Case study

In this study, the interpretivist paradigm informed the choice of design frame as the case study. Thomas (2013a) argues that in the social sciences case study is not a method but a design frame, which may draw on a range of methods. Writing about case study in the field of education, Thomas cites Simons in defining case study as “an in depth exploration from multiple perspectives of the complexity and uniqueness of a particular project, policy, institution, program or system in a ‘real life’ context” (Simons, 2009, cited in Thomas, 2013a, p. 591). In this case study, the case was ROSETE, the model of implementation of the NSW-Ningbo Partnership, outlined in Chapter 2. The multiple perspectives from which ROSETE was investigated were the individual experiences of 15 ROSETE participants from cohorts enrolled between 2008 and 2013 inclusive. Their accounts of their lived experiences provided the data in this case study.

Further, justification of the choice of case study as the design for this research was enhanced by the use of a framework. Thomas’ (2011) typology of case study design, including elements of subject, object, purpose, approach, and process provided a comprehensive framework for this research design. Thomas (2011) argues that a typology assists in the organisation of a case study, unfurling the decisions made in the design phase. However, representing decision making as a typology consisting of separate elements belies the complexity of the actual design process. Thomas acknowledges that the elements that comprise his typology may imply a sequential order of separate design choices, but he points out that in reality design decisions are made simultaneously (Thomas, 2011). Simultaneity in decision making to establish the design of this case study was the reality, as was recognition of the interconnections between decisions, reinforcing the complexity of the design process. Based on Thomas’ (2011) typology, the following outline of this case study design includes

Chapter 4: Research Design and Methodology

86 explanations of the connections between particular elements as they arose in decision making.

Subject and object

The researcher’s interest in exploring the ROSETE Model through the experiences of participants was directly related to professional involvement in the Ningbo Student Volunteer Program since its inception. Thomas’ (2011) typology identifies three kinds of cases that may attract a researcher’s interest: key cases or particular examples of the object of investigation; outlier cases which illuminate the focus of investigation through its difference to the object of investigation; and local knowledge cases or those with which the researcher is familiar. In this study, ROSETE was a local knowledge case.

Identifying this case study as an exploration of ROSETE leaves it open to criticism of looseness, simply a description of the Model without the robustness and analysis required of research. Thomas (2011) cautions that giving primacy to the case itself, which he describes as the subject, reinforces such a view. To establish a focus of analysis within a case study requires identification of an object, described as the analytical or theoretical frame (Thomas, 2011). Similarly, in Swanborn’s (2010) overview of case study design he refers to the focus of analysis as the phenomenon. In other words, a case study is more than a description of a case. The case has to be a case of something, and the something is the object or phenomenon, which is the focus of analysis. In the ongoing discussion of this case study design Thomas’ (2011) terminology of subject and object are used to refer to the case and analytical frame.

Establishing the object of investigation in this case study was not a straightforward process. The flexible, emergent research design allowed for reflection, refinement and adaptation in the early stages of data collection and analysis, which helped to focus the study and determine the object as teacher identity. During data collection the focus was articulated as ROSETE participants’ contributions to teaching and learning of Mandarin language and Chinese culture in schools. However, interview questions (Appendix 5) encompassed the breadth of their experience of the Ningbo Student Volunteer Program, including background knowledge, skills and experiences that

Chapter 4: Research Design and Methodology

87 influenced their decisions to apply for the Program, perceptions of their development as beginning teachers, and experiences in schools. Early coding and analysis of categories and themes in interview data suggested ROSETE participants interpreted their professional development with reference to their identity or sense of self as a teacher, in some cases indicating a change in identity throughout the duration of their school experience. In addition, participants’ language use in interviews revealed enactment of various identity positions, articulation of the influence of background knowledge, skills and experiences on their school practice, and description of the nature of challenges they encountered and how they drew on aspects of the ROSETE Model in addressing them. Ongoing analysis combined with review of the empirical literature informed revision and refinement of research questions and the decision to establish teacher identity as the object, the theoretical frame for analysis in this case study. As discussed in Chapter 3, this theoretical framework was further sharpened by interpreting identity as I-positions in a continuous state of becoming.

To summarise thus far, this study is focused on teacher identity in the experience of participants of ROSETE, a local knowledge case.

Purpose

Establishing the purpose of this case study occurred simultaneously with decision making about the object of study. Thomas’ (2011) typology describes the purpose as “intimately linked to the object of the study: The understanding that is required, the explanation that is needed will be related to the reason for doing the study, that is to say, the purpose” (p. 515-516). The initial purpose for undertaking this study was exploratory, to gain insight into ROSETE participants’ experiences. However, as data collection and analysis progressed, an interpretive purpose emerged, advancing the study beyond description, to explaining and theorising ROSETE participants’ identity experiences (Savin-Baden, 2013).

Approach

The approach used in this case study was also linked to the object. Thomas (2011) identifies theory-building, theory-testing, illustrative and descriptive approaches in case study design. Research in the areas of teacher identity, pre-service teacher identity

Chapter 4: Research Design and Methodology

88 and language teacher identity provided lenses through which to interpret and theorise evidence of individuals’ enactment and construction of teacher identity.

Process

Decision making about the process for this case study occurred simultaneously with identification of the case, or subject of study. Thomas’ (2011) notion of process is linked to the parameters used to define the case. Identifying ROSETE as the case, or subject of study implies a singularity, which belies the complexity of the decision- making processes, which were influenced by early data collection and analysis. Seidman’s (2013) view of the importance of participants’ lived experiences in investigations of educational programs, highlights the status of ROSETE participants in this case study. ROSETE, the case, was defined by the experiences of the 15 research participants. Analysis of their interpretations of the experience of teacher identity, collectively illustrated the incidence of this phenomenon in ROSETE.