Research methodology: case study

Case study

As discussed in a previous article (Research paradigms, methodologies and methods), methodology is intertwined with or an aspect of a paradigm. Methodologies or approaches include case study, ethnography, action research and discourse analysis. The focus of this article is the case study methodology.

The case study methodology is an approach that is in agreement with a range of paradigms, such as phenomenology, interpretivism and even post-positivism (Niglas, 2001; Torrance in Somekh & Lewin, 2005), and is a “detailed investigation of a specific person, place or thing” (Kervin, Vialle, Herrington & Okely, 2006, p. 70). However, depending on the paradigm, the role of the researcher differs; for example, the post-positivist researcher would implement case study methodology as a distant observer, while the interpretivist researcher would more likely provide a perspective from the ‘inside’ (Torrance in Somekh & Lewin).

Historical development and contemporary applications

The case study methodology emerged in educational research in the 1970s in response to the psycho-statistical framework or quasi-experimental evaluation designs, shifting the focus away from ‘the case’ or samples to the social construction of the case in situ (Elliott & Lukes, 2008; Torrance in Somekh & Lewin, 2005). It also has a social anthropological background that emphasized participant observation (Elliott & Lukes, 2008), such as the long-term and immersed study of particular social groups or educational settings, where the aim was to get an insider’s perspective and contribute to social theory (Torrance in Somekh & Lewin, 2005). This approach continues today in case studies within the enthnographic methodology, which often aims to provide detailed descriptions of particulars or to establish why things are the way they are (Elliott & Lukes, 2008; Kervin et al., 2006). Another common contemporary application of case study methodology is in evaluation research, such as evaluating the impact of an existing or innovative programme with the aim of improving decision-making, policy or practice (Elliott & Lukes, 2008; Kervin et al., 2006; Torrance in Somekh & Lewin, 2005).

Generalisation

One of the main criticisms of interpretivism and case studies is that the findings are not generalisable, which is a major goal of research (Hammersley, n.d.; Torrance in Somekh & Lewin, 2005). However, Robert Stake (1978, in Elliott & Lukes, 2008) argued that good portrayals stimulate the reader to gain a richer understanding of their own situation and they can then generalise from the case, rather than requiring the case being representative of the whole population. Therefore, ‘thick descriptions’ (Geerz, 1983 in Cousin, 2005) are essential to give the reader the semblance of being there, experiencing and interpreting the case alongside the researcher. Lawrence Stenhouse also addressed this concern by asserting that ‘retrospective generalisations’ are possible, that is, “generalisations can be cumulatively constructed from cases retrospectively rather than taking the form of general principles that enable people to predict in advance how events will unfold in the cases they cover” (Stenhouse, 1979, p. 7 in Elliott & Lukes, 2008). These responses to the argument of generalisation are compelling and hence I believe case studies can generate unique as well as universal understandings (Simons, 1996).

Purpose

Case studies have difference purposes; they can be purely descriptive, explanatory, evaluative or to contribute to social or educational theory (Babbie, 2008; Kervin et al., 2006; Torrance in Somekh & Lewin, 2005). Using the scenario of researching a learning environment, examples of how the focus would change depending on the purpose of the case study include the following:

• descriptive – a detailed description of the learning environment in your work context to enable others to understand that specific context
• explanatory – insight into how students are learning based on a detailed description of the learning environment compared to their academic performance
• evaluative – how well the existing learning environment is contributing to the academic success of the students
• contributing to theory – are students with personal learning environments more academically successful than those who just rely on the virtual learning environment?

Minimising subjectivity

Although the researcher’s subjectivity is accepted within the interpretivism paradigm, there are some general principles that help minimise this:

• reflexivity – be aware of, reflect on and critically analyse your own subjectivity and how that might impact on the research (Cousin, 2005; Somekh in Somekh & Lewin, 2005)
• triangulation – implement a wide range of research methods to collect evidence (Cousin, 2005; Niglas, 2000)
• thick description – ensure there is enough detail so the reader can share in your interpretation (Geerz, 1983 in Cousin, 2005)
• collaboration – share with stakeholders your provisional analysis for their comment (Cousin, 2005).

References

• Babbie, E. (2008). The basics of social research, (4th edn). Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
• Cousin, G. (2005, November). Case study research. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 29(3), 421–427.
• Elliott, J. and Lukes, D. (2008). Epistemology as ethics in research and policy: The use of case studies. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(S1), 87-119.
• Geerz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
• Hammersley, M. (n.d.). An outline of methodological approaches. Retrieved August 9, 2009, from http://www.tlrp.org/capacity/rm/wt/hammersley/hammersley4.html.
• Kervin, L., Vialle, W., Herrington, J. & Okely, T. (2006). Research for educators. South Melbourne: Thomson Social Science Press.
• Niglas, K. (2000, September 20–23). Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches. Paper presented at the annual European Conference on Educational Research, Edinburgh, UK. Retrieved September 7, 2009 from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001544.htm.
• Niglas, K. (2001, September 5–8). Paradigms and methodology in educational research. Paper presented at the annual European Conference on Educational Research, Lille, France. Retrieved August 9, 2009, from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001840.htm.
• Simons, H. (1996). The Paradox of Case Study, Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(2), 225–240.
• Somekh, B. (2005) in Somekh, B., Burman, E., Delamont, S., Meyer, J., Payne, M. and Thorpe, R., ‘Research communities in the social sciences’. In Somekh, B. and Lewin, C. (eds). Research methods in the social sciences. London: Sage Publications.
• Stake, R.E. (1978). The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry, Educational Researcher, 7(2), 5–8. In Elliott, J. and Lukes, D. (2008). Epistemology as ethics in research and policy: The use of case studies. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(S1), 87-119.
• Stenhouse, L. (1979). ‘The Problem of Standards in Illuminative Research’. Lecture given to the Scottish Educational Research Association at its Annual General Meeting, Stenhouse Archive, Norwich: University of East Anglia. In Elliott, J. and Lukes, D. (2008). Epistemology as ethics in research and policy: The use of case studies. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(S1), 87-119.
• Torrance, H. (2005) in Torrance, H. and Stark, S., ‘Case study’. In Somekh, B. and Lewin, C. (eds). Research methods in the social sciences. London: Sage Publications.