The methodology of research, in Denzin & Lincoln’s (2011) view, is mainly about ‘how we can know the world or “gain knowledge of it” (p.12). Shaped by the understandings of the nature of knowledge (epistemology) and the reality of the world (ontology), the choices of methodology warrant the methods of knowing the world. As methods and techniques emerge in relation to ‘how’, the methodology provides the theoretical standpoint that connects the research problem and the method(s) to seek the reality that the researcher believes in.
87
Methodology is the strategy or plan of action which lies behind the researcher’s choice and the specific methods (Crotty, 1998). As choices are made on the bases of why, what, from where, when, and how data is collected and analysed; the need to be informed about theoretical perspectives of qualitative paradigm can take a back seat. However, ensuring that knowledge of the methods does not take a back seat, and in light of the view that the nature of reality is individual, subjective, and multiple; this study has chosen a case study method, using the technique of semi-structured interviewing to gain an in-depth look into the others’ realities.
As Denzin & Lincoln (2014) write, “…each practice makes the world visible in a different way” (p.7). Out of the diverse methods of research, the case study method has the capacity to bring advantages to both qualitative and quantitative research. A case study is defined as “…an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident” (Yin, 1994, p.13). As Yin’s definition highlights, case studies yield many advantages that this study can benefit from. To begin with, a case can be a phenomenon, situation, or an event examined by an investigator, and the view that a ‘case’ is looked at and examined to find solutions decides the investigation. Viewing the others’ actions that are situated in their own socio-cultural worlds and trying to interpret them through the
interpreter’s own lenses can create dilemmas. Therefore, as a case study facilitates studying the others in their real-life contexts, seeking and interpreting the others’ views in their natural habitat is a genuine advantage for the qualitative researcher.
A case study allows the exploration of the relevant issues in more depth (Yin, 2003), facilitating the in-depth interpretation of large volumes of data involving complex contextual issues. They are also particularly suited to answering, ‘how and why’ questions (Yin, 2011). Therefore, a case study approach is appropriate for this study, since it asks ‘how’ (the
teaching practices can contribute to foster critical thinking in learners) and ‘why’ (developing critical thinking in learners is important), while trying to find answers through the others’ beliefs, sociocultural traditions, and academic practices.
Case studies fall into three major categories based on the outcomes they yield (Yin, 2014). Since these categories facilitate a researcher’s decision-making process, choosing a case study approach can be compelling. The three categories include,
88
(a) Exploratory case studies which contribute to forming research questions. In particular, exploratory case studies are used to explore situations where the case has no single set of outcomes.
(b) Descriptive case studies which influence theory building through analysis of comprehensive descriptions. Their strength lies in describing phenomena in their real-life contexts, which they occur.
(c) Explanatory case studies influence to promoting theory testing as the ‘how and why’ questions examine relations between theoretical stances. Seeking to answer a question to explain the causal link in real-life interventions, takes into
consideration contextual, social explanations.
These categories show that they have the capacity to explore, describe, and explain. Thus, in order to ask and answer the questions of ‘how and why’ by exploring, describing, and explaining the others’ views; I have chosen to follow an explanatory case study method.
However, a key argument is that qualitative case studies have issues about generalizing the outcomes of a study. Responding to this issue, Yin (2014) asserts that analytic
generalization is more efficient than statistical generalization in qualitative case studies. Yin’s justification is that a chosen sample cannot always represent the larger population as there are inconsistencies such as socio-economic, political, or demographic among social groups. Therefore, the key to analytic generalization is constructing a valid and logically constructed argument able to withstand challenges.
An analytic argument needs to be built in relation to the reviewed literature, enabling comparison and supporting/challenging through the findings of the study. In light of that, the current research remains hopeful that it would be able to demonstrate how the main argument of the research, i.e. critical thinking needs to be fostered in Omani students through EFL teaching, can be theoretically advanced to situations other than the chosen sample. For instance, Vaughan’s (1996) single case study generalizes its findings as analytic
generalizations, rather than statistical generalizations (cited in Yin, 2014, p.31). Vaughan’s study centres the tragedy of the loss of space shuttle ‘Challenger’ in 1986 of which the official conclusion was ruled as human error. Vaughn’s argument is that ‘mistakes happen’, and that the society understands this because the possibility of mistakes occurring in general, is ‘built into the nature of professions, organizations, cultures, structures’.
89
Vaughan adds that professional behaviour can be deviated and transformed into even ‘unacknowledged’ behaviours, challenging the decision-making under different types of institutional pressures. Thus, Yin (2014) points out how Vaughan tries to generalize her findings, emphasising that even research shows distortions that result from different ways of doing research (different domains/technological terms etc.). Both Vaughan and Yin seem to argue for analytic generalisation of the findings of qualitative studies.
The strengths of case studies are many. The ability to deal with multiple sources of evidence, enabling the convergence of data in a ‘triangulating manner’ is a unique advantage to case study users (Yin, 2014). This shows that case studies can maintain different sources of evidence, linking and triangulating simultaneously. The major sources can comprise
interviews, observation, and document analysis, archival records, and physical artefacts (Yin, 2014), enabling researchers to ‘listen, observe, and examine’ when seeking explanations. Researchers can maximise the outcomes of their studies by using the varied sources of evidence in designing research. These reasons have influenced the use of semi-structured interviewing in my research, contributing to triangulating data (as described on p.101) and maximising the research outcomes.
On the other hand, there can also be disadvantages of case study approaches. The strength of ‘why and how’ questions can also indicate a broader sense of investigation rather than a specific range of phenomena or data. Yin’s (2014) view is that revisiting theoretical stances and conducting pilot studies will help to identify the relevant phenomena and narrow down the broader scopes that initially presented. Another resolution is to design a research protocol, reflecting the strategic plan of the preliminary research design which allows the researcher to integrate, revisit and revise research characteristics that are unique to individual projects (Yin, 2014, p.102). Consequently, since a research protocol can raise awareness of ‘time, depth, and scope’, having a plan can lessen the impacts of large volumes of data and data collection (that can include time/labour issues).
Influenced by these characteristics, the case study design of my research underpins triangulating strategies that can maximise research outcomes. For instance, the two sets of research participants (teachers and students) corroborate the data provided by each other. Moreover, the pilot study that this research includes, helps to establish the validity, enhancing
90
the trustworthiness of the research. Thus, following Yin (2011), the design of my case study includes,
(a) the main research question asking how and why,
(b) the six sub-questions emanating from the main research theme, asking how and why, (c) the unit of analysis as participants from a single institute of SQU which is the case, (d) the logic that is linking data to what the research is questioning, and
(e) the criteria for interpreting the research findings.
The questions that ask how and why help to focus on the goals of the study. Internal validity is managed by making the relationships between the topic, participants, and the context clear. External validity is established by explaining the elements, situations, and phenomena clearly to the readers so that they can be applied to other situations expecting similar results (Yin, 2011). This shows that a case study, as a research strategy, is an ‘all encompassing’ method.