How Case Study Methodology was Applied?

As per Lincoln and Guba (1985), there are three major phases in the case study

research process called ‘orientation and overview’, ‘focused exploration’ and ‘member checking’. In the ‘orientation and overview’ phase, the main focus was drawn towards

deciding on the boundaries of the case, single or multiple case designs, selecting the sites, unit of analysis, purposive sampling, setting up a case database and determining data collection techniques. Since the focus in this research is multiple programmes and a group of people, it is very important in this phase to decide on the boundaries of the case considering the time and resource constraints. Therefore, it was decided to obtain feedback only from ongoing programmes and existing students whilst limiting the sample of programme leaders, tutors, support staff, employers, mentors and representatives of the professional bodies to be manageable but representative. Purposive sampling has been used to identify the five programme leaders of the programmes as ‘key informants’ who will have the most amount of knowledge about the programmes. Lincoln and Guba (1985, 258) encourage the use of informants, as ‘by virtue of their position within the context,

such informants can provide the inquiry team with an “inside” view of the norms, attitudes, constructions, processes, and culture that characterize the local setting’. At the initial

stages, information was collected from the key informants only. After this stage, and based upon the success rate of data collection, it was planned to focus on other techniques and

stakeholders for data collection like students, tutors, support services’ staff, employers, and

representatives of professional bodies.

In the next phase of ‘focused exploration’, data collection and iterative analysis was

carried out. Data collection techniques were questionnaires, interviews, and documentation analysis. A technique is the approach taken to data collection, the way in which empirical evidence will be harvested from the source (Pickard, 2007, xvii). Considering the varied distribution of stakeholders, various data collection techniques needed to be considered so that the information to be harvested was optimised. This optimization is achieved through triangulation which is explained in chapters 6 and 7. Case study research together with survey research to use mixed method was selected in this study as its greatest strength allows for confirmation or refutation of emerging themes. As Dey (1993) points out, ‘there is a difference between an open mind and an empty head. To analyse data, we need to use accumulated knowledge, not dispense with it’. This suggests the importance of being open

minded to accept all eventualities and not allow prior theory to drive the analysis. The emphasis was always constrained to theory emerging from the data but not other way round. The expectations were to identify initial categories which emerged directly from the

raw data whilst purposely ignoring any assumptions or interpretations at this point. In this way, it was ensured that the data would jump and is not pushed, that categories are not forced, they emerge (Melia, 1997). However, according to section 4.5, it was not possible

to eliminate researcher’s own experience but to acknowledge it has an influence. This

effect was minimized as much as possible by allowing the trends, patterns, themes and sub themes emerged from data to be prominent and use of triangulation to inform the research outcomes, conclusions and recommendations whilst giving a low priority for accumulated knowledge by the researcher.

In the third phase of ‘member checking’, seeking member feedback and exiting the

research was carried out as major activities. Member checking was practiced during the data collection process to ensure maximum information yield. This was done initially by asking the participants of the interviews for their feedback for the transcribed interviews and allowing them to alter only the way of saying it but not the meaning of what has been said or done which eventually improved the quality of the final outcome. At the end, the results were shown to some of the programme leaders and tutors to get their feedback and some of the comments they made eventually helped to improve the way of presenting the same. This was emphasised and justified in the literature by Maykut and Morehouse (1994) ‘We have found that members’ feedback is very valuable and sometimes helps us see or emphasize something we missed’ and also Stake (1995) ‘I think I can say that all my reports have been improved by member checking’. Finalization of the checking was

decided when all data collection ceased to reveal any significant new information.

The other way of member checking being practiced in the study was publishing of research outcomes throughout the study in various aspects as they were coming out.

Publications as listed in Appendix XIV include a book, a book chapter, two peer-reviewed journal papers (one in progress on corrections), and 11 conferences.

This dissemination provided considerable feedback to the researcher from readers, researchers, and conference attendees and this feedback was incorporated into the study. One such example is a recent conference in Cardiff where a concern was raised from the

audience on PB’s role in maintaining quality standards of WBL programmes through

accreditation. Again in another conference in Leeds the Westminster Toolkit was introduced by a participant which can be used to validate preparedness of the academic institution being one of the stakeholders in the process. There was another conference the researcher attended in Loughborough University where a high emphasis was given to Grounded theory research which influenced the researcher to consider how and whether there is any association of Grounded theory research in the current study.