35. Bozhkov O.B., Trotsuk I.V. TendentsiirazvitiyaselskikhrayonovRossii: postanovkaissle- dovatelskoyzadachiipervyerezultatypovtornogo keys-stadi [Tendencies of the Russian rural areas development: The research task and first results of the comparative case -study]. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2018; 18 (4) (In Russ.).
36. Bondarenko L.V. Kontseptsiyasnizheniyaselskoybednosti [Concept of the Rural Poverty Rreduction]. Moscow; 2007 (In Russ.).
37. Klyueva N.V. Kachestvennyemetody [Qualitative Methods]. Yaroslavl; 2016 (In Russ.).
38. Krylatykh E.N., FrolovaE.Yu. Potrebitelskayakooperatsiyaifermery: vzaimnyeinteresy [Consumer cooperation and farmers: Mutual interests]. FundamentalnyeiPrikladnyeIssle- dovaniyaKooperativnogoSektoraEkonomiki. 2019; 2 (In Russ.).
39. Maksimov A.F. Kolichestvennyanaliziotsenkachislennostiselskokhozyaystvennykhpo- trebitelskikhkooperativov[Quantitative analysis and assessment of the number of agricultural consumer cooperatives]. PrikladnyeekonomicheskieIssledovaniya. 2018; 6 (In Russ.).
40. Maksimov A.F. Osobennostifunktsionirovaniyaselskokhozyaystvennykhpotrebi-telskikhkooperativov v sovremennykhusloviyakh [Features of the agricultural consumer cooperatives in the contemporary conditions]. NikonovskieChteniya. 2018; 23 (In Russ.).
41. Maksimov A.F. Selskokhozyaystvennyekreditnyepotrebitelskiekooperativy v sovremennykhusloviyakhikhfunktsionirovaniya [Agricultural credit-consumer cooperatives in the contemporary conditions]. FundamentalnyeiPrikladnyeIssledovaniyaKooperativnogoSektoraEkonomiki. 2017; 2 (In Russ.).
42. Ovchintseva L.A. “Otsenkaiznutri” sotsialnykhprotsessovnasele [“Participatory rural appraisal” of social processes in the countryside]. NikonovskieChteniya. 1997; 2 (In Russ.).
43. Ovchintseva L.A. Vovlechenienaseleniya v ustoychivoerazvitieselskikhterritoriy[ Involvement of the population in the sustainable development of rural areas]. NikonovskieChteniya. 2004; 9 (In Russ.).
44. Ovchintseva L.A. Budet li v blizhaysheevremyareshenaproblemaselskoybednosti? [Will the problem of rural poverty be solved in the near future?]. Indeks. Dosienatsenzuru. 2004; 21 (In Russ.).
45. Saraykin A.V., Yanbykh R.G. Analizustoychivostikooperativnoyformykhozyaystvo- vaniyaagrarnogosektoraRossii v konteksteinstitutsionalnoyteoriifirmy [Analysis of the stability of the cooperative form of farming in the Russian agrarian sector in the framework of the institutional theory of enterprise]. VestnikSPbGU. Seriya: Ekonomika. 2019; 35 (2) (In Russ.).
46. Saraykin A.V., Yanbykh R.G. Klassifikatsiyakooperativovirazvitieselskokhozyay-stven- noykooperatsii [Classification of cooperatives and the development of agricultural cooperation]. APK: Ekonomika, Ipravlenie. 2018; 7 (In Russ.).
47. Semin A.N. Selskayabednost: faktorygeneratsiiimekhanizmypreodoleniya [Rural poverty: Factors of development and mechanisms of overcoming]. EkonomikaSelskokhozyaystven- nykhiPererabatyvayushchikhPredpriyatiy. 2009; 12 (In Russ.).
48. Skomorokhov S.N. Konkretizatsiyapotentsialnykh problem kooperativa, trebuyushchikh re- glamentatsiivovnutrennikhpravilakhireglamentakh [Potential problems of the cooperative, which require regulation in the internal rules and regulations]. FundamentalnyeiPrikladnyeIssledovaniyaKooperativnogoSektoraEkonomiki. 2018; 5 (In Russ.).
49. Strauss A., Korbin J. Osnovykachestvennogoissledovaniya: obosnovannayateoriya, protseduryitekhniki [Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques], Moscow; 2001 (In Russ.).
50. Strekalova N.D. Keys-metod v nauchnykhissledovaniyakhmagistrovmenedzhmenta [Case- method in the scientific research of masters of management]. Problemyustoychivogorazvitiyasotsialno-ekonomicheskikhsistem: region, gorod, rayon, organizatsiya. Nizhniy Novgorod; 2014 (In Russ.).
51. Tavokin E.P. Sotsiologicheskayainformatsiya v upravlenii: rol, metodypolucheniyaiobrabotki [Sociological information in management: Role, methods of collecting and processing]. Moscow; 2008 (In Russ.).
52. Trotsuk I.V. Vozmozhnostimetoda keys-stadi v izucheniisotsialnykh problem sela [Possibilities of the case study method in the study of rural social problems]. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2007; 4 (In Russ.).
53. Trotsuk I.V. Monitoringirazvitiyaselskikhterritoriy: “kolichestvo”, “kachestvo” iliikh so- chetanie? [Rural development monitorings: “quantity”, “quality”, or a combination of both? ].
54. Materialy IX Grushinskoykonferentsii “Sotsialnayainzheneriya: kaksotsiologiyamenyaetmir”.Moscow; 2019 (In Russ.).
55. Trotsuk I.V. Putevoditelpopostsovetskoyagrarnoyreforme v Rossii: ob'ektivnoeisub'ek- tivnoeizmerenieselskoyzhizni [A guide to the post-soviet agrarian reform in Russia: Objective and subjective dimensions of rural life]. Krestyanovedeniye. 2017; 2 (3) (In Russ.).
56. Shabanov V.L. Faktoryiprichinyselskoybednosti v sovremennoyRossii [Factors and causes of rural poverty in contemporary Russia]. IzvestiyaSaratovskogoUniversiteta. Ser- iya: Sotsiologiya. Politologiya. 2014; 14 (4) (In Russ.).
57. Shteinberg I., Shanin T., Kovalev E., Levinson A. Kachestvennyemetody. Polevyeissledo- vaniya [Qualitative Methods. Field Studies]. Saint Petersburg; 2009 (In Russ.).
58. Baxter P.E., Jac S.M. Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. Qualitative Report. 2010; 13 (4).
59. Bennett A., Elman C. Qualitative research: Recent developments in case study methods.Annual Review of Political Science. 2006; 9 (1).
60. Collier D., Whright J.S., Brady H.E. Qualitative versus quantitative: What might this distinction mean? Qualitative Methods. 2003; 1 (1).
61. Creswell J.W., Hanson W.E., Plano C., Vicki L., Morales A. Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. Counseling Psychologist. 2007; 35 (2).
62. Creswell J.W. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks; 2013.
63. Creswell J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks; 2014.
64. George A.L., Bennett A. Case Studies and Theory Development in Social Sciences. Cambridge; 2005.
65. Kurakin A., Visser O. Post-socialist agricultural cooperatives in Russia: A case study of top- down cooperatives in the Belgorod region. Post-Communist Economies. 2017; 29 (2).
66. LooiTheam Choy. The strengths and weaknesses of research methodology: Comparison and complimentary between qualitative and quantitative approaches. IOSR Journal Of Humanities And Social Science. 2014; 19 (4).
67. Mills E.J., Duperos G., Wiebe E. Encyclopedia of Case-Study Research. London; 2010.
68. Sobolev A., Kurakin A., Pakhomov V., Trotsuk I. Cooperation in rural Russia: Past, present and future. Mir Rossii. 2018; 27 (1).
69. Starman A.B. Thecasestudyas a typeofqualitativeresearch. Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies. 2013.
Abstract
Case-study method in the studies of the Russian rural cooperation
L.A. Ovchintseva, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration prosp. Vernadskogo, 84, Moscow, 119571, Russia
Qualitative methods are highly appreciated in both foreign and Russian sociological research focused on practical results and recommendations. Among numerous qualitative methods, case study seems to be the most relevant for the study of rural cooperation. Cooperatives are traditionally the most important means for supporting small producers in agriculture. Historical studies show that rural cooperation has always revived under social transformations. Today in Russia, transformations in rural areas are not complete and still determine serious social-economic consequences.
The state support for cooperatives and small business is one of the priorities in rural development, but it has contradictory effects. Every year, many new cooperatives are registered, but their number is always smaller than the number of closed cooperatives. The study aims at understanding motives for creating cooperatives, and at identifying mechanisms of economic interaction of cooperative members and risks and conflicts that affect the life of the cooperative.
The author shows the relevance of the case study method for studying the formation and functioning of cooperatives and for testing the hypothesis about combination of formal and informal mechanisms of economic interaction in cooperatives. The case study proved the dependence of formalization of economic relations in the cooperative on the scale of its activities, and revealed motives for cooperation of small agricultural producers.
This work is a part of the research within the state assignment of the RANEPA “Informal economy of rural households: Possibilities and limitations of economic practices in increasing the potential and general attractiveness of rural areas”.
Key words: qualitative methods of sociological research; case-study; semi-structured interview; rural cooperation; consumer cooperatives; mechanisms of economic interaction; informal economy