Case Study

There exists much debate and difference of opinion as to whether case study should be considered a method or an overarching approach to research. There is also a frequent overlapping of the concepts of case study and of qualitative research resulting in a common perception that the two are synonymous, despite case study’s common application within quantitative, positivist contexts, including clinical and corporate use. Some aspects of case study appear regularly within the literature and reflect agreement that case study can enable the researcher to achieve the following:

• Investigation of contemporary phenomena ethnographically in naturalistic or real-life contexts through the use of multiple methods

• Commencing an enquiry without an a priori theory and constructing knowledge through analysis of data and using a hermeneutic or grounded approach (Glaser and Strauss, 1967)

• Focusing attention on process rather than outcome

• Designing the study to enable flexibility and adaptation of both approach and methods as the study progresses

• The potential development of human relationships and close working partnerships with research participants as a result of the in-depth nature of case study research

However, there remain significant conceptual differences. Gillham argues that case study should be conceived of as a method in its own right, interchangeable with

participant observation and to be used in conjunction with other distinct methods such as participant observation and interviews (Gillham, 2000: 13). Others believe it to be an approach to research within which qualitative methods can be used, including Yin, who suggests that case study is:

An empirical enquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real- life context when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident and in which multiple sources of evidence are used. (Yin, 1989: 23)

Merriam subsequently offers this account:

A qualitative case study is an intensive, holistic description and analysis of a bounded phenomenon such as a program, an institution, a person, a process, or a social unit. (Merriam, 1998: xiii)

Both definitions, though distinctly different, hold to the idea of case study as an approach. Yin’s perspective pertains to a positivist view within which the researcher experiments in order to derive meaning, while Merriam’s use of the term ‘holistic’ suggests a more naturalistic, in-depth, personal approach to exploring the ‘bounded phenomenon’, be it institution or individual.

Golby (1994) argues that case study allows for implementation of both qualitative and quantitative methods in order to achieve the best possible results, finding Yin’s definition useful in that it allows for flexibility not just in terms of the range of research methods which may be employed, in the style of bricolage, but also in terms of the research questions in any given study. It was these flexible, bricolage- compatible constructivist aspects of case study research that interested me:

Case study is appropriate where it is not yet clear what are the right questions to ask. There needs to be a sense of perplexity, problems to be addressed, and a sense of the researcher’s interests in those problems. (Golby, 1994: 11)

As is evident, Golby and Merriam elucidate case study as an opportunity to prioritize process within research, and this in turn connects with Stake’s view on case study research as an ‘art’ (Stake, 2000) which is interpretive and constructivist. The idea that process is crucial and privileged over outcome also echoes Small’s philosophy of ‘musicking’ (Small, 1998b), with the meaning of music residing in the human act of

doing it, rather than within the music object – this concept underpinning my purpose in carrying out the research in the first instance22.

Stake categorises case study as ‘intrinsic’ or ‘instrumental’ (1995). The intrinsic case study attends to one specific case and affords the researcher the opportunity to focus in detail upon the case and those within it, when this is the main focus of the study – to understand that particular case (classroom, programme, group of people) for its own sake and as deeply as possible. Instrumental case study is undertaken in order to apply findings and understandings from the case beyond it. Initially, I regarded my research as an example of instrumental case study, intending to find ways of applying the findings to other situations in the wider music educational context; but as the field research progressed, the case and those individuals encompassed within it, required more detailed consideration, becoming centrally significant and of, at the very least, equal importance to my enquiry as the general issues I began the study by investigating. Therefore, my study applied aspects of both instrumental and intrinsic case study in order to elicit findings, yet another example of the flexibility of a bricolage approach.

Expanding upon the instrumental and intrinsic models, Stake offers a further option for the case study researcher, namely collective case study, in which the study can be widened to enable numerous cases to be examined. I also made use of this idea, and expanded the first Music Potential study using the collective model in order to yield further data and provide opportunities for triangulation of the findings from that initial study and my own field study. My own intrinsic study of three classrooms and teachers over the course of one academic year may yet give rise to future instrumental case studies within primary classrooms in order to further test the model of partnership developed.

A particular advantage of case study argued by Gillham is its ability to help foster in- depth relationships, and to allow for participant agency and ownership of research (Gillham 2000: 11). Through the use of case study, with its emphasis on the research process, as opposed to being led by a defined hypothesis and the need to ‘prove’ it

22

with outcomes, I saw that I could enable research participant agency and voice. This I hoped might minimize hierarchy among the research participants, myself included, and furthermore, consolidate a methodology of partnership that would have the potential to support the eventual outcomes, whatever they might be. In short, I recognized the value of this form of case study as an egalitarian approach to research. The collection of detailed ‘rich’ data within this methodological approach brings challenges for the researcher in terms not only of the entailed time, but also of analyzing and editing vast amounts of audio and visual data, interview transcripts, field notes and making use of ‘thick’ description (Geertz, 1973).23 A challenge also exists in ensuring that findings are triangulated if possible so that the research can be considered to be valid and rigourous. These aspects will be discussed shortly, but preceding them is the question of ethics in research, and how this affects not only doing research but the experience of being researched, which constituted a central aspect of my own enquiry throughout.