Limitations of Case Study Research

CSR is not without its limitations and critics which Yin (2009) described as the four traditional prejudices against the case study method. These criticisms concerned lack of rigour due to their non-experimental design, poor basis for scientific generalisation, the length of time taken to complete and the length of the report produced. These criticisms appear to relate to the comparison of case study research, where the exploration of events occurs in their natural, real life contexts, with randomised controlled trials, where specific hypothesis are tested through deliberate manipulation of the environment in which the events occur (Yin 2009; Flyvberg 2006). Case study research is based in real life contexts, where variables cannot be controlled, but where ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions can be answered (Stake 1995). These concerns were addressed in this study by paying careful attention to the design and methods chosen to address the specific aim of the study, with no attempt being made to claim generalisability. The rigorous processes used during the study to ensure that

the resulting reported findings were not biased towards my preconceptions are described in Chapter 4, Section 4. The research schedule was planned within a timescale that gave a realistic allowance for each of the differing data

collection methods. Preparations were also made for the differing attributes required of me as the researcher before, during and after data collection. These attributes according to Yin (2009) were the ability to: ask good

questions; listen to the information given rather than ignoring that which did not conform to my preconceptions; remain alert and adaptive to evolving situations; maintain a firm grasp of the relevance of the issues being investigated; and remain aware of and not discounting of contradictory evidence. All of these attributes contributed to the aim of avoiding bias and collecting quality information which could answer the research question with enough contextual detail to allow ‘thick’ description, avoid irrelevancies but present findings that allow the reader to interpret them for use within their own settings or contexts.

Stake (2000) counters the criticisms of the ability to generalise from CSR by differentiating between the terms ‘natural sciences’ where predictable

generalisation to the population is a central tenet and ‘naturalistic

generalisation’ attempted by CSR. This naturalistic form of generalisation develops from both tacit knowledge (a form of understanding by experience) and propositional knowledge, which guides action as a product of experience. According to Stake, this ‘naturalistic generalisation’ never passes on to

empirical knowledge characterised by scientific, predictive generalisations, but he claims that ‘better generalisations are often those more parochial, those more personal’ (Stake 2000, p.23). His main premise is that research needs to be presented in full vivid and contextual detail to make the experience ‘come alive’ and be available to readers to compare with their own experiential knowledge, so that they can understand whether CSR can provide them with vicarious experience, building up the body of knowledge through ‘naturalistic generalisation’, on which the readers may act.

Lincoln and Guba (2000) take a more measured approach to the question of generalisation in CSR by arguing that it lies on a continuum between searching for general laws and studying the unique, where conclusions from one context

44

might hold as working hypotheses in another context. They use the term fittingness, which relies on ‘thick description’ (Geertz 1973) of the cases for the reader to judge whether the conclusions of one study will transfer or fit in another context. Donmoyer (2000) takes the approach that any type of

generalisability is less useful for practitioners dealing with individuals where meanings and perspectives are central tenets to knowledge assimilation, accommodation, integration and differentiation. This approach builds on Stake’s translation of tacit to propositional knowledge using language to generalise at the level of experience, recognising the way in which clinicians often encode experiential knowledge in stories and anecdotes transferring these to working hypotheses, which guide their actions. Donmoyer suggests that skilled clinicians have an interactive role, jointly constructing meanings with clients, which is not always captured in experiential learning. He utilises the language of Piaget’s (1971) description of cognitive processing to help describe how clinicians make judgements about fittingness or generalisation of vicarious experiential learning recognising and including the diversity of the clinicians’ role.

‘When diversity is dramatic, the knower is confronted by all sorts of

novelty [assimilation], which stimulates accommodation; consequently the knower’s cognitive structures become more integrated and differentiated; after novelty is confronted and accommodated, he or she can perceive more richly and, one hopes, act more intelligently’

(Donmoyer 2000 p.60)

The generalisabiity of this study will be determined by the way in which the reader can judge the fit of the contexts of the CMUs with their tacit

propositional and experiential knowledge of their own practice and working environment. This judgement will be made on the basis of the depth and accuracy of the contextual descriptions presented in this thesis.

The primary importance of selecting appropriate cases to answer the research question is emphasised by Thomas (2011) as an essential basis for the quality of the resulting research.

3.6 Phenomenology