Dear Luke,
Thank you for your message.
You seem to be interpreting what I wrote rather differently than intended.
The picture I was describing is more about the way that, for example, typography (as a unit of analysis) shapes and is shaped by the context in which it is used in terms of causes and behaviours of elements and outcomes. This regards the subject that is the 'unit of analysis' as being a part of a web of causal factors, behaviours and outcomes. From this perspective, the 'unit of analysis' and the specific 'web of causal factors, behaviours and outcomes' that it is part (i.e. the case 'instance'), are epistemologically different entities.
The behaviours of any subject conceived of as a 'unit of analysis' are shaped by a variety of causal factors that in turn act within and are shaped by a particular contextual milieu with its own factors. In addition, the outcomes resulting from the behaviours of the subjects that are conceived of as 'units of analysis' occur in a contextual milieu that would be expected to overlap with but not necessarily identical to the milieu and its factors that cause the behaviours of the 'units of analysis'.
To be able to properly analyse the causes and behaviours relative to the subjects that are seen as the 'unit of analysis' requires a scope of the study, i.e. the boundary of the instance, that includes the subjects of study and the causal and outcome milieus. Otherwise, the case study is unable to address all the relevant issues.
From the above, it is obvious that defining the boundaries of the case study instance as being the same scope as the units of analysis may not address all the issues that are relevant. The contextual aspects of the milieu of casual factors provide one criteria for defining the scope of the case study instance. A second criteria is the given by the scope of the milieu of the outcomes resulting from the behaviours of the subjects that are the 'units of analysis'.
For example if a case study was interested in secondary education effectiveness and the chosen unit of analysis was 'secondary school students' it would likely be inappropriate to restrict the case study to the immediate classroom. On one side, the behaviours of secondary school students are influenced by a wide range of factors (parents, culture, peers, media etc.) in addition to the classroom teaching. Additionally, the outcomes of effective secondary teaching include many potentially relevant aspects of life including the student's future work opportunities and habits, future participation as a citizen, parenting, and the quality of life of teachers themselves.
To include these issues, the boundaries of the case study 'instance' need to be scoped to include them rather than being defined by the 'unit of analysis' alone.
I agree with you the edges between sub-systems often are more varied in their behaviours and provide more information. I suggest in case study terms, however, that when such an interesting 'edge condition' is investigated, then it is helpful to see it as being within the boundaries of a bigger case 'instance' and define the boundaries of the case study instance broader in such a way as to include all the relevant causal, behavioural and outcome issues.
For this, 'ambiguity' usually doesn't help. The difficulty is not lateral thinking, that is easy. The real problem is straight thinking.
Best wishes ,
Terry
---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
Honorary Fellow
IEED, Management School
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Luke Feast
Sent: Saturday, 14 December 2013 9:34 PM
To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subject: Re: Cases
Hi Terry,
>"The idea of 'unit of analysis' does not directly define the
>instance/case
boundary."
If I understand your argument correctly, then I think it is problematic to talk of easily demarcating insiders and outsiders, of clearly defining boundaries. There are situations where choosing the boundary defines an instance. A simple example is the duck/rabbit or Rubin vase image.
>"Its useful if the relevant issues are inside and the non-relevant ones
are outside the case boundary."
Well that maybe the case but I argue that interesting and creative things happen at the boundary when we 'push the limits'.
Ambiguously,
L
--
Luke Feast | Lecturer | Early Career Development Fellow | PhD Candidate | Faculty of Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
| [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6165 |
http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|