Case Study Research

There are many definitions of a case study research. For instance, Benbasat et al., (1987) define case study as:

A case study examines a phenomenon in its natural setting, employing multiple methods of data collection to gather information from one or a few entities (people, groups, or organizations). The boundaries of the phenomenon are not clearly evident at the outset of the research and no experimental control or manipulation is used.

According to Myers (2010), “the term case study has multiple meanings. It can be used to describe a unit of analysis (e.g. a case study of a particular organization) or to describe a research strategy”. However, in this section, we discuss the use of case study as a research strategy. Case study research strategy is the most common approach of qualitative research used in information systems (IS) (Orlikowski and Baroudi, 1991; Alavi and Carlson, 1992).

Yin (2009, p.18) in his recent book presented the scope of a case study into two parts which are discussed as follows:

1. A case study is an empirical inquiry that:

investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context, especially when

the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident (Yin 2009, p.18).

2. The case study inquiry:

copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be many more variables of interest than data points, and as one result

relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to coverage in a triangulation fashion, and as another result

benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis (Yin, 2009, p.18).

Similarly, Creswell (2007, p.73) described case study as a qualitative research approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (such as: observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and reports), and reports a case description and case-based themes. For instance, several programs (a multi-site study) or a single program (a within-site study) may be selected for the study.

Creswell (2007, p.74) presented several steps for conducting an interpretive case study research that were previously presented by Stake (1995). According to the author, the first step for a researcher is to determine if a case study approach is appropriate to the research problem. Secondly, the researcher needs to identify the case or cases. These cases may involve an individual, several individuals, a program, an event, or an activity. Thirdly, the data collection is required which involves several techniques such as interviews, documents, and audiovisual materials. The fourth step is to write a detailed description of the case using the data collected from the field. The fifth step is to analyze the data in which the researcher has to focus on the key issues (analysis of themes). The final interpretive step for a researcher is to report the meaning of the case or cases, whether that meaning comes from learning about the issue of the case (an instrumental case), or learning about an unusual situation (an intrinsic case) (Creswell, 2007, p.74; Stake, 1995).

The case study research has several advantages. One of the main advantages of the case study research is its ‘face validity’ which means that a well-written case study based on empirical research in an organization represents a real story that most researchers can identify with. Another advantage is that it allows researchers to explore or test theories within the context of messy real-life situations. However, the case study approach has several disadvantages. One of the main disadvantages is that it can be difficult to gain access to the particular organization that a researcher wants to study. Another disadvantage is that the researcher has no control over the situation which means that if the company is suddenly taken over by another company while the researcher is half way through his/her study, there is a very little he/she can do about it (Myers, 2009, p.80).

4.4.3 Ethnography

Creswell, (2009, p.13) in his latest book define ethnography as:

A strategy of enquiry in which the researcher studies an intact cultural group in a natural setting over a prolonged period of time by collecting, primarily, observational and interview data. The research procedure is flexible and typically evolves contextually in response to the lived realities encountered in the field setting (Creswell, 2009, p.13; LeCompte and Schensul, 1999).

The author further explained the historical background of ethnography. According to the author, ethnography had its beginning in the comparative cultural anthropology conducted by early 20th century anthropologists such as: Boas, Malinowski, Radcliffe- Brown, and Mead. Although, these researchers initially took the natural sciences as a model for research; they differed from those using traditional scientific approaches through the firsthand collection of data concerning existing primitive cultures (Atkinson and Hammersley, 1994; Creswell, 2007, p.69). Lewis (1985, p.380) believes that ethnographers immerse themselves in the lives of the people they study. Recently, scientific approaches to ethnography have expanded to include “schools” or subtypes of ethnography with different theoretical orientations and aims, such as structural functionalism, symbolic interactionism, cultural and cognitive

anthropology, critical theory, and cultural studies (Atkinson and Hammersley, 1994; Creswell, 2007, p.69).

According to Preston (1991), “ethnography within the MIS context looks beneath the surface and examines, from the viewpoint of the participants of the setting, the meaning and role of MIS in their social or organizational world. From ethnographic accounts, the theoretical constructs and models of MIS may be challenged. It is the critical distance between managers’ views of MIS and the theory of MIS that creates the tension necessary to reorient our understanding of the craft”. However, Yin (2009, p.15) argued that IS research using ethnography approach usually require long periods of time in the field and emphasize detailed, observational evidence. Participant- observation may not require the same length of time but still assumes a hefty investment of field efforts.

Myers (1999) in his research work discussed the benefits and limitation of research using ethnography approach. According to the author, one of the most valuable aspects of ethnographic research is its depth. Because the researcher is there for an extended period of time, the ethnographer sees what people are doing as well as what they say they are doing. Over time, the researcher is able to gain an in-depth understanding of the people, the organization, and the broader context within which they work. As Grills (1998), points out by going to where the action is, the field researcher develops an intimate familiarity with the dilemmas, frustrations, routines, relationships, and risks that are part of everyday life. The profound strength of ethnography is that it is the most in-depth or intensive research method possible.

The same author also presented several disadvantages of ethnographic research. According to the author, “one of the main disadvantages of ethnographic research is that it takes a lot longer than most other kinds of research. Not only does it take a long time to do the fieldwork, but it also takes a long time to analyze the material and write it up. Another disadvantage of ethnographic research presented by the author is that it does not have much breadth. Unlike a survey, an ethnographer usually studies just the one organization or the one culture” (Myers, 1999).