Methodology A Case Study Approach

To achieve an in-depth understanding and fully address my research questions, a case study of a community group for Spanish-speaking families was conducted. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2018, p.376) state that a case study “provides a unique example of real people in real situations, enabling readers to understand ideas more clearly than simply by presenting them with abstract theories or principles” which would help explore abstract concepts such as language, culture and identity. Using a case study approach can help readers understand how ideas and concepts fit together in a way that numerical analysis cannot explain (Yin, 2009). In addition, Stake (1995, p.xi) states that a case study offers a qualitative understanding of “the particularity and complexity of a case” while Denscombe (2014) says that case studies are characterised by their in-depth study of a setting and the individuals, focusing on interactions, processes and relationships.

According to Simons (2009, p.21) a case study is an “in-depth exploration from multiple perspectives of the complexity and uniqueness of a particular project, policy, institution, program or system in a ‘real-life’ context”. This speaks to Yin’s (2009, p.18) definition that case study research is “an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-life context”. By adopting a case study approach, I was able to gather rich data from a detailed investigation of the families who attend or previously attended the community group.

Advocates of case studies argue that they are “illustrative and illuminating, accessible and easily disseminated, holding the reader’s attention and being vivid accounts which are strong on reality” (Wellington, 2015, p.174). Moreover, Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2018) add that further strengths include that they are real accounts of real-life scenarios, that they explore complexity, that data is rich, varied and can account for discrepancies across the case, and that they are accessible for a wide readership. Merriam (1998) stresses the unique

distinctive attributes of case study methodology. She says it is ‘particularistic’ focusing on particular situations, events, groups, programs or phenomenons; it is ‘descriptive’ yielding a rich description and understanding of the case under study; and ‘heuristic’ by illuminating the reader’s understanding of case and phenomenon under study.

Nevertheless, critiques of case studies include their lack of generalisability (Yin, 2014), that the researcher has little control over variables, or data are not easy to cross-check therefore they may be prone to bias, selectiveness and

subjectivity from participants and/or the researcher (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2018, p.379). Furthermore, Denscombe (2014, p.64) adds that there can be difficulties in accessing case study settings, setting boundaries and “moving beyond description to analysis and evaluation”. On the other hand, Ruddin (2006 as cited in Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2018, p.80) questions whether

generalisability is even a desired outcome and an “appropriate requirement of a case study at all”. Furthermore, Yin (2009, p.15) argues that the same critique could be applied to a single experiment; he believes that case studies can contribute to generalise broader theories which could later be tested in additional empirical studies.

Simons (2009) says that we can learn from case studies as they promote a general understanding, likewise Thomas and Meyers (2015) write that case studies contribute to wider understanding and wisdom. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2018, p.381) add that although case studies “may not have the external checks and balances found in other forms of research, they still abide by canons of validity and reliability”. On this theme, Yin (2009, p.122) explains

that a “chain of evidence” helps provide credibility, reliability and validity to a case study, and would allow an external researcher could follow each step of the case study, including the conditions and circumstances in which data were

gathered. As such, I ensured that these details were recorded in my field journal (see ‘Data Gathering Tools’ in section 5.4.1 below).

It is useful to consider Thomas and Meyers’ (2015) elements of case study design to establish what are the subject and object of the research, what is the

purpose, what approach will be used and what is the process to be adopted. In this study, the object of the research was how linguistic and cultural identities were nurtured, and the subject in question was a community group for Spanish- speaking families in the West of Scotland. It could be argued that the purpose of the study was an exploratory one that took a descriptive approach because there is so little known about the case in question. Bloomberg (2018) writes that:

A descriptive case study is selected when the researcher seeks to portray the specifics of a social phenomenon or issue that is not well

conceptualized or understood. The goal is to seek rich detail regarding the inner processes of the given case and to provide multiple ways of understanding the layers of meaning inherent in the case through various data-gathering techniques. (Bloomberg, 2018, p.3)

By involving a number of families from the community group, the study process was an ‘embedded single-case’ (Yin, 2009) which involved more than one unit of analysis (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2018). Yin (2009, p.50) explains that “a case study becomes an embedded case study when, within a single case, attention is paid to more than one subunit”. The term subunit refers to a smaller element of the larger case, in this instance, the families within the main case of the

community group. Yin (2014) writes that embedded case studies are useful if the researcher wants to analyse within, between and across the case; when the researcher chooses a case study with embedded units they have the ability to explore the subunits that are located within the wider case (Gustafsson, 2017).

My focus was of an interpretive nature which listened to experiences, stories and voices as individuals and as a collective group (Lincoln & Guba, 1990). I felt that this would be the best way of researching families who each had unique,

distinctive characteristics in terms of family make up, language background and heritage but who all belonged, or had previously, to the community group (see section 5.3.1 ‘Participants, Sample and Access’). By gathering data from

children and parents who shared the common feature of group membership, I present these multiple sources of evidence as a case study looking for patterns and replication within and across families, demonstrating the iterative process of data collection and analysis (Creswell & Poth, 2018).

5.2.3 ‘Voice’

The epistemological stance that knowledge is acquired from the interpretation of individuals’ experiences meant that listening to the participants’ stories was vital. As part of the case study, the individuals participating in this research brought their own voices based on their lived experiences within their unique circumstances but also contributed to a collective voice. Listening to families’ voices was an essential methodological approach at the heart of the research design.

Research which takes children's perspectives on their everyday lives seriously has become an increasingly important element of childhood studies (Clark, 2005; 2007). If we actively listen to the voices of children and their parents, we can come to know their needs and interests, gleaning information and allowing researchers, practitioners and policy makers to respond appropriately and positively (Murray, 2019).

However, listening and engaging in dialogue can be difficult if children and their families use a language other than English and have differing cultural values and norms. Wall et al. (2019, p.268) state that voice “allows us to express who we are in ways we choose” and although the authors originally meant that voice may be elicited through non-verbal methods, I also applied their argument to the choice of language. McCracken (1988, p.34) advises that researchers should allow participants to tell their stories in their own language and on their own terms to “assure creation of their stories”.

This study sought to listen to the thoughts, feelings, experiences and opinions of Spanish-speaking bilingual families in the West of Scotland, so it was only apt that I communicated with them in the language they felt most comfortable in. Being fluent in Spanish and English allowed me to interact with participants in either or both languages. From initial contact and introducing myself, to

arranging and then conducting data collection, I was able to mirror participants’ choice of language at any given time so that their voices could truly be heard. If a participant spoke to me in Spanish, I replied in Spanish, and if they changed to English, I did so too. However, in most instances, both participants and I ended up switching, or shifting (Garafanga, 2010), between languages in the

conversation.

Code switching (see sections 2.2.3 and 6.2.2) between languages gave me a privileged position as a researcher through a greater rapport with participants and a deeper understanding of their responses. I could have chosen only to interview them in one language but I chose to give them the freedom and flexibility to use either English, Spanish or both, hereby reflecting the language choice of each bilingual child. This approach is similar to Ballinger et al.’s (2020) multilingual study in Quebec however, by limiting data collection to French or English, their participants’ heritage languages were not involved and some parents had to respond in their second or third language.

Lundy (2007) writes that voice alone is not enough - children need to be respected, to have an audience and for decision-makers to recognise and

respond to their perspectives (Dockett, 2017) (see also 5.3.4 ‘Research Involving Children’). In light of this, and with the children’s permission, the implications arising from the findings of this research will be shared with Scottish

Government and Education Scotland in the hope that wider educational change may occur, and at a more local level, findings may impact upon policy and professional practice within councils and schools (see section 9.4 on

‘Implications’ in Chapter 9). Therefore, I hope this research has meaning and is not tokenistic (Lundy, 2018).