Case studies

Case studies have a particular function in social science research. Mabry noted they

‗provide deep understanding about specific instances‘ (Mabry, 2008: 216). Importantly for the doctoral research, they add to ‗knowledge and understanding‘ because they

‗contribute substantively to social science by offering intense focus on cases of interest,

24 Henn et al also made a similar point that potential weaknesses of documentary analysis are whether the text is accurate and

their contexts, and their complexity‘ (Mabry, 2008: 216). Stake highlighted the difference between an ‗intrinsic case study‘ and an ‗instrumental case study‘: the first being undertaken because ‗the case itself is of interest‘; the second because ‗a particular case is examined to provide insight into an issue or to redraw a generalization‘ (Stake, 2005: 445). He also noted there can be single cases or more than one study, the latter sometimes carried out for comparative purposes (Stake, 2005: 445-446, 457). Cases also need to have a ‗conceptual structure‘, and this ‗conceptualizing‘ helps the study confirm that: ‗There is [actually] something to be described and interpreted‘ (Stake, 2005: 458, 459).

Cases are first identified, and this will depend on factors such as ‗the researcher‘s interest‘ and their ‗industry in identifying a case informative enough to be worth studying‘ (Mabry, 2008: 217). As already mentioned in the reflexivity section above, the problem of subjective bias is present in any research. However, Mabry said that in case studies ‗each reader and each researcher will construct a unique personal understandings of a case‘ (Mabry, 2008: 221). As a safeguard, it is therefore imperative that: ‗Rather than searching for data to confirm or disconfirm an a priori theory or hypothesis‘ researchers should ‗notice opportunities and to follow data wherever they lead‘ (Mabry, 2008: 218). Openness was also seen by Mabry to be key to the research (Mabry, 2008: 224):

With deep understanding of a case as the prime goal of case study, an attitude of openness may be the most fortuitous item in a case study researcher‘s toolkit. … Curiosity to know more and to understand better encourages delving deeply into the meaning of a case. Link by link, case by case, construction of meaning by the researcher, by the reader, and by the research community is how case study contributes to social science and to society.

Once the data is collected (and aware of their own bias) the researcher can then embark on ‗thematic analysis‘, which includes identifying ‗emerging patterns and categories from iterative reviews of the dataset‘ (Mabry 2008: 218). It is out of this process that findings develop. Once the findings are clear, narrative reporting can begin: ‗the final step in a long analytic process‘ (Mabry 2008: 219). Mabry suggested that: ‗A case study researcher can promote understanding by collecting and organizing information, focusing attention on meaningful aspects, and providing an external analytical perspective that may be helpful even to insiders intimately familiar with the case‘

(Mabry 2008: 220).

The two case studies in this research were chosen because they illustrate not only the different impact of reactive and proactive approaches for the state sector, but also complementarity in the marriage of the law+litigation and policy fields to address the breach (or potential breach) raised in each instance. In the first study (Baigent‘s Case), existing law was further amplified by the court with the granting of damages, and for fiscal reasons many departments had to check their policies and practices to ensure the breach did not happen again. In the second study (the military justice system), many years of legal and policy analysis resulted in both an amendment Act and extensive re-structuring of the organisation, policies and practices of that system.

This correlates with Mabry‘s ‗deep understanding about specific instances‘. The studies were both intrinsic (in that the cases were of interest themselves) and instrumental (because they provided more insight into the issues just mentioned). A comparison between the two cases was chosen, primarily because they would illustrate both (a) the proactive and reactive distinction; and (b) differences in mainstreaming when an issue is expected or unexpected in the state sector. A conceptual structure was imposed on each case so that it was examined for its impact at several levels – Cabinet, judicial, legislative, departmental, the individual – and this was another way of making comparisons. Also, each case has a similar overall structure in that background information is given first, the specifics of the case are set out, and then the mainstreaming tables (11 and 13) are developed.

As a safeguard against researcher bias, the case studies were entered into with an open approach, so that no a priori theory or hypothesis was searched for. Rather, it was through gathering material about each of the cases that the reactive and proactive dimensions, and the mainstreaming differences, became evident. This is why the case studies are given at the end of the research: the thesis is not ‗based‘ on the cases; rather, the studies unfolded‘ out of the research. Mabry‘s ‗thematic analysis‘ started to develop during the reading stage, where ‗emerging patterns and categories‘ became evident and then findings were made. Stake had also made the connection between case study and public policy: that the former can be ‗a disciplined force in setting public policy‘ (Stake, 2008: 460). In these studies, the connection between case study and public policy is strong because both Baigent and the military justice system studies show how changes in public policy occurred as a result of each case.