Research Methods

4.5.1. An Introduction to Case Study Research

Regarding the scope of the case study, Yin (1981) states “a case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in depth and within its real-time context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.” “In other words, you would use the case study method because you wanted to understand a real-life phenomenon in depth, but such understanding encompassed important contextual conditions - because they were highly pertinent to your phenomenon of study” (Yin and Davis, 2007). This first part of the logic of design therefore helps to distinguish case studies from the other research methods.

Take an experiment, for instance, which “deliberately divorces a phenomenon from its context, attending to only a few variables (typically, the context is ‘controlled’ by the laboratory environment). A history, by comparison, does deal with the entangled situation between phenomenon and context, but usually with non-contemporary events. Finally surveys can try to deal with phenomenon and context, but their ability to investigate the context is extremely limited” (Yin, 2009).

“The case study inquiry copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be many more variables of interest than data points, and as one result relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data needing to converge in a triangulating fashion, and as another result benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis” (Yin, 2009).

Yin believes that case study research is an interactive and linear process, as is demonstrated in the following graph.

Figure 4.2. Process of Doing Case Study Research

Source: Yin (2009, p. 1)

4.5.2. Limitations of Case Study Research

There is no perfect research methodology. According to Yin (2009), “as a research endeavour, case studies have been viewed as a less desirable form of inquiry than either experiments or surveys. Perhaps the greatest concern has been over the lack of rigour of case study research. Too many times, the case study investigator has been sloppy, has not followed systematic procedure, or has allowed equivocal evidence or biased views to influence the direction of the findings and conclusions. Such lack of rigour is less likely to be present when using the other methods - possibly because of the existence of numerous methodological texts providing investigators with specific procedures to be followed”.

The next common concern about case studies is that “they provide little basis for scientific generalisation. ‘How can you generalise from a single case?’ is a frequently heard question. The answer is not simple (Kennedy, 1976). However, consider for the moment that the same question had been asked about an experiment: ‘How can you generalise from a single experiment?’ In fact, scientific facts are rarely based on single experiments; they are usually based on a multiple set of experiments that have

Plan Design Collect

Prepare

Share Analyse

replicated the same phenomenon under different conditions. The same approach can be used with multiple-case studies but requires a different concept of the appropriate research designs. The short answer is that case studies, like experiments, are generalisable to theoretical propositions and not to populations or the universe. In this sense, the case study, like the experiment, does not represent a ‘sample’, and doing a case study, like an experiment, does not represent a ‘sample’, and in doing a case study, your goal will be to expand and generalise theories (analytic generalisation) and not to enumerate frequencies (statistical generalisation)” (Yin, 2009).

Yin (2009) explains that “A third frequent complaint about case studies is that they take too long, and they result in massive, unreadable documents. This complaint may be appropriate, given the way case studies have been done in the past (Feagin, Orum and Sjoberg, 1991), but this is not necessarily the way case studies - yours included - must be done in the future.

“A fourth possible objection to case studies has seemingly emerged with the renewed emphasis, especially in education and related research, on randomised field trials or true experiments. Such studies aim to establish causal relationships – that is, whether a particular ‘treatment’ has been efficacious in producing a particular ‘effect’

(Jadad, 1998). In the eyes of many, the emphasis has led to a downgrading of case study research because case studies (and other types of non-experimental methods) cannot directly address this issue” (Yin, 2009).

4.5.3. Justification for selecting the Case Study as the Research Method

As a research method, the case study is used in many situations to contribute to our knowledge of individual, group, organisational, social, political, and related phenomena. Not surprisingly, the case study has been a common research method in psychology, sociology, political science, anthropology, social work, business, education, nursing and community planning. Case studies are even found in economics, in which the structure of a given industry or the economy of a city or a region may be investigated. In all of these situations, the distinctive need for case studies arises out of the desire to understand complex social phenomena. In brief, “the case study method allows investigators to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events - such as individual life cycles, small group behaviour, organisational and managerial processes, neighbourhood change, school performance, international relations, and the maturation of industries” (Yin, 2009).

This research has adopted case study research as its research methodology because, as Yin (2009) mentions, “the more that your questions seek to explain some present circumstance (e.g. ‘how’ or ‘why’ some social phenomenon works), the more that the case study method will be relevant. The method is also relevant the more that your questions require an extensive and ‘in-depth’ description of some social phenomenon”.

The main research question in this research starts with “how”, thus this research is NOT based on ‘Survey Strategy’. A research would be considered having Survey as its research strategy if its research question starts with ‘what’ and it requires very wide number of participants, advanced and noticeable statistical analysis, theory-testing approach (Saunders et al., 2009); however, this study is looking for different and even, it can be argued, opposite requirements. This research is a theory-building study that relies on data collection from a relatively small number of participants and employs only a very basic form of statistics for part of analysis.

4.5.4. Rationale for Selecting Multiple-Case Strategies

This research has chosen ‘Multiple-case’ as its research strategy because of working on 15 cases/universities. Regarding the reasoning behind the selection of multiple-case strategies, Yin (2009) believes that “The rationale for multiple-multiple-case designs derives directly from your understanding of literal and theoretical replications. The simplest multiple-case design would be the selection of two or more cases that are believed to be literal replications, such as a set of cases with exemplary outcomes in relation to some evaluation questions, such as ‘how and why a particular intervention has been implemented smoothly?’ Selecting such cases requires prior knowledge of the outcomes, with the multiple-case inquiry focusing on how and why the exemplary outcomes might have occurred and hoping for literal (or direct) replications of these conditions from case to case.

" More complicated multiple-case strategies would likely result from the number and type of theoretical replications you might want to cover. For example, investigators have used a ‘two-tail’ design in which cases from both extremes (of some important theoretical condition, such as good and bad outcomes) have been deliberately chosen. Multiple-case rationales also can drive from the prior propositioning of different types of conditions and the desire to have sub-groups of cases covering each type. These and other similar designs are more complicated because the study should still have two individual cases for each of the sub-groups, so that the theoretical replications across sub-groups are complemented by literal replications within each subgroup” (Yin, 2003).

As already mentioned before, by considering all the advantages and relatedness of multiple-case strategies as well as the fact that this study includes 15 cases from two different countries (Saudi Arabia and the UK), the single case study is not suitable for this study. The focus of this research is on the perspectives of 63 academics and authorities from 15 different universities, and each of these universities is considered as a case in connection to other cases from the same country. Consequently, the appropriate case study strategy for this research is the multiple-case study.

According to Yin (2009) and all other scholars in research methodology (Bryman and Bell, 2008; Lancaster, 2008; Saunders et al., 2009), if a research is about more than one case study (more than one university, or one system, ...) that research is considered as a"Multiple Case Study". This research is NOT about 15 irrelevant cases

that are discussed separately. This research is a 'Comparative Study' of cases of a number of universities from two countries that are compared and contrasted with each other. Thus, this thesis’s research design is a Multiple Case study.

Due to matters of confidentially, the researcher cannot mention the names of these 15 universities that kindly accepted to be the research sites for this study. Nine out of 15 cases are British universities and six of these cases are Saudi universities.

Although the researcher tried to select these 15 cases in such a way as to be partly representative of these two nations, the number of cases and their geographical locations are not completely balanced. These 15 universities are chosen non-randomly based on their positive replies to the researcher’s requests that were sent to 24 universities. The following table summarises some information about these 15 cases.

Table 4.1. Introducing the 15 Case Studies

Code of Case Nationality Location Number of Academics universities were interviewed. No more details can be given because they may lead to identification of these cases that conflicts with confidentiality.

4.5.5. Avoiding Research Bias

According to Saunders et al. (2009), Validity and Reliability are two ways of

“reducing the possibility of getting the answer wrong”. Reliability ensures that chosen data collection techniques or analysis procedures will produce the proper results. Validity is related to “whether the findings are really about what they appear to be about” (Saunders et al., 2009 p. 157).

In order to achieve a high level of validity and reliability in interviews, some steps were prepared and followed to guarantee the absence of bias in the primary research.

According to Saunders et al. (2009, p. 328), “the 5Ps is a useful mantra: Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance”. He adds that this planning is critical when

“you are going to demonstrate your credibility and obtain the confidence of the interviewees”. Hence, in following the criteria of Saunders et al. (2009) and adapting them to primary research we will follow certain steps in order to guarantee validity and reliability:

a) The required general and quality-related information about the targeted universities and interviewees will be collected through universities’ websites prior to approaching academics and authorities in these universities.

b) Providing the interviewee with accurate information prior to the interview in order to gain his/her trust and to demonstrate that everything is clear and transparent without uncomfortable questions or topics.

c) The interviews will hopefully take place in the interviewee’s office or similar facility. If this is not the case, they will be carried out in another place which is trusted by the interviewee.

d) The researcher will wear the appropriate clothes suitable for a formal and professional interview.

e) An introduction will take the form of an informal conversation, which will include the researcher’s presentation as well as general comments about the interviewee, the university, background, etc.

f) No bias will be allowed to enter the way that the questions are presented.

g) Finally, the interview will be followed with maximum attention, taking notes and recording everything. In addition, the interviewees’ responses will be checked in order to make sure that everything has been understood correctly.