Data Collection in Case Studies

“The case study’s unique strength is its ability to deal with a full variety of evidence documents, artefacts, interviews and observations” (Yin, 1989: 20). Consistent with this notion, Merriam (1998) states that all data collection methods or techniques can be used in a case study depending on the researcher’s theoretical orientation, the problem and purpose of the study and the sample selection. “Understanding the case in its totality, as well as the intensive, holistic description and analysis characteristic of a case study, mandates both breadth and depth of data collection”, hence the need for flexibility in choosing data collection methods that would achieve the required depth (Merriam, 1998: 135).

Marshall and Rossman (1995) have named the four primary methods of data collection in qualitative research as (i) participation in the setting (ii) direct observation (iii) in-depth interviewing, and (iv) document reviews. In addition, several supplementary methods can be incorporated like narratives, focus group discussions, life histories, historical analysis, film, video, and photography. Thus, qualitative researchers have a wide range from which to choose suitable combinations of data collection methods suitable for qualitative case studies. Each data collection method used in the current study is described first in terms of its strengths and limitations. This will be followed later by the application of such methods in the field, presented under ‘Data collection procedure’ (Section 4.6):

a) Document review

The review of documents is said to be an unobtrusive method, one rich in portraying the values and beliefs of participants in the setting (Marshall and Rossman, 1995) because researchers gather and analyse documents produced in the course of every day events. These include policy documents, logs, letters and minutes of meetings, which are useful in developing an understanding of the group studied. Archival data are routinely gathered records of a society, community or organisation and may further supplement other qualitative methods.

The strengths of document reviews are that many documents are easily accessible; they are free and contain information that would take an investigator enormous time and effort to gather otherwise. Documents are also a good source of data as they are often used when it appears they will yield “better or more data than other tactics” (Merriam, 1998). The researcher determines where the greatest emphasis lies after the data have been gathered (Marshall and Rossman, 1995). However, the limitation is that most documents are not produced for research purposes; therefore, the information they offer may not be in a form that is useful or understandable to the investigator. Furthermore, such data may not fit present definitions of the concepts under scrutiny (Merriam, 1998).

b) In-depth interviewing

Interviews are categorised into (i) “formal conversational interview (ii) general interview guide approach, and the (iii) standardised open-ended interview” (Patton, 1990: 280-290). Patton (1990) and Marshall and Rossman (1995), state that in-depth interviewing is a data collection method that is relied on extensively by qualitative researchers and in numerous studies it might be the only source of data. The main purpose of an interview is to find out what is in or on someone else’s mind. Patton (1985), and Rubin and Rubin (1995) have described in-depth interviewing as a conversation with a purpose. That is to say that qualitative in-depth interviews are much more like conversations than formal events with predetermined formal response categories (Marshal and Rossman, 1995).

Some of the strengths of interviews are that they are a useful way to get large amounts of data quickly. Immediate follow-up and clarification are possible; participants are treated as partners rather than objects of research as questions are asked that tap into the participants’ experiences (Rubin and Rubin, 1995). In addition, Seidman (1998) explains that interviewing provides access to the context of people’s behaviour and thereby provides a way for researchers to understand the meaning of that behaviour. Some of the limitations of interviewing lie in the fact that they involve personal interaction for which co-operation is essential, without which it would be difficult to conduct successful interviews.

Furthermore, participants may be unwilling or uncomfortable to share all that the researcher may hope to explore, or they may be unaware of recurring patterns in their lives (Marshal and Rossman, 1995). The researcher may not ask questions that evoke the desired responses either because of lack of expertise or familiarity with local language or because of lack of skill. By the same token, the interviewer may not properly comprehend responses to the questions or elements of the conversation. Besides, one-on-one interviews may be impoverished because the participant had not reflected on the topic and feels unprepared to respond (Marshal and Rossman, 1995: 84).

c) Focus group discussions

Focus group discussions have been described as a tool for collecting qualitative data from a group of people who are unfamiliar to one another but who share common interests (Marshall and Rossman, 1994). Group discussions are semi-structured, person-to-person interviews that aim to explore a specific set of issues Kitzinger (1994). Such interviews involve six to twelve people in a ‘focused’ interview lasting one to two hours. The focus group technique is timesaving as it allows one to gather information from a range of people within the same timeframe it would take to interview one person (Kitzinger, 1994). The researcher follows a predetermined interview guide to facilitate discussions in a group with the purpose of collecting in- depth information about a group’s perceptions, attitudes and experiences of the subject under study (Academy for Educational Development, 2004).

Some of the advantages of focus group interviews are that the technique is “socially oriented, studying participants in a natural, real life atmosphere; the format allows the facilitator the flexibility to explore unanticipated issues as they arise in the discussion; the findings appear believable. Furthermore, the technique is relatively low cost; it provides quick results and it can increase the sample size of qualitative studies by interviewing more people at one time” (Krueger, 1988: 44-46; 1998). Another strength of focus group technique is that it allows for group interaction so that participants are able to “build on each other’s ideas and comments to provide an in-depth view not attainable from individual questioning” (Marshall and Rossman, 1994: 84). A focus group technique can reveal consensus and diversity of participants’ needs, experiences, preferences and assumptions.

However, some of the limitations of focus groups are that “the interviewer has less control over a group interview than an individual one, which can result in lost time as dead-end or irrelevant issues are discussed, the data are difficult to analyse, as context is essential to understanding participants’ comments” (Marshall and Rossman, 1995: 85). In addition, focus groups can generate large amounts of data that are often difficult to analyse. More outspoken individuals can dominate the discussions, so that viewpoints of less assertive people would be difficult to assess (Academy for Educational Development, 2004).