Defining Case Study Research

In defining case study research a number of authors proffer varying definitions (Easton, 1982; Curzon, 1990; Reinharz, 1992; Yin, 1994; Stake, 1995; Bassey, 1999; Gillham, 2000; Travers, 2001; Robson, 2002; Wolcott, 2002; Gerring, 2007;

Simons, 2009; Ragin and Becker, 2009). Easton (1982), for example, adopts case study as an aid to teaching and learning. Curzon describes case study as a ‘mode of instruction’ and argues that case study research was designed originally to aid decision making in business as an active, participatory teaching-learning situation

‘which mirrors the outside world’ (Curzon, 1990, p.295). Curzon’s (1990, p.298) description primarily resides in the teaching approach associated with ‘learning by

doing’ which he suggests is one of its advantages. Understanding case study research as a qualitative endeavour is problematic. Indeed, in trying to answer the question ‘What it is a case?’, Ragin and Becker (2009, p.16) note that it has no beginning or end. Moreover, Wolcott (2002, p.101), in discussing how he could represent qualitative approaches, uses a tree analogy conceding that the ‘...

problem was not that case study didn’t belong anywhere but that it seemed to belong everywhere’, and preferred to regard case study ‘in a narrower sense: a format for reporting’. Yin (1994, p.1), preferring to focus on the type of questions being asked, argues that:

In general, case studies are the preferred strategy when

“how” and “why” questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context. (Yin, 1994, p.1)

Moreover, Yin argues that as an empirical inquiry, the boundaries between

‘phenomenon and context are not clearly evident’ (Yin, 1994, pp.12 – 13). For Stake (1995, p.xi), not paying attention to quantitative approaches, suggests that case study is ‘expected to catch the complexity of a single case’. He draws from

naturalistic, holistic, ethnographic, phenomenological and biographical methods and argues that case study research is the study of ‘particularity and complexity of a single case’ (Stake, 1995, p.xi). Stake suggests that there are ‘many, many ways to do case studies’ as a ‘disciplined’ qualitative inquiry and states that ‘before you is a palette of methods’ (Stake, 1995, p.xii). Stake (1995, p.xii) adds that the method of inquiry is dependent upon one of three categorisations of case study. These categories he states are intrinsic, instrumental or collective. The reasoning behind this categorisation, is that the ‘methods we will use will be different, depending on intrinsic and instrumental interests’ (Stake, 1995, p.4). Knowing the differences between methods is to get the most out of using a case study research approach.

Thus for Stake (1995) an ‘intrinsic’ case study is described as a personal interest,

‘instrumental’ is described as a way of trying to understand something else ‘through’

the case study, and ‘collective’ involves more than one case study in relation to a number of instrumental studies. Bassey (1999) argues that ‘knowing the differences’

also involves engaging in the philosophical debates concerning research methodology, particularly, in relation to mixing quantitative and qualitative approaches. (For a discussion of the mixing of quantitative and qualitative

approaches refer to Robson, 1985; Burton, 2000; Travers, 2001; Scholz and Tietje, 2002; Scott and Usher, 1999 and Bryman, 2006).

Gillham (2000, p.1) defines a ‘case’ as being a unit of human action embedded in the ‘real’ world which can ‘only’ be studied in context and ‘which exists in the here and now; that merges in with its context so that precise boundaries are difficult to draw’. For Gillham a ‘key’ question relates to the relationship between the ‘method’

and the ‘phenomenon’ asking ‘In other words does the method used mean that important elements are missed out or constrained’ (Gillham, 2000, p.6). In

response, he argues that ‘experimental science’ type approaches are ‘ill-suited’ to the embedded character of ‘real-life phenomena’ (Gillham, 2000, p.6). Gerring (2007, p.7), however, attempts to provide a ‘scientific’ (quantitative) type approach in order to better understand the method and to counterpoise the competing literature which suggests that case study is ‘highly suspect’ and ‘survives in a curious methodological limbo’. On the contrary, Simons prefers the definition that:

Case study is an in-depth exploration from multiple perspectives of the complexity and uniqueness of a

particular project, policy, institution, programme or system in

‘real life’ context. It is research-based, inclusive of different methods and is evidence-led. The primary purpose is to generate in-depth understanding of a specific topic (as in a thesis), programme, policy, institution or system to generate knowledge and/or inform policy development, professional practice and civil or community action. (Simons, 2009, p.25)

Moreover, Simons (2009, p.20) contests the idea that case study can be

mathematically represented by n = 1 and acknowledges the view that ‘studying the particular in depth can yield insights of universal significance’.

As stated, it appears that providing a definition of case study research is a problematic one. It is no surprise that it has become a ‘catch all’ category, a

portmanteau term (Burns, 2000, p.469). Gomm et al. (2002) associate this dilemma to the term itself in that it is not used in a standard way. They attribute this to the meaning of the term which overlaps with others; notably, with ‘ethnography’,

‘participant observation’, ‘fieldwork’, ‘qualitative research’ and ‘life history’ (Gomm, et al., 2002, p.1). Gerring (2007, p.69) suggests that ethnography is rightly identified as a case study method, and like ethnography, case study also learns from people rather than studying people (Spradley, 1980, p.3). Nonetheless, Gomm et al.

suggest that a weakness with the approach is due to its use in varying fields, commenting that:

… the notion of case study is not restricted to the research context. Lawyers deal with cases, so do detectives, medical practitioners, social workers and others; and, for this

reason, the case method has been an influential component of several fields of professional education, and has also figured significantly in the training of managers, most famously at the Harvard Business School. (Gomm, et al., 2002, p.1)

Whilst describing this broad appeal the authors reason that the weakness of case study is related to a ‘less-than-scientific or even unscientific character of this kind of research’ (Gomm, et al., 2002, p.2), a concern shared by Gerring (2007). No doubt such ‘reasoning’ relates to the ‘methodological quarrels’, related to notions of ‘truth’

generally associated with large-scale quantitative, positivist, approaches; what Oakley (2000, p.23) refers to as ‘paradigm wars’. Moreover, as has been argued

(Bloor, et al., 2001, p.39) ‘all research tools in the social sciences have significant flaws’ and this also includes, no doubt, the perceived ‘pure’ or ‘hard’ sciences.

For me, the interest in doing and adopting a case study research approach was primarily influenced by a number of uncertainties within the area under investigation and not as Yin (1994, p.55) has claimed of many people being drawn to the strategy

‘because they believe it is “easy.”’ For Yin, the assumption that case study research is ‘easy’ is related to prior skills; however, he goes on to argue that ‘In fact, case study research is among the hardest types of research to do’ (Yin, 1994, p.54). For Yin (1994, p.78) these prior skills relate to ‘many sources of evidence’ from which he identifies six, these he argues are ‘documentation, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant-observation, and physical artefacts.’ Similarly, Travers (2001) identifies five main methods, these being observation, interviewing, ethnographic fieldwork, discourse analysis and textual analysis. Incidentally, Travers remarks that ‘each is simple to do, and requires little, if any, specialist training’ (Travers, 2001, p.2). On the contrary, Yin suggests that:

… a well-trained and experienced investigator is needed to conduct a high-quality case study because of the

continuous interaction between theoretical issues being studied and the data being collected. (Yin, 1994, p.55)

For Bassey (1999, p.69) ‘case study research has no specific methods of data collection or of analysis which are unique to it as a method of enquiry’.

Thus, in selecting to use a case study approach it is apt for me to proffer my own definition which emerged from this research experience. First of all, I had

purposefully chosen to use the term ‘approach’ with case study to acknowledge that there is not one consistent way of ‘doing’ case study research. On the contrary, its strength is that it resists tree-like structures belonging nowhere and everywhere. Its

emergent design is related to the approach being flexible, open, and sensitive to a rapidly changing and interpretative context. As a qualitative method of inquiry, case study research approach offers a range of methods, and an ability to consider why, how and what. In the context of this study, CE is a single case study, a unit of human activity, an in-depth exploration, a contemporary phenomenon, not necessarily where n = 1: a singularity studied and interpreted in socio-economic-political-cultural-historical context with boundaries that are difficult to define. As an analytical tool used in the construction of knowledge, this case study approach is an important factor, which critically examines and analyses an educational initiative of this kind, and is particularly sensitive to the lived experience of the participating individuals.

4.1.1 Cutting Edge Theatre Initiative

The case study is a critical investigation of the ‘Cutting Edge Theatre Initiative’. The case involves two principal partners, Cutting Edge and Red Brick College. Red Brick College is a specialist college: a drama school offering professional training for the performing arts. From RBC, one senior individual took part in this research. Cutting Edge Theatre Initiative consists of a team of theatre practitioners who contacted Red Brick College with the intention of developing a ‘Theatre Performance and Workshop Practice’ degree programme for individuals described as having ‘learning difficulties’. The team from CE included two theatre artistic directors and four

appointed lecturers labelled as having ‘learning difficulties’. Collectively, the

partnership, sought to initiate change and empower individuals described as having

‘learning difficulties’ to have an active involvement in higher education, theatre arts and work. However, in 2004, CE announced that the initiative had come to an end.

This outcome offered a different set of research questions for this case study, ones that focus on understanding why and how the initiative failed, the barriers

experienced, and to gain an insight into the experiences of the participating

individuals. One of the participating individuals, an individual who had previously been a student at RBC, was sought through the Vice Chair of CE having adopted a

‘snowballing’ process, as discussed by Miller and Bell (2002). Four individuals who participated in a workshop activity were identified serendipitously having sent out, an email after the workshop, requests about their involvement.

4.1.2 Participants

The study involves, principally, fourteen participants including myself, these are Iris and Mathew who are the two joint directors of the Cutting Edge Theatre Initiative, Val who is the Chair, Jane who is the Vice Chair of Cutting Edge Theatre Initiative, Richard who is one of the appointed Lecturers, Adam who is the Vice Principal of Red Brick College; a College of Higher Education, Heather who is the Director of Education of one of the funding bodies, Catherine who is a drama tutor and who previously took part in an associated project (Catherine had been a student at Red Brick College studying on a theatre education course), and Lee who is a senior member of staff who was also involved in an earlier evaluation. There are also four participants who took part in a workshop activity.