Case Study

The use of case study is one of the several approaches through which the author is conducting the research on the topic. This research method is used in many situations to contribute knowledge of individual, group, organisational, social, political and related phenomena (Yin, 2009). A case study is a methodology that is usually used to explore a single phenomenon or case in a natural setting using varied methods for obtaining an in-depth knowledge (Collis and Hussey, 2014). The advantages of using case study in research over other research methods is applicable when (a) “how” or “why” questions are being posed, (b) the investigator has little control over events, and (c) the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context (Yin 2009). Although, Collis and Hussey (2014) have categorized case study as a

121

methodology used by interpretivists, however, it can be used by positivist as summarised by Yin (1994:13) who defines case study as an empirical inquiry that:

a. Investigates a contemporary phenomenon comprehensively within its real-life context especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.

b. Copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be multiple variables of interest than data points.

c. Relies on multiple sources of evidence with the need of data to converge in a triangulating fashion.

d. Benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis.

Yin (2014) distinguishes between four case study strategies based upon the two discrete dimensions namely; single case versus multiple cases; and holistic cases versus embedded case.

Table 5.7 below shows the basic types of case studies based on a 2 × 2 matrix.

Single-Case design Multiple-Case design

Holistic (Single unit of analysis) TYPE 1 TYPE 3

Embedded (Multiple units of analysis) TYPE 2 TYPE 4 Table 5.7: Basic Types of Designs for Case Studies (Adapted from Yin, 1994)

Saunders et al. (2016) argue that a single case is often used to represent a critical case or a unique case while rationale for using a multiple case focuses on the basis that similar results can be replicated across cases. Yin’s (1994) second discrete dimension is the holistic versus embedded case which refers to unit of analysis. This occurs when within a single case, attention is also given to a subunit or subunits. However, Ryan, Scapens and Theobald (2002) identify four other types of case study as:

a. Descriptive case study, where the object is restricted to describing current practices.

b. Illustrative case study, where the research tries to illustrate new and possibly innovative practices adopted by particular companies.

c. Experimental case studies, where the researcher examines the difficulties in implementing new procedures in an organization and then evaluating the advantages.

d. Explanatory case study, where existing theory is used to understand and explain what is happening.

122

There are different stages in a case study as enumerated by Collis and Hussey (2014); firstly is the selection of the case, secondly is conducting preliminary investigation; thirdly is the analysis of data and finally is writing of the report. According to Yin (1994), data collection for case studies can rely on various sources of evidence. Six sources of data further explained are documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant-observation, and physical artifacts. However there are other sources such as films, photographs and videotapes etc. Table 5.8 gives an overview of the six major sources while comparing their strengths and weaknesses.

Source of Evidence Strengths Weaknesses

Documentation  Stable and can be reviewed repeatedly.

 Unobtrusive

 Contains exact names, details and reference of an event

 Has a broad coverage

 Access may be deliberately blocked

 Reporting bias

 Retrievability can be low

 Biased selectivity if collection is incomplete.

Archival Records  Precise and quantitative

 Stable and can be reviewed repeatedly.

 Unobtrusive

 Contains exact names, details and reference of an event

 Has a broad coverage

 Accessibility due to privacy reasons

 Access may be deliberately blocked

 Reporting bias

 Retrievability can be low

 Biased selectivity if collection is incomplete.

Interviews  Targeted: focuses directly on a case study topic

 Insightful: provides perceived causal inferences

 Bias due to poorly constructed questions

 Response bias

 Inaccuracies due to recall

 Reflexivity: Interviewee gives what interviewer wants to hear.

Direct Observation  Covers events in real time

 Covers context of events

 Time-consuming

 Selectivity unless broad coverage

 Cost hours needed by human observers

Participant-Observation  Insightful into interpersonal behavior and motives

 Covers events in real time

 Covers context of events

 Bias due to investigator’s manipulation of events.

 Time-consuming

 Selectivity unless broad coverage

 Cost hours needed by human observers

Physical Artifacts  Insightful into cultural features

 Insightful into technical operations

 Selectivity

 Availability

Table 5.8: Six Sources of Evidence: Strengths and Weaknesses (Adapted from Yin, 1994)

123 5.12.3.3 Interviews

Interviews are methods of collecting primary data in which a sample of participants are asked questions to find out what they think, feel or do (Collis and Hussey, 2014). Arksey and Knight (1990) argue that interviews conducted based on an interpretivist paradigm are concerned with exploring ‘data on understanding, opinions, what people remember doing, attitudes, feelings and the like, that people have in common’. However, Saunders et al. (2016) describe research interviews as a purposeful conversation or dialogue between two or more people whereby it requires the interviewer to establish rapport and ask specific and clear questions to which the respondent or interviewee is able and willing to answer and listen attentively.

Different authors and researchers namely (Saunders et al., 2016; Collis and Hussey, 2014;

Easterby-Smith, 2008) have categorised interviews differently. However, the categorisation based on Saunders et al. (2016) states that interviews can be grouped as: structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, and unstructured or in-depth interviews. Collis and Hussey (2014) argue that in an unstructured interview, none of the questions are prepared in advance but evolve during the progression of the interview. The researcher uses open-ended questions which cannot be answered with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.

Unstructured interviews are informal and are usually used to explore in depth a broad area about which the researcher has an interest. The interviewee is given the opportunity to discuss freely about behaviors, events and beliefs in relation to the research subject area. This kind of interaction is sometimes called non-directive and has been labelled as an informant interview because the interviewee’s perception guides the conduct and progress of the interview (Saunders et al. 2016).

According to Saunders et al. (2016), structured interviews use questionnaires that are based on standardised or identical set of questions and are usually referred to as interviewer-completed questionnaires. Structured interviews are also known as quantitative research interviews because they are used to collect quantifiable data. Easterby-Smith et al. (2008:145) suggests that semi-structures and unstructured interviews are appropriate methods when:

a. It is necessary to understand the constructs that the respondent uses as a basis for their

124 opinions and beliefs about a particular matter.

b. The purpose of the interview is to develop an understanding of the respondents ‘world’ so that the researcher might influence it.

c. The step by step logic is not clear

d. The subject matter is highly confidential or commercially sensitive

e. There are issues about which the interviewee may be reluctant to answer other than confidentially in a face to face situation

Saunders et al. (2016) argue that there are many instances for collecting data using semi-structured or in-depth research interviews. These situations can be grouped into four categories as follows: the purpose of the research; the importance of establishing personal contact, the nature of the data collection questions; the length of time required and completeness of the process. Interviews can be conducted with individual or groups using a variety of methods. Each method has different strengths and weaknesses as cost, size, location and accessibility of the sample are important factors (Collis and Hussey, 2014). Walsh (2001) highlighted some of the strength and weakness of each of the methods as shown in 5.9:

SURVEY

- Saves on interviewing time

- Can reach a large number of people - Respondents can think about their

answers

- Response rates are often low

- You don’t know who actually fills in the

- The interviewer can clarify questions - The interviewer can probe replies to get

full answers

Table 5.9: Strength and Weakness of different Methods of Interviews (Adopted from Walsh, 2001)

125