settings
There are various typologies of case studies, organised around: outcome and function (Yin, 1994; Merriam, 1998); focus (Robson, 2002); application (Stake, 2008); discipline; or a combination of these (Stenhouse, 1985). Both Yin’s and Merriam’s classifications include ‘descriptive’ and ‘interpretive/explanatory/analytical’ types. Yin (1994) included ‘exploratory’ case studies (functioning as a pilot to other studies or research questions), whereas Merriam (1998:38-40) added ‘evaluative’ to her instructive list, which is summarised below:
1. A ‘descriptive’ study presents a detailed account of the area under investigation, useful for presenting basic information about areas of education where little research has been done and for describing new and innovative programs and practices in education. Merriam quotes Lijphart (1971) who suggests these forms of study ‘move in a theoretical vacuum’, neither guided by, nor seeking to formulate generalized hypotheses.
2. ‘Interpretive’ (or analytical) case studies use richly descriptive data to analyse, interpret, explain and/or theorise about a phenomena, perhaps resulting in ‘a
typology, a continuum, or categories that conceptualise different approaches to the task.’ Merriam draws on Shaw (1978:4) to suggest ‘analytical studies are
differentiated from straightforward descriptive studies by their complexity, depth and theoretical orientation’.
3. ‘Evaluative’ case studies involve description, explanation and judgement. Quoting Guba and Lincoln (1981:375), she writes: ‘Above all else … this type of case study
weighs “information to produce judgement…the final and ultimate act of evaluation”’.
Stake’s (2008) case study typology – (i) the intrinsic: where the case itself is of interest; (ii) the instrumental: where a case is chosen because of its interest and capacity to illustrate particular traits or problems and where understanding of the specifics may shed light on other cases; and (iii) the collective: the study of a number of cases – can be related directly to issues of generalisability in case study approaches.
A major critique of case study design asks how a single case can be considered representative, and therefore used legitimately to generalise more widely (Bassey 1981:85), with representativeness of sample enabling generalisability usually being considered hallmarks of ‘scientific’ social research (Bryman, 2008). This critique is particularly levelled at ‘descriptive’ or ‘intrinsic’ studies, where often no attempt is made to generalise beyond the single case or even to build theories (Silverman, 2000:103). Mason (1996:6 quoted in Silverman 2000:103) disputes whether a purely descriptive study is an appropriate outcome for qualitative research, contending; ‘Qualitative research should produce explanations which
are generalisable in some way, or which have a wider resonance.’ Even where there is the
intention, as in an instrumental case, to shed light on other, ‘similar’ cases, questions of external validity are still raised on the basis that it remains a study of a single case; and although the ‘collective’ study in part mitigates against this critique through study of a collection of cases, the number of cases involved are typically small in order to manage and work with the rich detail involved in the case study approach, and are often not selected on the basis that they are representative samples (Bryman, 2008:33; Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011). This line of critique favours positivist approaches to generalising, relying on frequency of events rather than significance of events as a route to understanding a situation (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2011:293-4).
The educational philosopher Richard Pring (2000) cautions against creating false dualisms between educational research modelled on the social sciences, which ignores subtle differences in context; and research which focuses on the uniqueness of each context, eschewing generalisations which arise from large scale samples. He helpfully describes a middle way (Pring, 2000:140):
No situation is unique in every respect. Educational practices are conducted or engaged in within societies of shared values and understandings. There are national, indeed global debates, which create common understandings. And there are generalisations about how people are motivated and learn, however tentative these must be and in need of testing in the circumstances of particular classrooms.
Pring (2000:137) believes that despite the unique situational impact of context, teacher perceptions and beliefs, learner aspirations and interpretations of the situation, ‘there are
understandings and values, for well-tested hypotheses in one situation to illuminate similar practice undertaken by others.’ He is not alone in holding this view.
Investigating the question ‘does educational research produce generalisations that are useful
to teachers?’ Bassey (1981:73) comes to the conclusion that ‘the study of single events is a more profitable form of research (judged by the criterion of usefulness to teachers) than searches for generalisations’. He argues that merit of a case study lies in the extent to which a
teacher working in a similar setting can relate it to his/her own teaching situations; and that therefore the criterion for judging the usefulness of case studies should be whether the details given are sufficient and appropriate to enable relation: ‘The relatability of a case-study
is more important than its generalisability’ (1981:85). Similarly, Mitchell (1983) proposes that it
is the quality of the analysis more than the size of the sample which validates qualitative case studies. My own experience of finding invaluable theoretical and practical wisdom, directly relatable to my own teaching practice, in the writings of educational practitioners and theorists such as George Goetschius and Joan Tash (1967), Joan Tash (1967, reprinted 2000), Stephen Brookfield (1986, 1995) and bell hooks (1994, 2003) mirrors Bassey’s conclusions.
Case studies have the advantage, in educational settings, of being a ‘step to action’, in that they begin in a world of action and contribute to it: insights may be directly interpreted and put to use (Adelman, Jenkins & Kemmis, 1976). Hitchcock and Hughes (1995:323) believe:
that the qualitative or ethnographic case study is the research approach that offers most to teachers because its principal rationale is to reproduce social action in its natural setting, ie. classrooms and workplaces, and that it can be used either to test existing theory or practice in an everyday environment, or it can be used to develop new theory or improve and evaluate existing professional practice.
Punch (2009:123) argues similarly: ‘Properly conducted case studies, especially in situations
where our knowledge is shallow, fragmentary, incomplete or non-existent, have a valuable contribution to make in education research.’ This is the case with knowledge of student
development of professional values in qualifying education: and there is sufficient similarity
in context and sufficient agreement in understanding and values across qualifying education2
2 Similarity in context and sufficient agreement in understanding and values across qualifying
education is created and sustained through the National Occupational Standards for youth work; the National Youth Agency validation process for Professionally Qualifying Courses; and forums such as
for my study, if properly conducted, to relate and be relevant to others (Pring, 2000:137): for it to have ‘wider resonance’, to use Mason’s phrase (1996:6).
My case study strategy most closely resembles Merriam’s ‘interpretive / analytic’ approach, as I aim to: explain and theorise about student value development; and secondarily to make some (tentative) judgements about the teaching and learning strategies well suited to supporting value development within my own practice and more widely in the field, as Hitchcock, Hughes, and Punch suggest is possible and Mason says is imperative. Pring reminds researchers that to do this well, the research should ‘delineate those distinctive
features which limit the possibility of generalisation’ (2000:137). I have sought to do this
through carefully setting the context, outlining the likely unique features of the college setting, describing the students (with as much detail as ethical anonymity will allow) and offering detailed descriptions of how I have designed and implemented the curriculum.
Pring (2000:139) contends that educational research should meet four further criteria: 1. tentative conclusions stated with sufficient clarity that they can be tested against
experience;
2. an explicit relation of such conclusions to relevant evidence;
3. a process of public scrutiny of procedures, of questioning the values;
4. a testing of alternative interpretations of the data, which may support more than one conclusion.
I aim to offer a clear outline of the data collection and analytical procedures employed, followed by a rich and detailed description, exploration and analysis of the data. Finally, I intend to offer some tentative, yet clearly stated, conclusions as to how students develop their professional values and the teaching and learning strategies which support this process, showing how these arise from and are evidenced within the data, providing a clear ‘chain of evidence’ (Yin, 2009:122), so the reader may follow the logic and procedures employed and can interrogate the values which have shaped the investigation.
Following Hitchcock’s and Hughes’ (1995:105) proposed criteria for validity in case study methods, I have sought to describe the intended phenomena clearly, accurately and authentically; to offer explanations which are justified by evidence presented in the text; and
BERA – British Educational Research Association – and the youth work educators’ ‘Training Agencies Group’.
to use forms of data collection which are ‘fit for purpose’. The next section of this chapter outlines the boundaries of the case being investigated and discusses the data collected, the methods employed for collection, ethical considerations and contingent factors.