p. 196).

Though I collected all three formsof data (observations, interviews, and documents) for each study, there aresome variations that are detailed in the following sections. Appendix Aprovides a list showing the dates of meetings and interviews for each casestudy.

Observations

My primary sourceof data collection for both case studies was observation. Since I wasessentially observing myself as I collaborated with my community partner, allof the observations that I completed for my case study data collection wereparticipant observations. Creswell (2002) defines participant observation as'an observational role adopted by researchers when they take part in activitiesin the setting they observe' (p. 200). In this role, the researcher 'actuallyengages in activities at the site begin studied' (p. 200). Glesne (1999)describes a continuum of participation that 'ranges from mostly observation tomostly participation' (p. 44). Based on this continuum, I was what Glesne(1999) describes as a 'full participant' in every interaction relating to mycollaborative work with my community partners since I was concurrently a memberof the collaborative partnership as well as the researcher investigating theprocess.

In all of the meetings that I conducted with mycommunity partners in relation to our CBR work, I collected data around thoseinteractions. I utilized Merriam's (1998) checklist of elements to structuremy observations: physical setting, participants, activities and interactions,conversation, subtle factors, and my own behavior (pp. 97-98). When working onmy first CBR project with the Coalition, I initially only maintained fieldnotes. I was concerned that if I taped our meetings that it would be intrusiveand would impact the openness of our conversations (Merriam, 1998). However,as my study progressed I realized that it was difficult to take effective noteswhile participating in the conversation. I then asked my community partners ifI could tape subsequent meetings. After that, most of the meetings I had withLisa Brown or Marge Bowline were taped and then transcribed. As part of thetranscription process, I added notes that clarified or contextualized thedialogue. When I began my work with my community partners in my small town, Iasked during the first meeting if I could tape all of our meetings; both JohnBrewer and Maria Swenson readily agreed. I found that after the use of thetape recorder became routine, they did not seem to be inhibited by beingrecorded. Using the tape recorder allowed me to collect much more extensivedata from my observations of our meetings.

Interviews

As part of the datacollection for both case studies, I collected both formal and informalinterview data (Patton, 1990). Informal conversational interview questionswere interwoven into meetings that we had in relation to ongoing research(Merriam, 1998) and were recorded as part of observation transcriptions. Theseinformal questions typically addressed how the community partner felt theresearch process was progressing, whether the research was meeting their needs,or addressed immediate questions that arose through the process of continuedinteraction.

I also collected formal interview data for both casestudies; however, I conducted fewer formal interviews with my communitypartners from the Coalition for Schools. As my work with the Coalitionprogressed, I sought to determine particular data collection procedures thatwould address my research questions. Since I was working within acollaborative relationship, part of the consideration when choosing methods wasthe impact that various methods would have on the relationship with mycommunity partner. In this first case study, as I show in more detail inchapter four, it was challenging to develop a collaborative relationship withmy community partners. The lack of trust and communication within thisrelationship made it difficult to carry out formal interviews discussing ourcollaboration. I felt that these kinds of interviews would create greaterdistance between us. Instead I relied primarily on other forms of datacollection, observations and documents. However, I did interview both LisaBrown and Marge Bowline once formally toward the end of our partnership. Thisinterview included questions about the work of the Coalition as well asquestions relating to community-based research (Appendix B). I also conducteda follow-up email interview with Lisa Brown after beginning the process of dataanalysis (Appendix B).

In my collaboration withJohn Brewer and Maria Swenson in my small town, I was able to develop a muchmore honest and open relationship from the beginning and felt very comfortableconducting formal interviews about the process. I interviewed John and Mariaindividually three times throughout our collaboration (Appendix B). I used asemi-structured approach (Rubin & Rubin, 1995) when designing the interviewprotocols. I prepared questions as a starting point, but allowed the conversationto flow in whatever direction was helpful to providing insight. The firstinterview focused on getting a sense of their background and experiences withresearch, their expectations for our research, and strategies for effectivecommunication. The second interview focused on their satisfaction with howthings were proceeding, whether they felt we were communicating effectively,and whether they were having the input they wanted to have in the process. Thefinal interview focused primarily on the research questions of the case study:what were the issues that arose, what helped or hindered our collaboration, andwhat benefits did they receive from the research. I transcribed each interviewand added additional notes for interpretation.

Documents

As part of the data collection process, I alsocollected or created a variety of documents including: email communications, areflective journal, a phone call log, and other items that were provided by mycommunity partners such as newsletters and meeting minutes. As part of mycollaboration with the Coalition for Schools, we relied extensively on emailfor communication since I found it difficult to schedule face-to-face meetingswith Marge Bowline and Lisa Brown. These email conversations are an importantsource of data in compiling a picture of our collaborative experience. I alsocollected email data during my second case study. However, these emailcommunications focused primarily on setting up logistics. Most importantconversations were conducted face-to-face.

Throughout bothcase studies, I sought to engage in a reflective stance toward my role in theresearch process. In order to aid my reflection, I maintained a journal inwhich I transcribed my thinking in relation to my experiences and the perceivedexperiences of my community partners. Merriam (1998) expresses some concernabout using personal documents such as journals as data. Merriam (1998) says,

Personal documents are a reliable source of data concerning a person'sattitudes, beliefs, and view of the world. But because they are personaldocuments, the material is highly subjective in that the writer is the only one to select what he or she considers important to record. Obviously thesedocuments are not representative or necessarily reliable accounts of whatactually may have occurred (p. 116).

However, Merriam (1998) doespoint out that one of the goals of qualitative research is to 'reflect theparticipant's perspective' (p. 116). Since this is a process study, theperceptions of all participants are a key consideration (Patton, 1990). As Iam a participant in this study, my perceptions of my experience of the processare important.

The otherdocuments I collected consisted of a phone call log and documents obtained whenmeeting with my community partners. The phone call log consisted of a briefdescription of phone calls that were made during the research process. If theconversation was extensive, I tried to recreate the conversation as closely aspossible. The phone call log was used primarily during my collaboration withJohn Brewer and Maria Swenson. I also obtained various documents from mycommunity partners. These mostly included newsletters, meeting minutes, anddata collected from previous research. Most of the documents related to theCBR work we were conducting; yet some of the documents also providedinformation for my case study research.

Data Analysis

After completing bothcase studies, I had accumulated large volumes of data (more than 500 pages ofdata for each case study). I organized the data from both cases into what Yin(2003) calls a case study data base. I organized my case study database in a chronological order so that I could move through the data from thebeginning to the end of the process. This allowed me to perceive theprogression of the process and my changing views throughout. However, I feltthat I needed an additional frame from which to organize the data.

Data analysis was anongoing process throughout the implementation of each case study. PeriodicallyI composed analytic memos to begin to formulate ideas around particularfindings. As each study progressed, I looked for events with common elementswithin the data that had 'issue-relevant meaning' (Creswell, 1998, p. 154) orsignificance for the study. As I recognized these common elements, I focusedon determining whether they continued to be supported throughout the datacollection process. Creswell (1998) calls this process categoricalaggregation. As categories within the data began to emerge, I began to lookfor patterns or themes that connected these categories. Based on theliterature and the categories and themes that emerged while conducting thecases, I created an analytic framework from which to organize and think aboutthe data.

Analytic Framework

The analytic frameworkis composed of four categories: community, collaboration, knowledge creation,and change. In creating this framework, I was influenced by Stoecker's (2003)delineation of radical and mainstream CBR. I view each of the four constructsof my framework as existing on a continuum. At one end, there is radical CBR,in the middle, mainstream CBR, and at the other end the professional expertmodel or consulting (see Figure 1). Based on how I conceptualize thisframework, the closer on the continuum the researcher moves toward radical CBR,the greater the potential for change that will benefit the community with whichthe researcher is collaborating.

When consideringthe category of community, the goal is to work as closely as possible with thecommunity. Since the ultimate goal of CBR is 'social change for social justice'(Stoecker, 2002a, p. 9), the closer the researcher is to the members of thecommunity who are dealing with the problem (Stoecker, 2003), the greater thepotential to empower. The community continuum includes grassrootsorganizations on one end and organizations which do not represent the communityor use practices that 'disempower the community' (Strand et al., 2003a. p. 73)on the other (see Figure 1). In between are organizations that are a levelremoved from grassroots organizations but still seek to represent the communitydemocratically, what Strand et al. (2003a) call 'midlevel organizations' (p.74). Conducting CBR projects with midlevel organizations is what Strand et al.(2003a) label 'doing CBR in the middle' (p. 73).

Within thisanalytic framework, I conceptualize collaboration as shared decision making. The goal is that the community should have equal power with the researcher andthat decision making should be a shared process throughout (Strand et al.,2003a). When considering this concept within the continuum, shared decisionmaking is at one end of the continuum and at the other end the decisions aremade primarily by the researcher (see Figure 1). A companion to collaborationis the concept of participation in knowledge creation. The primary goal inrelation to this aspect of the framework is that the community assists in thecreation of all knowledge that is generated during the CBR process, thusleading to community empowerment. This point of the framework is based on theprinciple that the knowledge of community members is valid (Strand et al.,2003a) and integral to creating strong results. At one end of the continuum,the community is involved in all aspects of knowledge creation, at the otherend, the researcher controls the creation of knowledge (see Figure 1).

The final point ofthe analytic framework is change (see Figure 1). If you consider CBR withinthe radical framework described by Stoecker (2003), the goal for change is'massive structural changes in the distribution of power and resources throughfar-reaching changes in governmental policy, economic practices, or culturalnorms' (p. 36). This goal can be difficult to achieve. More often, CBR workleads to programmatic changes within an organization or other more limitedchanges (Strand et al., 2003a). However, each change within a community canhave a cumulative effect that can lead to broader change. Community-basedresearch that does not involve the community in close collaboration andknowledge creation is less likely to create change that benefits the community.

Analysis of Contrasting Cases

Since this study utilizes contrasting cases, dataanalysis occurs at two levels: within-case and across cases (Merriam, 1998). Merriam (1998) describes this process:

For the within-caseanalysis, each case is first treated as a comprehensive case in and of itself. Data aregathered so the researcher can learn as much about the contextual variables aspossible that might have a bearing on the case..Once the analysis of each caseis completed, cross-case analysis begins. A qualitative, inductive,multicase study seeks to build abstractions across cases (pp. 194-195).

For each case, I analyzedobservations, interviews, and documents to develop a description of the case.This description depicts the setting and participants as well as a generalchronology of events and provides the reader with an understanding of theparticulars of the case (Creswell, 1998). This allows the reader to develop anunderstanding of the case within the larger context (Creswell, 2002). Thenusing the analytic framework I developed, I did some within-case analysis andorganized the categories that emerged during each study around the fourconstructs of my analytic framework. This within-case analysis focused onanswering the primary research question: What is the process of collaboratingwith a community partner on a community-based research project? Thus each caseanalysis consists of 'both description andthematic development' (Creswell, 2002, p. 486).

After completingthe within-case analysis, I focused on the cross-case analysis to address threeof the sub-questions of the study: What kinds of issues arise whencollaborating on a community-based research project? What facilitates or hindersthe process of collaboration? and, What does the researcher gain through thiscollaborative process, and what are the benefits for the community? In thecross-case analysis, I used data from both case studies to address thesequestions. I explored the categories that had emerged throughout each casestudy and then compared to see if these categories were supported in bothcases. I used the categories and themes that emerged during the within-caseanalysis and the cross-case analysis to determine 'naturalisticgeneralizations' (Creswell, 1998, p. 154) concerning the field ofcommunity-based research. Creswell (1998) defines naturalistic generalizationsas 'generalizations that people can learn from the case either for themselvesor for applying it to a population of cases' (p. 154). These naturalisticgeneralizations address the final question of the study: What can we learn fromthese experiences to inform the field of CBR?

Validity

In order to lendcredibility to the findings of my study, I incorporated a variety of validityprocedures. The first validity procedure I employed was prolonged engagementin the field (Creswell & Miller, 2000) or what Merriam (1998) calls'long-term observation' (p. 204). I worked on my case study with the Coalitionfor a period of nine months, and I worked with John and Maria for a period ofeight months. During each of these case studies, I had consistent contact withmy community partners. Collaborating with my community partners for thislength of time allowed me to develop tentative categories in my findings andthen follow up on these preliminary findings through observations or interviews(Creswell & Miller, 2000). Therefore, the length of each case study andthe consistent contact I had with my community partners lends credibility to myperceptions of this experience.

In addition toprolonged engagement in the field, another important validity procedure Iemployed, which is integral to case study design, was triangulation (Creswell,1998). Merriam (1998) defines triangulation as 'using multiple investigators,multiple sources of data, or multiple methods to confirm the emerging findings'(p. 204). I employed methodological triangulation (Creswell & Miller,2000) since I collected three forms of data: observations, interviews, anddocuments. I also employed multiple sources of data since interviews wereconducted with several participants (Creswell & Miller, 2000). I used theprocess of triangulation to seek convergence in the data and to confirm or disconfirmemerging categories and themes (Creswell & Miller, 2000). As part of thisprocess, I employed another validity strategy, disconfirming evidence (Creswell& Miller, 2000). Categories or themes that emerged in the within-caseanalysis were compared across cases. If a category did not hold true acrosscases, it was generally deemed to be unreliable. However, I did utilize whatCreswell (1998) calls direct interpretation. In direct interpretation, 'thecase study researcher looks at a single instance and draws meaning from itwithout looking for multiple instances' (p. 154). I did recognize that therewere single incidents specific to only one case that were significant to thestudy as well.

Since this casestudy focused on the study of process, my perceptions were an integralcomponent of the research. However, since I did write interpretations of whatI considered to be the perceptions of others, I used member checking to ensureaccurate portrayal (Creswell & Miller, 2000). I conducted member checkingtoward the end of the study so that it would not potentially disrupt thecollaborative process. I shared an outline offindings with Lisa Brown with the Coalition and also John Brewer and MariaSwenson in my small town and allowed them the opportunity to provide feedback. Lisa Brown responded to the findings through email and said, 'Thanks forsharing [these findings]. I feel it is accurate, and that it was a learningexperience for all of us.' Maria Swenson also responded to the findings that Ishared with she and John. She said, 'I looked at [the findings] and it soundsgood. I agree with all said.' John also said that he thought that thefindings looked good.

Finally, I usedthe validity procedure of thick description when writing about the study inorder to give the reader a sense of being there and to capture the essence ofthe experience (Creswell & Miller, 2000). This is an important feature incase study design that is presented to the reader through the casedescription. The case description for each contrasting case is included inchapters four and five.

Subjectivity

Another method of creditability I used continuouslythroughout the research process was researcher reflexivity (Creswell &Miller, 2000). I incorporated researcher reflexivityby constantly questioning my assumptions about what I thought was happening. Isought to maintain a heightened sense of awareness of the biases that I broughtto the study and maintained this awareness when adding contextual data to fieldnotes, observations transcriptions, and interview transcriptions, and also whenwriting journal entries.

Since my perceptions ofthe research process played a major part in the findings of the study, it wasimportant that I attend to the idea of subjectivity. Peshkin (1988), definessubjectivity as 'the quality of the investigator that affects the results ofobservational investigation' (p. 17). Peshkin (1988) points out that anindividual's subjectivity is not something that can be removed, and it is thereforesomething researchers need to be aware of throughout the research process. Peshkin (1988) identified the various facets of his subjectivities through aseries of I's, for example, the 'justice-seeking I' (p. 18) and 'thecommunity-maintenance I' (p. 18). Though Peshkin does not view subjectivity asnecessarily negative, he does feel it is something that researchers need torealize and acknowledge. It was important to examine my own subjectivitiesthroughout the research process so that I was aware of how these subjectivitiescould influence my interpretations and portrayal of events. As Strand (2000)points out, 'the researcher's values, experiences, and personal points of vieware as much a part of the research process as those of the people studied, andthey should be discussed and acknowledged' (p. 91).

Since the two CBRprojects I worked on were in different settings and related to different typesof work, I dealt with different subjectivities within each case study. In mywork with the Coalition for Schools many of the subjectivities that I broughtto that collaboration arose from my past experience as a classroom teacher. Ihold the perception that people who do not have experience in a K-12 classroomdo not generally understand the issues that classroom teachers have toaddress. I can be defensive and overly sensitive to criticism that I feel putsthe blame on teachers. There were many times during my partnership with theCoalition that I realized this subjectivity was influencing my reactions tostatements made by Lisa Brown or Marge Bowline. I also think that thisperception at times clouded my view of the knowledge that Lisa brought to theequation. Though I felt that she was very knowledgeable in certain areas, Iquestioned her understanding of what was actually happening in the schools thatare part of the Coalition. I tried to be aware of my bias in this area, thoughI do not believe I was always successful in controlling how this biasinfluenced my work with Lisa.

Anotherbias that I brought to my work with the Coalition was the idea thata successful partnership should not have conflict. I tend to avoid conflict inmy personal life. I have difficulty at times recognizing the benefits thatconflict can bring. Because of this, I did not communicate as effectively withLisa as I could have. If had been more willing to risk conflict, we may havebeen able to develop a more productive working relationship. When I began mywork with John Brewer and Maria Swenson, I determined that I would not avoidconflict in this collaboration. When a situation did arise where John and Idisagreed, I engaged him, and we talked through the matter. The outcome wasthat we both were able to see the value of the other's viewpoint.

Though I was able toaddress the issue of conflict avoidance in my work inJohn Brewer and Maria Swenson, there were other subjectivities and biases ofwhich I had to be aware. I am liable to have the perception that small townstend to discriminate against minorities. Since all of the projects that Icompleted with John and Maria involved the immigrant population in town, I feltat times that I was waiting for someone to say something that would demonstratetheir prejudice. At times, I would jump to the conclusion that a particularstatement was pejorative. When looking back again at the statement in thecontext of the full conversation, I realized at times that I may havemisinterpreted particular statements. I had to make a concerted effort not tosingle out statements just because they supported my bias. Nevertheless, thissubjectivity did influence whom I chose to partner with during this casestudy. I had originally planned to include Maria's supervisor, JenniferPayton, in our collaboration. However, after meeting with Jennifer in October2003, I decided not to collaborate with her since she made several commentsduring the meeting that I perceived to be pejorative. If I had decided to workwith Jennifer, I may have found that these comments did not representdiscrimination but rather a lack of understanding of the impact of languagechoices.

Two othersubjectivities that I brought into my work on both projects related to myexperience with previous CBR projects. As I was involved in another community-basedresearch project before working on my dissertation, I already had an initialperception of how the process works. One concern that arose during my previousexperience was the issue of communicating with my community partner. I haddifficulty developing a research question because the conversations that Ishared with my community partner seemed circuitous. We talked around questionsduring several meetings before I was finally able to gain a sense of what shewas hoping to achieve from the research. Though these past experiences withcommunity-based research helped me to anticipate some of the issues that arose,I tried to make sure that the anticipation of issues did not create issues.

Whenentering into CBR projects, it is important to me that I am doing work that Iview as meaningful. Work that is meaningful to me would be research thatallows me to consistently interact with members of the community on a personallevel. However, I tried to maintain the awareness that the research that I wishedto pursue was not necessarily the research that the people I was collaboratingwith wished to pursue. I continued to remind myself that these discrepanciesshould not interfere with the development of a research design that wasbeneficial to my community partner and had the potential to bring abouteffective change. Since change is the goal of community-based research, Ineeded to be sure that the change I was assisting to create was the change thatthe community partner was seeking to make rather than the change that I wouldhave liked to pursue.

Finally,when a researcher carries out a qualitative study, it is also important toattend to the subjectivities that the researcher brings based on gender, age,ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. I feel at times that I lackself-awareness of how these orientations impact the way that I view the world. Though I tried to be conscious of these factors while doing my research, I amnot sure that I was successful in completely exploring how these subjectivitiesmay have influenced my research. I do feel, however, that my status was anissue in the work that I conducted with the Coalition for Schools. My statusin relation to my age (under 40) and my position as a graduate studentinfluenced how my community partners at the Coalition viewed my role, and mysocioeconomic background impacted the level of confidence that I felt whenworking with members of the Coalition. I come from a working class backgroundwhile my community partners at the Coalition come from backgrounds of higherstatus both in relation to levels of education and socioeconomic status. Attimes, I did feel out of place moving through the world of the Coalition inthat I often felt that I was from a lower class than many of the people with whichI came into contact. I felt most comfortable when interacting with teachers orparents.

In order to minimize the impact of mysubjectivities, I closely monitored my feelings as I carried out my research. I looked for situations where I felt uncomfortable or that I wanted to avoid aswell as situations where I felt comfortable and that I wanted to continue. When these feelings arose, I realized that I was usually being influenced bysubjectivity (Glesne, 1999; Peshkin, 1988). I analyzed my feelings andconsidered how they related to my subjectivities, then took note of theseoccurrences in my journal (Peshkin, 1988). Throughout the research process, Iwas mindful of previously identified subjectivities. I also tried to be awareof newly emerging subjectivities that I may not have considered (Peshkin, 1988)that would potentially influence my research.

Limitations of This Study

This study seeks to compare two cases of conductingcommunity-based research. However, there are differences between the twoexperiences that may have impacted the findings of the study. In my work withthe Coalition, I was a paid employee. Though I was hired with theunderstanding that I would be a collaborative researcher, I believe my positionas an employee impacted how Marge Bowline and Lisa Brown viewed my role, and italso impacted my reactions to various situations. The fact that I was anemployee in the first case study when collaborating with the Coalition but inthe second case study I was independent, may have created some of thedifferences that were apparent in the two cases.

Another limitation ofthis study is that it primarily focuses on the researcher's experience of thisprocess. Though I did interview my community partners, the number ofinterviews in the first case study was more limited. If I had conductedadditional interviews throughout the first case study, I might have additionalinformation to support or contradict some of my observations. However, thepurpose of this study is to provide insight into this process for practitionersin the field of community-based research, thus it is beneficial to explore theresearcher's perspective of these two experiences.

The final limitation ofthis study relates to the timeline of the completion of the study. Since Ionly recently finalized data collection in relation to my work with John Brewerand Maria Swenson, I am not really able to make an assessment at this point asto whether any of the work we completed will affect change. My work with the Coalitionwas completed almost a year ago so it easier to assess the impact of thatwork. However, even with the first case study, there is a possibility thatsome of the work that I completed could eventually lead to change. If I wereto conduct a long-term case study in relation to either of thesecollaborations, it would be more feasible to assess the impact of our work.

Summary

This chapter providedan overview to the case study methods that were used to conduct this study. Idetailed a rationale for choosing this method, then described data collection,analysis, and procedures in relation to validity. Since this is a processstudy of the methodology of CBR, I also described the foundations of thismethodology. The next three chapters will present the findings of this study. Chapters four and five provide a synopsis of the within-case analysis of eachof the contrasting cases. I begin each chapter with a chronological overviewof the major events of the case and then present within-case analysis organizedaround the four concepts of my analytic framework. In chapter six, I presentthe findings from the cross-case analysis that address the sub-questions of thestudy and identify the 'naturalistic generalizations' (Creswell, 1998, p. 154)that emerged from the study with recommendations for further research.

By
Er. Kaushal Kishore ,
Materials Engineer, Roorkee

ABSTRACT:
The stresses induced in concrete pavements are mainly flexural. Therefore flexural strength is more often specified than compressive strength in the design of concrete mixes for pavement construction. A simple method of concrete mix design based on flexural strength for normal weight concrete mixes is described in the paper.

INTRODUCTION:
Usual criterion for the strength of concrete in the building industry is the compressive strength, which is considered as a measure of quality concrete. however, in pavement constructions, such as highway and airport runway, the flexural strength of concrete is considered more important, as the stresses induced in concrete pavements are mainly flexural. Therefore, flexural strength is more often specified than compressive strength in the design of concrete mixes for pavement construction. It is not perfectly reliable to predict flexural strength from compressive strength. Further, various codes of the world specified that the paving concrete mixes should preferably be designed in the laboratory and controlled in the field on the basis of its flexural strength. Therefore, there is a need to design concrete mixes based on flexural strength.

The type of aggregate can have a predominant effect, crushed rock aggregate resulting in concrete with higher flexural strength than uncrushed (gravel) aggregates for comparable mixes, assuming that sound materials are used. The strength of cement influences the compressive and flexural strength of concrete i.e. with the same water-cement ratio, higher strength cement will produce concrete of higher compressive and flexural strength.

MIX DESIGN DETAILS
IRC: 15-2002 specified that for concrete roads OPC should be used. This code also allowed PPC as per IS: 1489 may also be used. Accordingly OPC + fly ash may be used in concrete roads. However, IS: 456-2000 specified that fly ash conforming to grade-1 of IS-3812 may be used as part replacement of OPC provided uniform blended with cement is essential. The construction sites where batching plants are used this may be practicable. In ordinary sites where mixer or hand mixing are done uniform blending of fly ash with cement is not practicable. At such construction sites, PPC may be used.

TEST DATA FOR MATERIALS AND OTHER DETAILS
1. The grading of fine aggregate, 10 and 20 mm aggregates are as given in Table. 1 ( given in the end). Fine aggregate is of zone-II as per IS:383-1970. 10 and 20 mm crushed aggregate grading are single sized as per IS: 383-1970.

2. Properties of aggregates

3. Target average flexural strength for all A, B and C mixes
S = S^’+ J_ao-
= 4.5 + 1.65 x 0.5
= 5.3 N/mm² at 28 days age

4. For Mix A and B free W/C ratio with crushed aggregate and required average flexural target strength of 5.3 N/mm² at 28 days from Fig. 1 Curve D ( Figure shown in the end) found to be 0.42. This is lower than specified maximum W/C ratio value of 0.50
Note: In absence of cement strength, but cement conforming to IS Codes, assume from Fig. 1

Curve A and B – For OPC 33 Grade
Curve C and D – For OPC 43 Grade

Take curves C and D for PPC, as PPC is being manufactured in minimum of 43 Grade of strength.

5. Other data’s: The Mixes are to be designed on the basis of saturated and surface dry aggregates. At the time of concreting, moisture content of site aggregates are to be determine. If it carries surface moisture this is to be deducted from the mixing water and if it is dry add in mixing water the quantity of water required for absorption. The weight of aggregates are also adjusted accordingly.

DESIGN OF MIX-A WITH PPC
a) Free W/C ratio for the target flexural strength of 5.3 N/mm² as worked out is 0.42

b) Free water for 30 mm slump from Table 2 for 20 mm maximum size of aggregate.
2/3*165 + 1/3*195
= 175 kg/m³

From trials it is found that Retarder Super plasticizer at a dosages of 15gm/kg of cement may reduce 15% water without loss of workability
Then water = 175 – (175 x 0.15) = 148.75 kg/m³
For trials say 149 kg/m³

c) PPC = 149/0.42 = 355 kg/m³
This is higher than minimum requirement of 350 kg/m³

d) Formula for calculation of fresh concrete weight in kg/m³

U_M = 10 x G_a (100 – A) + C_M(1 – G_a/G_c) – W_M (G_a – 1)
Where,
U_m = Weight of fresh concrete kg/m³

2002 Designer By Jayco

G_a = Weighted average specific gravity of combined fine and coarse aggregate bulk, SSD

G_c = Specific gravity of cement. Determine actual value, in absence assume 3.15 for OPC and 3.00 for PPC (Fly ash based)

A = Air content, percent. Assume entrapped air 1.5% for 20 mm maximum size of aggregate and 2.5% for 10mm maximum size of aggregate. There are always entrapped air in concrete. Therefore ignoring entrapped air value as NIL will lead the calculation of higher value of density.

W_m = Mixing water required in kg/m³

C_m = Cement required, kg/m³

Note:- The exact density may be obtained by filling and fully compacting constant volume suitable metal container from the trial batches of calculated design mixes. The mix be altered with the actual obtained density of the mix.

U_m = 10 x G_a (100 – A) + C_m (1 – G_a/G_c) – W_m (G_a – 1)

= 10 x 2.65 (100 – 1.5) + 355(1- 2.65/3.00) – 149 (2.65 -1)
= 2405.9 kg/m³
Say 2405 kg/m³

e) Aggregates = 2405 – 355 – 149 = 1901 kg/m³

f) Fine aggregate = From Table 3 for zone-II Fine aggregate and
20 mm maximum size of aggregate, W/C ratio = 0.42, 30 mm slump found to be 35%.

Fine aggregate = 1901 x 0.35 = 665 kg/m³
Coarse aggregate = 1901 – 665 = 1236 kg/m³

10 and 20 mm aggregate are single sized as per IS: 383-1970. Let they be combined in the ratio of 1.2:1.8 to get 20 mm graded aggregate as per IS: 383-1970

10 mm aggregate = 1236×1.2/3 = 494 kg/m³
20 mm aggregate = 1236×1.8/3 = 742 kg/m³

g) Thus for 4.5 N/mm² flexural strength quantity of materials per cu.m. of concrete on the basis of saturated and surface dry aggregates:

Water = 149 kg/m³
PPC = 355 kg/m³
Fine Aggregate (sand) = 665 kg/m³
10 mm Aggregate = 494 kg/m³
20 mm Aggregate = 742 kg/m³
Retarder Super Plasticizer = 5.325 kg/m³

MIX- B WITH OPC
a) Water = 175 – (175 x 0.15) = 149 kg/m³ say 149 kg/m³

b) OPC = 149/0.42 = say 355 kg/m³

c) Density: 10 x 2.65 (100 – 1.5) + 355 (1 – 2.65/3.15) – 149 (2.65 – 1)
= 2420.8 kg/m³ say 2420 kg/m³

d) Total Aggregates = 2420 – 355 – 149 = 1916 kg/m³
Fine Aggregate = 1916 x 0.35 = say 670 kg/m³
Coarse aggregate = 1916 – 670 = 1246 kg/m³
10 mm Aggregate = 1246×1.2/3 = 498 kg/m³
20 mm Aggregate = 1246×1.8/3 = 748 kg/m³

2002 Designer By Jayco

e) Thus for 4.5 N/mm² flexural strength quantity of materials per cu.m of concrete on the basis of SSD aggregates are given below:

Water = 149 kg/m³
OPC = 355 kg/m³
Fine Aggregate (sand) = 670 kg/m³
10 mm Aggregate = 498 kg/m³
20 mm Aggregate = 748 kg/m³
Retarder Super Plasticizer = 3.550 kg/m³

MIX. C WITH OPC + FLYASH
With the given set of materials increase in cementitious materials = 10.7%
Total cementitious materials = 355×1.107 = 393 kg/m³

Fine Aggregate = 0.6994 – 0.4702 = 0.2292
= 0.2292 x 2650 = 607 kg

Note:-
1. Specific gravity of Normal Superplasticizer = 1.15
2. Addition of Flyash reduces 5% of water demand.

For 4.5 N/mm² flexural strengthquantity of material per cu.m of concrete on the basis of saturated and surface dry aggregates of

Mix ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ are given below:

Note:-

1. For exact W/C ratio the water in admixture should also be taken into account.

Networking Adapters Product NameSpeedDownload Driver PE3100G2DQIRL100GDownload DriverPE3100G2DQIR100GDownload DriverPE31640G2QI7140GDownload. Silicon Power and related drivers. HDD / SSD / NAS / USB Flash Silicon Power. Windows 8.1 64 bit, Windows 8.1, Windows 8 64 bit, Windows 8, Windows. These drivers are static examples detailed in Application Note 197: The Serial Communications Guide for the CP210x. The CP210x Manufacturing DLL and Runtime DLL have been updated and must be used with v 6.0 and later of the CP210x Windows VCP Driver. Application Note Software downloads affected are AN144SW.zip, AN205SW.zip and AN223SW.zip. Download silicon vendor driver licence. Download software files to support Silicon Labs wide portfolio of products. Explore tools and resources to aid in product development. Access information on Reference Designs, 8-bit and 32-bit microcontrollers, interface, timing, isolation, wireless Bluetooth®, Proprietary, Thread, Wi-Fi®, Zigbee®, and Z-Wave development. Silicon Image Driver Downloads. To find the latest driver for your computer we recommend running our Free Driver Scan. Search For More Drivers.

2. The W/C ratio of PPC and OPC is taken the same assuming that the strength properties of both are the same. If it is found that the PPC is giving the low strength then W/C ratio of PPC have to be reduce, which will increase the cement content. For getting early strength and in cold climate the W/C ratio of PPC shall also be required to be reduced.

3. PPC reduces 5% water demand. If this is found by trial then take reduce water for calculation.

4. If the trial mixes does not gives the required properties of the mix, it is then required to be altered accordingly. However, when the experiences grows with the particular set of materials and site conditions very few trials will be required, and a expert of such site very rarely will be required a 2^nd trial.

5. It may be noted that, for the fly ash concrete the total cementation material is greater but the OP cement content is smaller, the coarse aggregate content is deliberately, the same, the water is reduced and the density is reduced, because of the lower density of fly ash compared with OPC.

CONCLUSION
1. For 4.5 N/mm² flexural strength concrete having same material and requirement, but without water reducer, the PPC and OPC required will be 175/0.42 = 417kg/m³

2002designsco

2. With the use of superplasticizer the saving in cement is 62 kg/m³ and water 26 lit/m³ for PPC and OPC.

3. In the Fly ash concrete the saving in cement is 122 kg/m³ and water 33 lit/m³ including utilization of 98 kg/m³ of fly ash witch is a waste material.

4. In the financial year 2009-2010 India has produces 200 million tonnes of cement. In India one kg of cement produce emitted 0.93 kg of CO₂. Thus the production of 200 million tonnes of cement had emitted 200 x 0.93 = 186 million tonnes of CO₂ to the atmosphere.

5. If 50 million tonnes cement in making concrete uses water reducers 7500000 tonnes of cement can be saved. 3750000 KL of potable water will be saved and the saving of Rs. 3300 crores per year to the construction Industry. 6975000 tonnes of CO₂ will be prevented to be emitted to the atmosphere. The benefits in the uses of water reducers not limited to this. When water reduces shrinkage and porosity of concrete are reduces which provides the durability to concrete structures.

6. India is facing serious air, water, soil, food and noise pollution problems. Every efforts therefore are necessary to prevent pollution on top priority basis.

7. As the stress induced in concrete pavements are mainly flexural, it is desirable that their design is based on the flexural strength of concrete. The quality of concrete is normally assessed by measuring its compressive strength. For pavings, however, it is the flexural strength rather than the compression strength of concrete which determine the degree of cracking and thus the performance of road, and it is imperative to control the quality on the basis of flexural strength.

REFERENCES:

Table. 1: Grading of Aggregates

Table. 2: Approximate free-water content (kg/m³) required to give various levels of workability for non-air-entrained (with normal entrapped air) concrete.

Note:- When coarse and fine aggregate of different types are used, the free water content is estimated by the expression.
2/3W_f+1/3W_c
Where,
W_f = Free water content appropriate to type of fine Aggregate
W_c = Free water content appropriate to type of coarse aggregate.

Table. 3: Proportion of fine aggregate (percent) with 10mm and 20mm maximum sizes of aggregates and slump 15-45 mm.

I am thankful to Sir Kaushal Kishore for publishing his research work here on engineeringcivil.com. I am sure, this research paper will help many civil engineers around the world in understanding how to do mix design for concrete roads as per IRC-15-2002.