A longitudinal case study

The investigation required a methodology consonant with the qualitative, interpretive paradigm chosen, and which facilitated the collection of data that enabled study of the focal question. ‘How do … students … develop…’ is fundamentally a question about process – about activity and change through time (Saldaña, 2003:8) – requiring the collection of rich, descriptive data in a variety of media in order to capture and explore change in students’ thinking and practice. Sztompka (1993:41) argues that time is intimately related to social change: ‘[i]t is impossible to conceive of time without reference to some change. And, vice

versa, the idea of change apart from time is simply inconceivable’. For him there are ‘no timeless phenomena or events, either in the sense of location in time or in the sense of extension through time’ (ibid:42). Like Sztompka, Saldaña (2003:8) prefers to talk of change through

time, arguing that the phrase ‘change over time’ implies that the research process is untouched by time, or time by the research process. Instead, he suggests it is more helpful to think of the research process as being woven through time and time woven through the research process, to reflect their inextricability. Time is not only a pre-requisite of change, but also of stability, ‘since the latter is nothing but an awareness that something has remained

stable whilst its surrounding environment, and even the components within, have changed’

(Adam, 1990:9). This is a helpful reminder to be open to the possibility that there may have been no observed change during the research process – that situations, phenomena, or in the case of this study, values and attitudes, remained the same – as well as to consider whether any change that has taken place has been embedded and remained stable through time (Saldaña, 2003:16).

Analysing change through time necessitates collection of data from more than one point in time, requiring a longitudinal design (Kelly & McGrath, 1988:135; Gorard, 2013:114). According to Flick (2014:128), in longitudinal research;

• an interesting process or state is analysed again at later times

• the same method of data collection is applied repeatedly in order to analyse how things have changed over time in the issue

• there should be enough time between the two points when data are collected.

Flick does not expand in detail on what constitutes ‘enough’ time. Saldaña (2003:4), for his part, recommends nine months as the minimum amount of time for a qualitative study to be considered longitudinal in an educational setting. He (ibid:16) proposes that ‘we conduct a

longitudinal study for two primary purposes: to capture through long-term immersion the depth and breadth of the participants’ life experiences, and to capture participant change (if any) through long-term comparative observations of their perceptions and actions.’ He also calls into

question the usefulness of ‘from-to’ / ‘before/after’ longitudinal models, eg, from point-A (kindergarten), to point-B (second grade) (ibid:7-8), suggesting such models can limit the researcher’s ability to ‘discern evolutionary processes’. The focus on discrete start and end points may result in the researcher ‘gloss[ing] over details and reduc[ing] assertions of change

to descriptive statements of stark contrast’. Again, Saldaña (ibid:7-8) advocates a ‘from- through’ framework, which outlines a process of change that ‘details the complexities of the journey’. In this study, the data collection of journals took place with three cohorts of

students, through a 4-year time period in 2008-2012. The interview data from the central cohort was collected in three stages through 23-months in 2010-11 (see Table 4 on page 102). As Flick (ibid) suggested (above), the same method of data collection was used for the journals and similarly for the three interviews with the central cohort of students, seeking to detail the ‘complexities of their journey’ (Saldaña, ibid:7-8) in developing values. The reflective nature of the interviews – inviting participants to read and comment on their previous answers in subsequent interviews – gave participants a unique opportunity to reflect on, review and appraise their earlier statements, giving rise to some surprising and important reflections on their journey, echoing Saldaña’s (ibid:34) concern that researchers give due attention to what participants themselves ‘perceive as important or salient in their lives’.

In asking about ‘their professional values’, the focal question also enquired into the personal and differentiated meanings students attached to their understanding and implementation of professional values. This again required rich data to illustrate subtle differences: both between different students and within the same student over time. A case study approach is well suited to answering ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions about a contemporary set of events, over which the investigator has little or no control (Yin, 2009:3-10). Merriam’s (1998:19) description of the function of a case study again endorses the selection of this design for my investigation:

A case study design is employed to gain an in-depth understanding of the situation and meaning for those involved. The interest is in process rather than outcomes, in context, rather than a specific variable, in discovery rather than confirmation. Insight gleaned from case studies can directly influence policy, practice and future research.

For a ‘commonsense’ definition of case study, Flyvbjerg (2013:169-170) refers readers to the Merriam Webster Dictionary (2013):

case study: an intensive analysis of an individual unit (as a person or community) stressing developmental factors in relation to environment.

Further explicating the dictionary definition, Flyvbjerg (2013:170) notes four points:

1. that it is this choice to study an ‘individual unit’ or ‘bounded system' which marks out a study as a case study, rather than any particular methods or approaches. As Stake (2008:119) argues, a case study is ‘a choice about what is to be studied. By whatever

methods, we choose to study the case.’

2. the ‘intensive’ nature of case studies results in greater depth – richness, detail, completeness and variance – for the unit of study than do other forms of study; 3. case studies stress ‘developmental factors’, exploring a string of linked events which

evolve through time;

4. and case studies focus on ‘relation to environment’, setting events in their context and exploring the relationship between them.

Drawing on Yin (1994) and Stake (1994), Punch (2009) adds:

5. usually there is an explicit attempt to preserve the wholeness, unity and integrity of the case;

6. multiple sources of data and multiple data collection methods are very likely to be used in case studies, to enrich the detail provided and analysed.

This investigation involves intensive study of a bounded system, a clearly defined ‘case’, making it a ‘case study’ in Stake’s view, which explores the developmental factors involved in students’ evolving professional values during qualifying education, consonant with the Flyvbjerg’s view of a case study. The investigation draws on various sources of data to provide rich and varied detail, whilst also seeking to preserve the integrity of the whole context (Punch 2009).

Additionally, I would suggest that the Merriam Webster definition of the case study as an

‘analysis’ might indicate that a case study should go further than simply ‘describing’ in the

impacts on arguments relating to the generalisability of single unit studies, which will be explored below.