Case Study Examples
Example Case Study 1
Factors affecting adoption and implementation of IPM in Four Indiana School Districts
Fournier, A., T. J. Gibb, T.J. & C.Y. Oseto. 2010. Go to the Head of the Class: A Research-based Approach to Understanding Adoption and Implementation of Integrated Pest Management in Schools. Purdue IPM Technical Resource Center, Purdue University. West Lafayette, IN. 375 pp.(Fournier et al. 2010)
A case study approach was used to identify and analyze factors that influenced the adoption of IPM and its integration into school operations in four Indiana K-12 public school districts. The case study approach allowed the authors to incorporate the perspectives and experiences of multiple program participants, school policies and documents, and real time observations of pest management practices, into an analysis of program activities and interactions embedded in the social, operational, and physical context of the school environment.
The specific methodological components of the case studies were:
(1) 26 in-depth interviews with school district administrators, staff, and pest management professionals
(2) Pest management assessments of one school per district, including (a) IPM inspections and (b) observations of routine pest management services
(3) Analysis of documents related to school pest management policies and practices
Data from each of these sources contributed to the descriptions of school pest management programs and the development of “assertions” related to the research questions: factors that influenced IPM program effectiveness.
Example Case Study 2
Adoption of Pest Management Practices by Vegetable Growers: A Case Study
Smith, D.T., M.K. Harris and T.X. Liu. 2002. Adoption of Pest Management Practices by Vegetable Growers: A Case Study. American Entomologist, Winter 2002. http://www.entsoc.org/PDF/Pubs/Periodicals/AE/AE-2002/winter/Research-Harris.pdf
In 1990, 10 years after research and Extension IPM programs were initiated for vegetables in Texas, the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) began assessing grower practices from field survey data. In 1999, researchers from Texas A & M University used the NASS data to evaluate IPM practices used by onion and cabbage growers in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. They found that previous research and extension education on economic thresholds and other tactics provided a technology base for IPM programs. A PAMS (prevention, avoidance, monitoring, and suppression) model was used to evaluate pest management practices. Preventive tactics included crop rotation (on 72% of the acreage) and planting of pest-resistant cultivars (51%). Avoidance tactics included altering planting dates (36%) and managing irrigation schedules (19%). 94% of the vegetable production was scouted for pests, but <60% was treated with insecticide. Farmers and their employees did 60% of the scouting, and chemical dealers monitored <15% of the vegetable crops. However, once farmers decided to treat, the chemical dealers were the main source of information in selecting cost-effective, efficacious pesticides. Crop consultants and Extension Service advisers were also important sources of information (52%), whereas field days, special events, and use of the mass media were less important. The impact of vegetable IPM programs was assessed by evaluating changes in insecticide use in cabbage and onions over an 8-yr period. A quantitative assessment showed that insecticide use in cabbage decreased from 4.1 to 1.6 lb of active ingredient per acre because of less use of organophosphates and carbamates. Insecticide use in onion decreased from 1.7 to 0.9 lb per acre over the 8-yr period primarily because of increased substitution of pyrethroids, which were applied at lower rates. When environmental indices were used to evaluate qualitative changes, there was a 77% reduction in the environmental impact of insecticide use in cabbage production and a 73% reduction in onion. Survey data indicate that producers widely adopted IPM tactics, significantly reduced pesticide use, and used ecologically friendly chemicals, consistent with policies advocated by state and federal agencies.
A good example which includes multiple methods including analysis of NASS survey data and phone surveys.