Case Study

As argued in the preceding chapter (Chapter 2, section 2.2.2, p. 28), an understanding of theatre artists’ teaching approach requires more than an examination of their past artistic training and artistic practices. It includes an assumption that the contextual conditions––meaning socio-political environments of both the theatre and education fields, as well as the sites in which the study is located––may affect how theatre artists construct their teaching practices. Accordingly, exploring contextual conditions requires a research strategy that accommodates varied and complex layering of variables generated from multiple sources of evidence (Yin 2003). Case study offers such a research strategy that fits the purpose of this research.

According to Sharan B. Merriam (2002), a case study approach is applied when an inquiry concentrates on contemporary phenomena or entities. It is a strategy for the “how” and “why” research questions investigating a real-life context, “especially when the boundaries between the phenomenon and the context are not clearly evident” (Yin 2003, p. 13). A case study research seeks to understand and “develop as full an understanding of that case as possible” (Punch 2005, p. 144). To do that, it focuses on the process of how the research is conducted and demands a careful identification of the unit(s) of analysis, the rigour of data collation and analysis (Yin 2003).

Yin (2003) offers three categories of case study: exploratory, descriptive and explanatory (pp. 5–7). For this research, I argue that the boundaries between the three categories are not hermetically sealed. This research threads an exploratory approach with an acute and critical description leading to an eventual explanation of the phenomenon by way of developing a theory. As explained in the previous chapter, the conceptual framework of a nested nexus between the education and artistic fields situates the understanding of the theatre artists’ teaching approaches

within the specificities of the sites in which they are observed and simultaneously considers the impact the larger fields have on their practices. Such a design focuses on the cases not in isolation, but as multiple case studies, cross-analysed between and betwixt them with the eventual aim of theory proposition.

3.1. Operationalising the case study research

Case study has been criticised for its lack of rigour, validity, reliability and generalisability (Yin 2003, p. 10). Yin argues, unlike quantitative research, generalisability in the qualitative paradigm reflects not of frequency, but analytical generalisability. In other words, the goal is to negate, generalise or develop theories (ibid.). As such, for this research, I adopt a theoretical shift in perspective when dealing with the issue of generalisability and validity. This is explained in a later section of this chapter by invoking a poststructuralist perspective.

With respect to rigour in research, operationally this is achieved through various strategies. One of the strategies employed is to design the research as a multiple-case study. Multiple cases make it possible to generate patterns of similarities and contrasts. Additionally, triangulation of data between multiple and varied evidence enrich and make the research findings more robust (Yin 2003). I wish to highlight in brief at this juncture that I am working with crystallisation as a strategy (see section 6, p. 74) in place of triangulation and this will be explained in detail later. The preference for a multiple-case design, however, does not deny the distinctive rationale and necessity of a single-case study. Ultimately, the choice of either multiple- or single-case design is made on the basis of the research needs and contexts “to maximize what can be learned in the period of time available for the study” (Tellis 1997). While multiple-case design offers the research the possibility of achieving greater rigour, it has its own disadvantages. According to Yin (2003), one of the main difficulties would be the extensive resources and time required and as a consequent copious amount of data is generated from which to sieve and make sense of. One way to navigate the expansive terrain is to identify and delimit the boundaries of the research.

Indeed, one of the distinctive characteristics of case study is its bounded system. It enables boundaries, be it “temporal, geographical, organizational, institutional” as well as roles and relationships between subjects, to be drawn and marked as cases (Cohen, et al. 2007, pp. 253–254). Understanding the boundaries aid in identifying what the units of analysis are as well as the perimeters of the inquiry. In this research, the multiple-case design is identified as layered or embedded multiple-case study. Nested within the larger two cases, meaning the two geographical sites of England in Phase I and Singapore in Phase II, are seven theatre artists identified as seven cases. The units of analysis within the seven cases are their respective theatre education projects and the different conditions and contexts within which these projects are situated.

The second strategy is the adherence to the replication logic. Replication in a multiple-case study is an attempt to duplicate the same conditions of the first case, or be conscientiously vigilant to the alterations made to subsequent cases as a result of the discoveries made in the first (Yin 2003, p. 47). The replication procedure is most urgent in a comparative case study. However, the research direction undertaken here is not a comparative study. It positions the English sites and the respective theatre artists within it as reflective theoretical cases for the Singapore research.

During fieldwork, while attempting to follow the replication logic, I was struck by the specificities of each case. I found abiding rigidly to the replication process a challenge. Indeed, as Winston highlights, “a key tension at the heart of case study is the relationship between the uniqueness of its terms of reference and the generalizability of its results” (Winston 2006, p. 43). While there was an attempt to maintain the replication logic, I allowed the variations to surface and guide the research process. Accordingly, I chose to archive the similarities and differences, as well as the contrasting and emerging data, during the analysis to achieve a holistic interpretation of the findings. These are accounted for in sections II and III of this chapter.