C ASE S TUDY R ESEARCH :

The STS tradition has been based on the usage of various methodological forms, largely due to the large number of academic traditions existing within the field. This is the case also in general within social sciences, where there are several ways of doing research. Different approaches have their own set of advantages and disadvantages. An important starting point is that the strategy used should correspond with the research questions. In this case I have asked how and why the PV-industry has been established in Norway, and furthermore why this industry is focused on upstream products. In addressing such how and why questions the preferred strategy is the case study (Yin 2003: 7). Furthermore a case study is a preferred strategy when …”a how and why question is being asked about a contemporary set of events over which the investigator has little or no control” (Yin 2003: 9). In this case such a strategy is fruitful, much because of the complexity of the object of study. Moreover the focus of the paper, the photovoltaic industry and its related innovation processes, are contemporary events or processes, over which I as an investigator or researcher exercise little control. This makes the case study approach not only fruitful, but also necessary.

Innovation is something that cannot be pinpointed as a single event, but is a cumulative process (Lundvall 1992: 8). Furthermore innovation is not a well-defined linear process, but rather a continuous, changing and heterogeneous one (Kline & Rosenberg 1986). Such characteristics are certainly reflected in the innovation processes and developments of

technological change that are to be described in this paper. They are intricate, comprehensive and complex, at the same time as they are gradual and cumulative. The heterogeneity makes the case study a preferred approach. Furthermore, given the nature of the innovation process this study enters the development at a given point in time. The ever changing nature of innovation processes therefore allows only a glance at what actually has happened. When addressing how and why questions the case study approach is preferred because such

questions are explanatory and deal with links that need to be traced over time (Yin 2003: 6).

In seeking to explain these innovation processes I therefore also attempt to look back in time and seek out elements that can be said to be of importance today. A part of the paper will concern itself with issues of path dependency. At this point theory and methods interact. Such theoretical assumptions have not only been theoretically important in the writing of the paper.

They have also been of methodological importance in the sense that such theoretical assumptions give rise to certain non-rigid cognitive schemes which affect the research process. This goes for both the search for information as well as the interpretation of the gathered information. An important point where a case study is distinguished from related approaches such as grounded theory is its relation to theory. As mentioned, some theoretical aspects can be seen as operating as cognitive schemes. Such an approach has not always been approved in the field of qualitative methods at least not in the grounded theory approach (Strauss & Corbin 1998). Flick (2006) states that the aspirations of early grounded theory of being a tabula rasa, a blank sheet, in the research process to a large extent are visions of utopia. There exists little that has not been researched, or at least there exists little that cannot be tied to any previous research in some way. In this study I have used existing literature and information as a basis for guidance throughout the research process. Furthermore an important part of the research process is to make theory development a part of the research design (Yin 2003: 28). In this case some theoretical ideas related to existing topics like path dependency

and innovation systems have not only been guiding the research design, but has also been important for the generating theoretical assumptions along the way that can be seen as a contribution, or widening of existing theory.

In this sense the paper will use the systems of innovation approach as an open and guiding framework. The approach is seen as fruitful not only in structuring the paper, but also in retrospect as guiding in the research process. Innovation systems are often seen as open systems, and are therefore easily applicable to a variety of cases and topics. In this case the approach has been useful first as guidance when seeking out informants and other sources.

For instance the systemic approach on a theoretical basis proposes that multiple sources operating in a systemic context matter for innovation. Therefore a wide variety of organizations and institutions potentially have contributed to the establishment of the industry. The systems approach has therefore first of all been guiding as to where I have searched for information, and what kind of informants I have used. Therefore I have searched for information not only in firms, although it is the firms that do innovation, but also in public agencies, policy documents and so on. Equally important; the approach also has been guiding regarding the nature of the information that is searched out. In this sense it may be stated that the systemic approach has been useful in organising and structuring interviews, at the same time as it has guided the nature of the questions posed to my informants. This is not to say that the approach has been overtly structuring for the research, rather it has functioned as a conceptual framework during the process.