Group 2: Case studies

At the end of each of the initial interviews with the academic unit coordinators, and consistent with the multi-stage purposeful approach employed, group 1 participants were asked to indicate their willingness to participate further in the case study phase (stage 2). Only two participants declined, leaving 14 units (88% of group 1), and all six universities, providing the sub-sample population from which to choose the case study participants.

Guided by the research questions and the ensuing decision to employ a phenomenographic case study design in stage two, the strategy to select the key informants for the case studies required a criterion based sampling scheme. Since ‘phenomenography aims to maximise the variation in ways of seeing, and the choice of characteristics of the participants is driven by that goal’ (Green, 2005, p. 35), a maximum variation sampling strategy was used. Furthermore, Patton (2002) explains that a diverse sample yields two kinds of findings: ‘(1) high-quality, detailed descriptions of each case, which are useful for documenting uniqueness, and (2) important shared patterns that cut across cases and derive their significance from having emerged out of heterogeneity’ (p. 235). Both aspects are important to a qualitative inquiry.

To supplement the maximum variation strategy, Collins (2010) suggests conducting a cross-case analysis from multiple case sampling. Arguably, multiple cases are the ‘best resource for advancing theories about the way the world works’ (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 207).

Therefore, informed by the literature29, the emerging data collected from the unit outlines, and all unit coordinators interviewed in group 1, it was decided to incorporate multiple case sampling using three case studies. The first criterion by which case study participants were selected was based on the type of group work being used within a unit. To be eligible, the accounting unit, and therefore the unit coordinator and their respective student cohort and teaching staff, needed to fit into one of the following three options:

• CS1: Informal (semester-long) study/discussion group (no assessed group work)

• CS2: Structured (semester-long) group project (assessed);

• CS3: Short term (≈4 weeks) assignment based group (assessed);

29 _{Onwuegbuzie and Collins (2007) recommend a minimum number of 3-5 case studies when} using a sub-group/nested sampling design.

83 Each unit associated with the 14 coordinators, who voluntarily offered to participate further in this study, was able to be assigned to at least one of the aforementioned criteria. The demographic characteristics, together with additional unit outline information gathered earlier for each unit, were then analysed for diversity. The final selection criteria for case study participants were based on: the type of group work used; subject area; class size; staff numbers; as well as the nature of the institution, the function of group work within the institution’s accounting major, and the distance between geographical locations. Patton (2002) explains that using geographically dispersed samples can help to maximise variation in small samples. Where samples are geographically diverse, he argues that the investigator can describe the uniqueness of each site, but also draw out common themes across sites. ‘Themes take on added importance precisely because they emerge out of a great variation’ (Patton, 2002, p.235). Table 4.3 lists the final combination of characteristics determined by a criterion-based, maximum variation, multiple-case sampling scheme.

4.4.2.1 Benefits and challenges of a multi-case design

The sequential, multi-phase and multi-case sampling design provides for: more meaningful understanding and explanation of the phenomenon under investigation (Miles & Huberman, 1994); increased confidence in the interpretation of findings (Collins, 2010); greater flexibility in its multifaceted nature; and a suitable overall framework for an extended complex study (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2011). However, the strengths of this design double as the key challenges as well. The potential risk of being overwhelmed with data and/or superficially analysing earlier stages will be addressed later in the data collection and analysis sections of this chapter. Specifically in relation to issues of

Table 4.3 Characteristics of case study units

Group work Case Study 1 (CS1) Case Study 2 (CS2) Case Study 3 (CS3)

Type Informal Short term Structured

Basis Study/discussion Assignment Group project Time Semester (10-13wks) 4 weeks Semester (10-13wks) Function

within course

Lowest % units with assessed group work No group work LOs

Highest % units with assessed group work

Group work LO

High % units with assessed group work

No group work LOs

Unit demographics

Subject Taxation Management

accounting Financial accounting

Class size Medium Small Large

Staff 2 (Cross-campus) 1 8

Institution Regional Private Metropolitan

84 sampling, the resources and time needed to implement multiple phases, present the greatest challenge. Creswell and Plano-Clark (2011) note that participant attrition is one such risk associated with the longitudinal aspect of a multiphase design.

In the current study two participants had to withdraw, after the selection of case studies, and just prior to the data collection phase. Both participants gave consent to use their interview data, however their withdrawal from the case study stage had a direct impact on the final criteria used for the case study selections. The first attempt to secure multiple diverse cases included (in addition to those listed above), selecting one unit from each year level: first, second and third year units. However, when the 1st year coordinator withdrew from the study, and the 2nd year coordinator was on study leave during the collection period (and therefore not able to participate), the case study selection process and criteria had to be revisited. From the original nested sample there remained 12 willing participants from which to choose. By sacrificing only one of the original diversity criterion (year level), and selecting all 3rd year units for each case study participants, the robustness of the sampling scheme was not compromised. In fact, results will show this to be a fortuitous change, since 3rd year students are able to draw upon a greater extent and depth of experience. It emerged that variation and diversity were increased due to 3rd year students’ extended exposure to group work experiences.