A case study approach

Building on the two questionnaires distributed to a large number of trainees, this study essentially employed an instrumental, collective case study design. As Merriam (1998: 26) suggested, ‘there is little consensus on what constitutes a case study or how this type of research is done’. Stake views case study research as a ‘choice of what is to be studied’ (Stake 2005: 443), whereas Yin refers to it as a ‘comprehensive research strategy’ (Yin 2003: 13). Creswell (2007: 73) adopts an all encompassing view, choosing to view case study research as ‘a methodology, a type of design in qualitative research, or an object of study, as well as a product of the

133

inquiry.’ A number of writers (e.g. Yin, 2003, Creswell 2007), in defining case study research, are quite prescriptive in defining the methods of data collection. Yin (2003) maintains that case study research involves the use of multiple sources of evidence, the creation of a case study database, and the maintenance of a chain of evidence. Creswell (2007) similarly emphasises the need for multiple sources of information, specifying that the researcher should explore ‘a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g. observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and reports’ (Creswell 2007: 73). The need to be specific about the methods that define case study research is perhaps reflective of Yin’s (2003) and Creswell’s (2007) view that it is a methodology. My application of the term case study within this research is more closely aligned with Stake’s (2005) view; it refers to the choice over what was to be studied rather than implying adherence to specific methods defined by others as representing case study research.

From the review of literature it was evident that there are multiple perspectives on the topic of pupil behaviour that represent a form of reality for those involved. Part of the complexity of investigating the development of teachers’ thinking in relation to behaviour is that their perspective, whilst individual and personal, is influenced by the perspective of others such as policy makers, the media and those to whom they choose to accord status or respect, such as PGCE tutors or more experienced practitioners. Add to this the impact of experienced events in relation to pupil behaviour and the diversity of schools and it creates a messy picture. As Stake (1995: 17) suggests, ‘Issues are not simple and clean, but intricately wired to political, social, historical, and especially personal contexts.’ To return to a motivating factor for this investigation, the simple annual NQT survey question of ‘How good was your training (not your induction) in helping you to establish and maintain a good standard of behaviour in the classroom?’ (e.g. TDA 2012b: 62) cannot realistically hope to generate sufficient understanding of the complex factors influencing an individual’s sense of preparedness to either accurately appraise, or attempt to improve, the quality of initial teacher education in relation to pupil behaviour. The two questionnaires had probably already pushed the boundaries of what could

134

be explored through this research method, capitalising on the advantages that the potential respondents were educated to graduate level, had a vested interest in the issues covered and, to some extent, were knowledgeable about the field.

Working from the premise that individuals are involved in a sense-making process in the midst of a broad range of influencing factors, I needed to get closer to individuals than questionnaires allowed. A case study approach offered this opportunity. Essentially, my use of a case study approach involved attempting to learn about individuals in order to ‘understand something else’ (Stake 1995: 3). The ‘something else’ was the development of the thinking and practice of early career teachers in relation to behaviour. A criticism of case study research is that ‘The results may not be generalizable except where other readers/researchers see their application’ (Cohen et al 2007: 256). It is fully acknowledged that this research only provides an insight into the development of thinking and practice in seven individuals. The value is in illustrating the complexity of this development and the variation between individuals rather than the potential to claim that there are generalisable findings.

The intention was to explore with the case study participants their perspectives on issues related to behaviour and to do this over a period of time in order to capture any changing views that might relate to growing experience.

5

My approach to data gathering involved interviewing the case study participants, although, where appropriate, the questionnaires they completed as part of the wider survey were included within the case study. My premise was simple; I could learn about the participants’ thinking on behaviour by hearing what they had to say. As Kvale and Brinkman (2009: xvii) suggest, ‘if you want to know how people understand their world and their lives, why not talk with them?’ Though Stake (1995: 64) acknowledges the interview as ‘the main road to multiple realities’ I am conscious that reliance on this method puts me at odds with those (e.g. Yin 2003, Creswell 2007) who would see the use of multiple methods as a

135

defining feature of case study research. My concern was with the interpretations the individual is making of their experiences – and here I am using experiences to refer to classroom events, interactions with pupils, interactions with peers, more experienced teachers, school based mentors and tutors, and training received, as well as influences such as local and national policy, Ofsted and the media. Providing opportunities for them to talk to me about behaviour issues seemed the best way to gain some insight into these interpretations. This point links back to one made earlier in section 5.1 of this chapter regarding this study sharing a number of the key characteristics of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Certainly it shares the intent to try ‘to make sense of the sense-making activities of the participant’ (Langdridge 2007: 108).

The term interview covers a multitude of data gathering approaches. A distinction is frequently made between structured, semi structured and unstructured interviews. In the context of understanding the approach to interviewing used within this study, these forms of interview are better viewed as lying on a continuum rather than as distinct categories. At one end, the structured interview is essentially a questionnaire delivered verbally. The interviewer would typically read out a set of pre-determined questions (Thomas 2009) exactly and in the same order as they are printed on the interview schedule (Bryman 2008). Questions are typically very specific and offer the interviewee a choice from a fixed range of answers. This standardisation in both asking the questions and recording the answers means that ‘variation in people’s answers will be due to ‘true’ or ‘real’ variation and not to the interview context’ (Bryman 2008: 194). The structured interview does not allow – nor does it seek – the opportunity for any significant follow up based on the interviewee’s response. It would not be appropriate, for example, to pursue an interesting comment from the interviewee by asking spontaneous supplementary questions. At the other end of the continuum is the unstructured interview. Thomas (2009) describes the unstructured interview as being like conversation and suggests that there is no predetermined format beyond the researcher’s general interest in the topic. Consequently there is no predetermined set of questions as the idea is that the interviewee should be allowed to set the agenda. The priority is to allow the interviewee to determine the important

136

issues to cover rather than being constrained to talk about topics the researcher has defined through the questions they have devised. The semi structured interview represents a middle ground and involves the researcher in setting up a general structure by deciding in advance the broad topics to be covered and the main questions to be asked. The researcher can use additional questions to encourage clarification or expansion on the answer given (Drever 1995). In Bryman’s (2007) text Social Research Methods, coverage of structured interviewing is located in the section on quantitative research, whereas semi structured and unstructured interviews are covered within the section on qualitative research. This is indicative of their association with different research paradigms. For this study, with its intention in the interview phase of developing a better understanding of individuals, the structured interview would not have been appropriate in terms of the capacity to ‘capture cases in their uniqueness’ (Hammersley and Gomm 2000: 3). In adopting a case study approach it is important to recognise that this ‘involves buying greater detail and likely accuracy of information about particular cases at the cost of being less able to make effective generalizations to a larger population of cases’ (Hammersley 1992: 186). In pursuit of this greater detail I chose to use semi structured interviews. This was because I was approaching the research with some key topics about which I wanted to seek the interviewees’ individual views based on the literature and some of the emerging issues from the questionnaires. However, to return to the earlier point, I see structured, semi structured and unstructured questionnaires as lying on a continuum and the approach to questioning I adopted reflected a less structured form of semi structured interview. Though defining a set of questions in advance established a broad trajectory in terms of an intended sequence of topics to be covered, at the level of the interviewee’s experience I sought to conduct the interview, as much as possible, as a conversation between two professionals with an interest in pupil behaviour. This meant being flexible in the approach to questioning, responding to the direction the interviewee took the interview, pursuing interesting and often unanticipated lines of enquiry based on responses, adjusting the order of questions spontaneously where this made for a more natural flow to the conversation and shifting the emphasis within the interview where it was clear that a particular issue was of greater significance to the interviewee.

137

In the spirit of the interview as professional dialogue and to ‘capitalize upon interviewers’ and respondents’ constitutive contributions to the production of interview data’ (Holstein and Gubrium 1997: 114) there were also times when I fed in information, drawing on my own professional knowledge. This was typically where I felt this would stimulate more discussion or cause the interviewee to engage with an alternative perspective on an issue and, through this, reveal something else about their thinking in relation to pupil behaviour. This reflects Holstein and Gubrium’s (1997: 123) view of ‘the consciously active interviewer intentionally (provoking) responses by indicating – even suggesting – narrative positions, resources, orientations and precedents’.

In essence, the interviews conducted reflected Holstein and Gubrium’s view that an interview is ‘a social encounter in which knowledge is constructed’ and ‘is not merely a neutral conduit or source of distortion, but …a site of, and occasion for, producing reportable knowledge itself’ (Holstein and Gubrium 1997: 114).

Such an approach reduces the potential to make direct comparisons between the responses of the individual interviewees to individual questions but this was not the aim of the case study phase and, again reflects Hammersley’s (1992) trade-off between detail and the ability to generalise.