Case Study

In determining whether this research setting can be called a ‘case study’ it is necessary to define and examine the boundaries which define a case study. While the case study is an accepted social science research practice, there is little

69 consensus on whether it is a method, a methodology or even a research paradigm (Mertens, 2010). Stake (2005:443) refers to it ‘not as a methodological choice but a choice of what is to be studied’ while it is ‘a distinct research paradigm’ according to Hammersley and Gomm (2000:5). There is consensus in the literature identifying a case study as a unique unit of study, focusing on one thing, one subject or one particular event from which it is difficult to generalise (Cohen & Manion, 1994; Cohen, Manion et al, 2007; Thomas, 2011; Wellington, 2000).

A particular subject or event is the focus of the case study and in determining its suitability as a case study should have a ‘how’ or ‘why’ question (Thomas, 2011; Yin, 2009) emerging from this ‘contemporary set of events over which the investigator has little or no control’ (Yin 2002:9). The case is a study of real people in real situations (Cohen et al, 2007) and unlike experiments where researchers create the case to be studied, ‘case study researchers construct cases out of naturally occurring social situations’ (Hammersley and Gomm, 2000:3). This research setting is a contemporary classroom where I facilitate a student driven discussion. What is discussed is driven by students’ experiences in their placement over which I as researcher have no control. My role is to facilitate a collaborative, socially constructed learning discussion.

Does the research question fit a case study criterion? According to Stake (2005) there are three classifications of case study case; (1) the intrinsic case, (2) the instrumental case and (3) the collective case study. This research aligns with the instrumental case, which allows insight into a particular issue where the case is secondary to understanding the research issue. This case is using the college and community module to explore the influence, if any, of class based peer interaction on collaborative learning in a H.E. classroom. Thomas (2011) argues that a case study should have a subject and an analytical frame or object. It is a single case study of one subject (Collaborative Learning), focusing on one unique situation (The College and Community Module) exploring one aspect of the situation

70 (Class Based Peer Interaction) from a number of different perspectives. This case study is of real people in a real situation and provides a conduit to answer a specific research question; therefore it does fulfil the criteria of case study methodology.

While the case study is an accepted approach to small scale research, the benefits and traditional prejudices associated with this approach must be acknowledged. The strengths of the case study lie in their attention to detail, the ability to drill down (O’Leary, 2010; Thomas, 2011), to focus on just one setting (Wellington, 2000), and that that setting has a strong focus on reality, as case studies normally focus on naturally occurring research contexts and can probe into research questions not suitable for numerical analysis (Cohen et al, 2007). It allows for a researcher to seek underlying reasons, question people’s feelings and experiences during the research which can be key determinants to understanding the process under investigation (Gillham, 2000; Yin, 2009). These strengths combined allow a researcher and the subsequent reader a real insight into the uniqueness of the research setting and a greater understanding of that social setting and the subsequent research results. Thomas (2011) reflects that in a case study one should be able to; ‘Smell human breath and hear the sound of voices’ (Thomas: 2011: 7).

Conversely the case study has its limitations: it is perceived as analytical rather than generalizable, biased despite a researcher’s attempts to be reflective and subsequently subjective, and personal rather than objective. These limitations question a researcher’s interpretation of data (Wellington, 2000) and raise concerns in relation to generalizability, rigour and validity (Thomas, 2011; Yin, 2009) discussed in detail in the data analysis section below.

71 3.4.3 Insider Case Study

This insider case study has a strong ethnographic perspective. According to Tedlock (2005) ethnographers were expected to live in their research realm for ‘an extended period of time (2 years ideally), actively participate in the daily life of its members, and carefully observe their joys and sufferings as a way of obtaining material for social scientific study’ (pg. 467). Alvesson (2003:167) comments on the rarity of academics who study the ‘lived realities’ of their own organisation…such as …interactions with students, recognising the difficulties of studying something ‘one is heavily involved in’ yet also recognising that being an insider ‘may be a resource as much as a liability’ (pg. 167). In my study the research period is one semester, so this is not a longitudinal study. Many of the ethnographic issues of access, closeness and trust experienced by ethnographic researchers are also key concerns in insider research discussed below.

The literature identifies an insider researcher as a member of the organisation under study and someone who has a ‘lived familiarity with the group being researched’ (Griffith, 1998:261). In my normal role as both programme leader and class tutor I will facilitate the TCL sessions. There are opposing views in the literature on participant observation. Hockey (1993) believes that as an insider in the organisation, a researcher will blend in and is less likely to alter research results, while Mercer (2007) outlines the importance of rapport with participants and that the credibility of an insider researcher may result in greater honesty from the participants. In contrast, others suggest that insiders may have a greater impact on the research than an outsider (Griffith, 1998; Hockey, 1993; Mercer, 2007) with a researcher being told what participants think the researcher wants to hear, or simply being afraid to tell the researcher the truth because of their insiderness. Managing role duality as an insider researcher is important in the research process and the need to be aware of this on-going dual role challenge, means putting balancing mechanisms in place to avoid shaping research outcomes (Coughlan and Brannick, 2005). With my longitudinal perspective of this TCL environment,

72 I am aware of my potential to influence the research and will have to manage the challenges of bias in context.

The benefits of insider research are varied and span from a researcher having access to the participants; a working tacit knowledge of the research environment, and an understanding of the ‘language’ of the research environment (Hockey, 1993; Mercer, 2007). In relation to this research study, I benefit from access to the student participants, scheduled timetabled facilitator sessions, a good working relationship with the students and a familiarity with the host organisations in which the students are placed. The challenges for me as a researcher are making the familiar unfamiliar so the mundane which could be important is not overlooked (DeWalt and DeWalt, 2002). Once again I am aware that I have lived this environment for the last nine years and consequently will have to stay focused and vigilant, constantly questioning the familiar (O’Leary, 2010; Mercer, 2007).

The topic under investigation poses a direct ethical dilemma for me as a researcher. How overt or covert should I be in relation to the research question, and the implications of both approaches in terms of altering or changing student behaviour? I will explain to the students that the classroom CL sessions will be recorded and studied to help gain insights into group learning. This overt approach creates its own difficulties and Sikes (2004:29) argues that in terms of research relationships, it is ethical that the participants ‘are given as much information as possible and as they require’. By taking the honest overt approach, a researcher risks the students changing their behaviour, but by being dishonest and covert in approach, may yield more natural interaction from the participants (Sikes, 2004). In order to be fair to both, the participants and the research the students are told that the research is on collaborative learning but the explicit research questions are not discussed. This decision is supported by Sikes (2004) and Silverman (2011:200) who discuss the possibilities of contaminating a research study ‘by informing subjects too specifically about the research questions

73 to be studied’, adding to the importance of keeping the research specifics private, as is in this study.

The power dynamic in the research must be addressed. The social power I wield is significant in this study as both programme leader and class tutor. Social power is described as the power one holds in a specific situation or environment, Sikes (2004:30) refers to it as ‘the balance of power between researcher and researched’. There is a compulsory 80% attendance requirement on this module; consequently the power dynamic appears to favour me. Students must attend this module to pass. My role in this study is to facilitate the TCL class-based interaction. Acknowledging the power associated with this role and having considered its impact in this TCL environment, I felt compelled to make a conscious decision to speak only when necessary, to probe or clarify peer conversations but not to control or lead the discussion, allowing the power balance to lie with the students who drive the TCL in the facilitation sessions (Costley et al, 2010).