Case study

Case study is not easily defined as one coherent form of research. Rather it can be classified as an ‘approach’ which emphasises in-depth study in situ but also one about which there are conflicting opinions about the degree to which the case study researcher can produce a definitive account of the ‘case’ from ‘the outside’ (Stark and Torrance, 2005). What is commonly agreed about case study research is that it seeks to engage with and report upon the complexity of social activity and interaction within a strongly defined setting or ‘bounded system’ (Stake, 2008, p 119). The major strength of case study is that it takes an example of ‘an instance in action’ (Walker, 1974) and uses multiple methods and sources to interrogate and interpret it. Put simply, case study provides context- dependent knowledge which can help to inform professional understanding of a small, bounded setting e.g. a classroom. As Flyvberg (2011) argues:

Context-dependent knowledge and experience are at the very heart of expert activity. Such knowledge and expertise also lie at the centre of the case study as a research and teaching method; or to put it more generally yet—as a method of learning. (Flyvberg 2011, p 303) Case studies are particularly valuable in theory-building because they provide opportunities for developing and testing already established historical explanations. In effect, using a case study to test a theory or a hypothesis helps to develop understanding of key processes in context (George and Bennett, 2005).

112 A key element in the success of using case study lies in choice of focus. This may seem rather obvious but case studies are almost universally chosen because the researcher sees the case in point as being a particular opportunity to learn. Stake argues:

The researcher examines various interests in the phenomenon, selecting a case of some typicality, but leaning towards those cases that seem to offer opportunity to learn. My choice would be to take that case from which we feel we can learn the most. That may mean taking the one that we can spend the most time with. (Stake, 1994, p101)

Decisions need to be made about the time that can be spent onsite and which methods can be most effectively employed. A key implication for case study research design is the choice between depth and coverage. At the point where I was planning the case study elements of the research, I chose to focus on Spatially Speaking as the first case and School A as the second because of the potential that they held for gleaning thick description of data (Geertz, 1973). Working with the Spatially Speaking group gave me access to data that I otherwise would not have been able to analyse quite so readily. In a similar way, the geography department at School A was run by an ‘expert member’ of the Spatially Speaking project. I chose School A as a case, which intuitively stood out for me as possibly being both critical and paradigmatic, an example of ‘expert use’ of GIS in classrooms that I could use to reflect on and inform my practitioner research. In short, my intention was to glean evidence from the cases which could be used to model processes of teaching and learning about place through GIS

Caution about case study is often raised with regards to not being able to generalise from findings based on a single case. However, testing of hypotheses relates directly to the challenge often made to case study approaches that ‘generalizability’ is difficult to achieve in this kind of research Bassey (1999). It can be argued that on the contrary, atypical or extreme cases can reveal more information because of the in-depth detail and rich description involved in such a case. In his discussion on the validity of using case study approaches in research, Giddens (1984) argues:

Research which is geared primarily to hermeneutic problems may be of generalized importance in so far as it serves to elucidate the nature of agents’ knowledgeability, and thereby their reasons for action, across a range of action-contexts. (Giddens 1984, p 328)

113 Questions raised about generalizability and case study are closely connected with the key role that choice plays in case study research. Strategic choice of case can increase generalizability. It is often more important to generate deep description within one case than to generalise across several .Random sampling is unlikely to yield such detail or insight It can also contribute to the preliminary stages of an investigation in order to either generate or reaffirm hypotheses. In this way, concrete case study knowledge becomes a valuable part of theory-building.

Ultimately, my choice of case studies reflected my intention to generate ‘data’ which illustrates the influence of GIS on knowledge construction in school geography education. I chose specific cases which I perceived to have the potential to yield rich data (Yin, 1994). With regards to reliability, I make the case for the research results being repeatable in other contexts. In consensus with Schofield (1990) I argue that the adoption of ‘thick description’ as method in research strengthens a case study because data becomes more generalizable when : ‘the fit between the situation studied and others to which one might be interested in applying the concepts and conclusions of that studied'. (Schofield, 1990, p 226). The central argument that I put across in this instance is that each of the case studies in this research, the Spatailly Speaking project and the Mapping the Land case exhibit sufficient similarity to GIS practice in school geography elsewhere in the United Kingdom to be considered ‘generalizable.’

I have triangulated data and analyses in the research which is recognized good practice in research which seeks to be reliable (Miles and Huberman, 1998). By comparing data collected in the Spatially Speaking and Mapping the Land stages with my action research findings in Chapter 6 I aimed to enhance the reliability of my final research findings (Sapsford and Jupp, 1998).