Bringing together the data from all the units of analysis to provide the ‘Case’ analysis

The analysis of case study evidence “is one of the least developed and most challenging aspects of carrying out a case study” (Yin 2009, p.127). There were three strands to the data collection and analysis in the study. Strand one was the collection and analysis of the data on the college context. Strand two

was the collection and analysis of data on each of the units of analysis (the participants). Strand three was the biggest challenge for me in using the single- case (embedded) research design - it was how to bring together all the data from each of the units of analysis to explore the overall case themes.

For strands one and two I carried out a preliminary review of the data to provide some basic structure to the text and ideas gathered from the documents,

interviews, focus group and questionnaires. This initial ‘playing’ provided me with basic codes with which to start grouping and analysing the data only – the answering of the ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions from the case study data required the next stage of the analytical strategy.

I used the constant comparative model (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Miles and Huberman 1994) to support the iterative model outlined above to support my explanation building (figure 4.15). This allowed me to review themes and ideas as they arose in the individual units of analysis and then in stage three to reflect as to the frequency and commonality of themes across the whole study.

Figure 4.15 Constant Comparative Method (Glaser and Strauss 1967; Miles and Huberman 1994)

There were, of course, potential problems with explanation building. The main problem was that much emphasis is placed on the analytical insight of the

Repeated review of the data Repeated review of the data 112

explanation builder (Yin 2009). There was the danger in drifting away from the original topic of interest and this was countered by my constant referral back to the original purpose of the inquiry and other possible alternative explanations (Yin 2009).

In stage three my approach was to revisit the analysis for a third key time bringing together the themes from the context and the participants and looking at competing ideas and key synergies from all the data. To help overcome the difficulty in bringing together the wide range of data, I used one of Yin’s five analytical techniques to provide structure to my analytic repertoire. I used the explanation building model (Yin 2009) to structure my approach. A useful starting point for me in analysing the larger data set was to play with the data. (Yin 2009). Miles and Huberman (1994) suggest ways of playing with data as:

• Putting information into different arrays

• Making a matrix of categories and placing the evidence within such categories

• Creating data displays – flow charts and other graphics – for examining the data

• Tabulating the frequency of different events

• Examining the complexity of such tabulations and their relationships by calculating second-order numbers such as means and variances

• Putting information in chronological order or using some other temporal scheme

As expected the data gathered was rich and complex but very enlightening. Key themes were identified from the data, the method provided a structured process that sense checked the findings as they arose. In order to minimise the potential pitfalls in analysing the case data overall I used Yin’s criteria for high quality analysis as a stress test for my analysis process (figure 4.16).

 My analysis should show that I had attended to all the evidence  My analysis should address, if possible, all major rival

interpretations

 My analysis should address the most significant aspect of my case  I should use my own prior, expert knowledge in my case study

Figure 4.16 Pressing for a High Quality Analysis adapted from (Yin 2009, p.160-161)

Using this iterative process and the three key stages I was able to carry out a thorough analysis of each individual unit of data and then an overall meta- analysis of the case to identify the key themes emerging from the research.

4.12 Summary

Designing the methodology was the most challenging part of the research study. The design and methods seemed at first simple and straightforward yet the notes of caution in the research texts turned out to be justified and a useful guide to developing a robust framework. In shaping my research methodology I reflected on the fundamental points that shaped my own research stance and consequently my research design. I naturally leant towards the position that the reality of the participants was multi-dimensional and shaped by the policy

context in which they were operating. Thinking in this way meant I leant towards an interpretive stance in my data collection methods seeking deeper knowledge from the participants. A key factor for me also in designing the research was my role as participant and manager then later as external researcher. The challenge in the research design was how to mitigate my influence as an insider at the start of the programme then as an outsider as the programme and the research developed.

I needed to acknowledge that, in this research, I was not seeking to prove or disprove a hypothesis or provide extensive generalisations. Instead I was seeking to provide an insight into how one particular leadership programme shaped the views, attitudes and actions of middle managers in an FE college. In this research the knowledge was co-constructed between the researcher and

the participants. The influence of the policy context was also key to the sector and the college and was therefore essential to the research.

In shaping the research design I used the case study method as it recognised that the research looks at the how and why, focusing on contemporary events but without any intervention by the researcher – it looked at the events as they unfolded rather than controlling the behavioural event. The emphasis of a case, in fact, tended to be upon an intensive examination of the setting (Bryman 2008). Having established a design and process for the case study the next challenge was to consider the how to overcome the traditional questions of reliability, replicability and validity raised with case studies. The key for me was to recognise that qualitative research can be judged in many ways and it can be used in many different contexts. I was particularly keen to consider how I could design the case study to provide high quality research in my method, outcomes, reliability and replicability? From a practice based perspective the quality of the research also depended on the generalisability, trustworthiness, level of

triangulation and the ethics of the approach.

The research methods used in the study followed recommendations from Yin (2009), Bryman (2008) and Cohen et al. (2007) for case studies. Multiple sources provided evidence, including written documents on policy, interviews, questionnaires and focus groups. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to gather the data however given the rich nature of the case study, the aims of the research and my stance as a researcher, the majority of the data collected was qualitative. The research questions and research objectives provided me with a structure with which to review the evidence gathered in the study and to give priority to data that answered my research question. The theoretical proposition approach focused my attention on certain data and helped me organise the entire case study.