Research evaluation – Case study methodology

Flyvberg (2006) drew attention to five misunderstandings of case study research, on which I now comment in relation to my own research.

Flyvberg (2006) highlighted the misunderstanding that context-independent knowledge, that is theoretical knowledge, is more valuable than context-dependent, or practical, knowledge. In refuting this Flyvberg stresses the importance of capturing the reality of a case in detail, providing practical and context-dependent knowledge with which to inform learning within the social sciences. This is seen as a strength within my research, supported by the opportunities of a professional doctorate and understood by participants within the case study. Understanding Shakespeare School in detail provides the opportunity to contribute to an understanding of inclusion through research which questions, investigates and evaluates the reality of it in context and practice. For example, understanding of Gulf War Syndrome was not developed through ‘predictive theories and universals’ (Flyvberg, 2006, p.224), but informed by researchers who were close to the case, receiving feedback on their understanding (MOD, 2012).

The second misunderstanding Flyvberg (2006) refers to highlights the assumed restrictions of case study in contributing to scientific development. This is based upon the view that generalizations are required and cannot be made based upon the study of an individual case. This position assumes that research undertaken is typical of a wider population, and so findings could predict and be generalized to that population. Ruddin (2006) noted that the need for generalization in research was a ‘problem of positivism’ (p.798), with the focus on formal generalization seen as limiting scientific development if ‘formal generalization becomes the only legitimate method of scientific inquiry’ (Flyvberg, 2006, p.227). A carefully chosen case, with a clear rationale for its selection, is seen by Flyvberg as being critical for adding to knowledge and leading to discovery. Hence, the reasons for the choice of Shakespeare School were provided in detail within section 3.4.1 of this chapter.

‘One can often generalize on the basis of a single case, and the case study may be central to scientific development via generalization as supplement to other methods. But formal generalization is overvalued as a source of scientific development, whereas ‘’the force – of example’’ is underestimated’ (Flyvberg, 2006 p.228)

66

Flyvberg cites Popper (1959) in recognition that subjecting propositions to the test of falsification, not only supported reflexivity within research, but led to theory development. Using the proposition of ‘all swans are white’, Popper suggested that one observation of a single black swan would falsify the original proposition and be of significance to developing theory. Therefore, case study is seen as ideal, through in-depth study and detail of a carefully chosen case it is suited to the identification of black swans because: ‘what appears to be white often turns out on closer examination to be black’ (Flyvberg, 2006, p.228).

Stake (1995) calls for the reframing of generalization, identifying that: ‘the real business of case study is particularization, not generalization’ (p.8). Providing readers with the detail of a case can support them to understand what makes this case particular, unique and important, but also to make ‘naturalistic generalizations’ (p.85). These are seen as the readers’ conclusions, reached through personal engagement of cases they are familiar with to which this case has been added, providing: ‘a new opportunity to modify old generalisations’ (p85). Within this thesis I have therefore aimed to provide accounts which provide sufficient detail and thick description, supporting the reader to gauge the accuracy of the work in relation to their own experience, as well as the opportunity to access the experience of Shakespeare School as closely as possible. The aim is to support case transference, whereby the reader decides how closely this experience fits to their own, and whether the findings can be transferred to their own situation (Firestone, 1993). This approach is common in medicine and law where applicability of one case to another is judged by the practitioner. In summary, whilst this case study never claims to aim to be generalizable for policy making, it does set out to present a rich portrayal of a single setting to inform practice and evaluation, establish value and add to current knowledge. The focus of this research is on particularization and providing the reader with the opportunity to make their own naturalistic generalizations. However, there are examples where a single case study has had a national impact. Following the review into the abuse and death of Victoria Climbié, the Every Child Matters policy (DfES, 2003) was written with national and local policy and practice changed as a result of an inquiry into one case. It is therefore false to claim that a case study cannot contribute to development beyond the case (Ruddin, 2006).

The third misunderstanding Flyvberg (2006) draws attention to is based upon the previous point regarding generalizability from a single case, it reflects a belief that case study is simply the first stage in the research process, appropriate for generating rather than testing hypothesis. In refuting this point within my thesis I draw attention to the conceptual framework in Figure 3.6 and the two previous chapters. The theoretical framework of inclusion is identified and shared within Chapter Two, the focus on educational outcome and progress and the

67

relationship with inclusion is explained and shared within Chapter One and Two. The purpose of my research is to look in detail at Shakespeare School and challenge that theory, policy and practice already in existence.

The fourth misunderstanding Flyvberg (2006) identifies relates to the perception that case study methodology supports a ‘tendency to confirm the researchers preconceived notions’ (p.234). Within qualitative research the influence of the researcher is acknowledged (Yardley, 2008) and the benefits of their active engagement with participants recognised (McLeod, 2011). This subjectivity is not seen as a fault to be eliminated but rather as an essential element of understanding. Guba and Lincoln (1998) indicate that the most relevant approach to adopt is to acknowledge the inherent subjectivity and concentrate on demonstrating how researcher values, predispositions and feelings impact upon the research adopting a reflexive stance throughout. It was for these reasons that I chose not only to build strategies of triangulation into the research design but also to record observations within Shakespeare School of what Stake (1995) refers to as the ‘ordinary looking and thinking’ (p.49), as part of my research diary. In doing so I recognised that expertise and understanding of the data would develop through reflective practice, recording what was happening whilst examining its meaning, enhanced through the process of sharing and receiving feedback from others. Parlett and Hamilton (1976) refer to this as progressive focusing; whereby, the interpretation of the researcher focuses upon preserving the multiple realities of the case (Stake, 1995). As a researcher I made choices about the role I had within the research. I chose the role of a teacher-biographer, learning what the reader would need to know in order to understand the complexity of the case in full. Through the thesis, the biography of the case as well as a good learning experience are provided. Flyvberg indicates that case study is rigorous, in that it is characterized by an approach aimed at falsification as opposed to verification. Within my research, the research design, methods of data selection, systems of checking understanding and the use of Thematic Analysis all reflect the bias towards falsification. For example, my reflection earlier within this chapter captures the preconception that the curriculum within Shakespeare School was responsible for the success of the school. This led to the literature search and data collection not aimed at verification, but in fact the opposite. As a result, within subsequent chapters of this thesis the curriculum will be shown to be only part of the picture of the school’s success.

The final misunderstanding Flyvberg (2006) considers is that it is difficult to summarize general theories and formulae based upon the narrative of case study. Flyvberg recognises the strength of case study is in presenting the rich description of a case, with summary and generalisation not viewed as the purpose of case study. As seen earlier in this section the

68

relevance of case study for particularization and naturalistic generalization was referred to. Summarising a case for a reader is therefore seen as closing that case, providing an opportunity to loose information regarded as valuable for both particularization and naturalistic generalization within that summary. Summarising a case study and losing that narrative detail, should not be regarded as the same as summarising case study outcomes. Flyvberg (2006) acknowledges that in challenging and adding to existing theory a summary of those outcomes will be made. Within this thesis those outcomes will be analysed within Chapter Five and presented in Chapter Six.