I found myself recently in the strange position (everything is relative
- you had to be there) of defining case study for my wife doing a
masters research project, several students I supervise, thinking about
the methodology section of somethign i was writing, and also getting
constantly irritated by designers who use the term case study to refer
to some example or other they drag up to illustrate something - so I
decided to try and draft something that positioned 'stuff' in way I
thought more informed. I copy it below and then invite any (better
informed) scholars to put me in the right/wrong or otherwise comment.
Cheers. (this is only a two hour draft so i'm not going to be insulted)
Case Study research
Although its origins can be found in classic sociology, the term case
study is now employed to describe a broad variety of approaches to
research and evaluation in applied fields. As a result some current
definitions and examples have deflated its potential as a multi-method
holistic analysis of organizations, communities and other social units.
Observing the paradox between the general view of case study ‘as a weak
sibling among social science methods’ (p.xiii) and its extensive use in
traditional and applied fields, Yin (2003) suggests that loose
definitions may be responsible for a stereotype that does not
distinguish ‘the case study as a research tool from (a) the case study
as a teaching tool, (b) ethnographies and participant-observation, and
(c) qualitative methods’ (p.xiv). In relation to case study as teaching
tool many people will recognize this use as a prompt for student
discussion – my personal experience of this is with Harvard Business
Review case studies as part of an MBA subject on Organizational
Behaviour. Ethnographies and participant observation as a necessary if
not sufficient method defining these have also been confused with case
studies, a confusion exacerbated by studies entitled ‘ethnographic case
study’ (e.g. Hill, 1991). Ethnography, which is fundamental to the field
of anthropology (Geertz, 1973), has distinct traditions, aims and
principles to case study (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995)
Bryman (2008) notes that the ‘in-depth elucidation’ (p.54) of case study
may focus on different units of analysis: a community, school, family,
organization, person or event. Although sometimes subcategorized as a
particular research design within qualitative research, case studies are
paradigm cases of the emerging penchant for pragmatically inspired mixed
methods research (Creswell, 2003; Darke, Shanks, & Broadbent, 1998;
Punch, 2005; Tashakkori, 2006). The method pluralism and unit focus of
case study is criterial for distinguishing it from other designs. Thus,
Bryman points to the existing ambiguity and confusion that seems to have
emerged ‘Unless a distinction of this or some other kind is drawn, it
becomes impossible to distinguish case study as a special research
design, because almost any kind of research can be construed as a case
study’ (p.54). Bryman notes that studies based only on quantitative
research - potentially cross-sectional research design - and those in
which a community, organization etc., is a context or ‘backdrop’ to the
focus of interest in an exclusively qualitative study should not be
confused with case study.
While questions of validity, reliability and replicability are seen to
be appropriate criteria by case study researchers influenced by
quantitative research (e.g. Yin, 2003) those from the qualitative
tradition do not find them particularly relevant (e.g. Stake, 1995).
Both groups admit, however, that generalizing from a single case to
other cases is not possible (Bryman, 2008, p. 55; Yin, 2003, p. 32).
Often a primary concern of the investigation is inductive theory
generation and in some cases findings from similar cases can be used to
generalize (Bryman, 2008, p. 57). The comparative design, described by
Bryman, entails ‘studying two contrasting cases using more or less
identical methods’ (p. 58) is one way in which multiple cases may
contribute to generalizable findings (e.g. Flyvbjerg, 2006)
References
Bryman, A. (2008). Social research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design : qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage
Publications.
Darke, P., Shanks, G., & Broadbent, M. (1998). Successfully completing
case study research: combining rigour, relevance and pragmatism.
Information Systems Journal, 8(4), 273-289.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.
Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219-245.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures : selected essays. New
York: Basic Books.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography : principles in
practice (2nd ed.). London ; New York: Routledge.
Hill, R. P. (1991). Homeless Women, Special Possessions, and the Meaning
of "Home": An Ethnographic Case Study. Journal of Consumer Research,
18(3), 298-310.
Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research : quantitative and
qualitative approaches (2nd ed.). London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE
Publications.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Tashakkori, A. (2006). Foundations of Mixed Methods Research :
Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Techniques in the Social and
Behavioral Sciences. [S.L.]: SAGE PUBLICATIONS.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research : design and methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Dr Gavin Melles BA (Auckland University), MLing (University of Costa
Rica), EdD (Deakin University)
Research Fellow, Faculty of Design
http://www2.swinburne.edu.au/design/nidr/
Swinburne University of Technology
Associate Fellow, Communications Research Insitute
http://www.communication.org.au/
-----
Swinburne University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D
NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for
the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is
privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is
strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail
and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be
corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any
attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have
received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214
8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept
liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay,
interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
|