The value of the ethnographic case study

For ethnography to have validity as a research method, it needs to establish a clear framework for the research, and ensure research methods are clear and robust. The case study research method functions well within an ethnographic framework. In an educational setting the ethnographic case study has the advantage of enabling an holistic analysis of complex social situations (Denscombe, 2007, p. 45). A case study is like a snapshot image of a place, group, or individual, where ‘the general objective is to develop as full an understanding of that case as possible’ (K. Punch, 2005, p. 144) . It is about the process rather than the outcomes, discovery rather than confirmation, (Merriam, 1988, p. xii). Sociologists (Merriam, 1988; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003) have categorised case studies in a variety of ways. Yin (2003) divides them into exploratory, descriptive and explanatory. The latter, is most relevant here as it moves beyond pure description and links the case to testing or generating theory. It allows the case study to be placed in a conceptual framework, not to be viewed in isolation; this fits with my research questions focusing on how the Catholic school coheres as a community and with wider society, looking to generate theory from data, rather than find data to test a theory.

Three essential characteristics of an ethnographic case study are ‘thick description’, emic observations, and clear boundaries. The relevance of Geertz’s understanding of thick description has been explored in the previous section. The emphasis of emic observations is on adopting the framework and perspectives of the participants rather than on the etic framework, that is those brought by the researchers own culture (Conteh, Gregory, Kearney, & Mor-Sommerfield, 2005). Emic observations focus on the participants’ understanding or perceptions of the events, not on whether they are true or not, (Merriam, 1988, p. 30). One focus of my research study is exploring how Catholic pupils perceive both their own identity and also the identity of their school community, and how they construct this perception. It is not to try and assess whether their perceptions correspond to an outside reality, but how they cohere in their worldview. Early examples of educational ethnographic research (Burgess, 1984c) assumed that we could discover the participants’ understanding of reality, but more recent studies (Haw, 1998) question if we do have access to participants perceptions.

I can only tell my ‘truth’ and I can never be sure the ‘stories that I am told are not merely ‘stories’ told for my benefit (as a white, western, non-Muslim woman) or whether they are even the ‘truths’ of the people telling them. (Haw, 1998, p. 2)

Nevertheless, to return to the concept of subtle realism, ethnography is constrained by a reality that does exist externally. However, the participants’ perceptions of the reality can be limited; they do not have access to all knowledge

certain aspects as they are too close to them (L. Cohen, et al., 2000, p. 156). This also raises the question of the reality being described by participants being the one they wish existed; they may describe their school environment as being inclusive and tolerant as that is how they think it should be. Therefore, any ethnographic research observation is important in so far as it enables us to come to a clearer conclusion as to whether participants are doing what they say they are doing (Stringer, 1999).

The third essential characteristic is the delimitation of boundaries, in other words, it has to be made clear what is outside the case in the study (Ragin & Becker, 1994, p. 1). Both a temporal boundary and a geographical boundary need to be clearly established. For example in this research, the schools will be chosen from within the Catholic education system in England and the research is limited to the years between 2005 and 2010. The boundary around the issue studied is the most difficult to define, yet crucial if one is to avoid collecting too much data or degenerating into simple description. Harper (1994) argues that the boundaries need to be established by the participants; ‘to understand the community which radiates out of an individual’s working world one must see it from the point of view of the individual’ (Harper, 1994, p. 146). The limitation of boundaries has a theoretical dimension, involving a selection of only the data relevant to the research questions. It is also essential, that in the present case, the Catholic schools, are not viewed in isolation, but that one shows awareness of the cultural context, (Merriam, 1988, p. 23) such as the wider context of the Catholic community, the historical development of Catholic education in Britain and the

One value of the educational ethnographic case study is that it allows for clear links between the case and the intended audience, for example the practitioners in the field, who are concerned with ‘individuals, not aggregates’ (Donmoyer, 1990, p. 197). Its aim is ‘to understand human behaviour at ever increasing depth and to communicate this deepening understanding to others’ (Nesbitt, 2004b, p. 5). It aims to communicate directly with teachers and policy makers. Ball’s (1984) research in Beachside school resulted in a written report, in narrative form that is accessible to the intended audience. Donmoyer (1990, p. 183) argues that quantitative studies can only inform the practitioner in the field, as the findings do not automatically apply to all individuals in the field and can encourage the construction of stereotypes. If the priority is how research aids the individual practitioner, learning through ‘vicarious experience’ is arguably preferable to learning through direct experience. This is for three main reasons, a) accessibility - any individual cannot access all experiences, b) seeing an event, an experience from a different perspective through the researcher’s eyes and c) decreased defensiveness; it is easier for example for teachers to learn from others’ experiences than to confront a phenomenon in their own work (Donmoyer, 1990).

The ethnographic case study does encounter challenges in representing reality discovered, for example ethnography’s emphasis on the visible and the said, ‘narrations, pieces of information, conversations, and discourse’ (Hirschauer, 2006, p. 422). What is not said or made visible can escape notice if the focus is

the field’s power relations, or silenced by cultural norms, is not accessible to sociological discourse. Ethnography in schools ‘privileges the visible and the audible’ (Gordon, Holland, Lahelma, & Tolonen, 2005). Being aware of what is not done or said, is crucial in any ethnography, and is very relevant in this present research. In interviewing young people who are not very articulate about their thoughts, or have never considered the issues that are being researched, it must be ensured that this silence, and the resultant absence of data, is noted and made visible. A major drawback of ethnographic research is that it can only be a snapshot. There is a danger that it creates and crystallises ‘ethnic’ distinctions and distinctiveness (Nesbitt, 2004b, p. 7). Ethnography can risk emphasising the differences, and ignore the fuzziness, the fluidity of everyday beliefs and experiences. This flaw can be lessened, by using a multiple method approach, involving triangulation, generalisability, and a clear link to theory (see Chapter 5).

Case study research has been heavily criticised for lack of: rigour, external validity, reliability and generalisability (Robson, 2002, p. 180; Yin, 2003, p. 9). At its worst, a case study is simply a description of one particular instance in time, which has no relevance to other cases or theories. It is important to establish how to counter these possible failings, before commencing research. Yin (2003) argues that for generalisability, a case study should aim to interpret its findings through a theoretical framework, either seeking to prove or disprove a theory and the researcher should seek out at least one other case.

A multiple case study is much more robust…and you are still able to arrive at same conclusions then that can lead to external generalisability. (Yin, 2003, p. 54)

Educational ethnographic case study research cannot make the same claims as experimental research, as each case is unique in itself, and because it is dealing with human beings it contains a multitude of variables (Bassey, 2001, p. 20). Researchers have attempted to overcome these problems of validity in a variety of ways. Hammersley (1992) maps out three ways of achieving external validity: obtaining information about the population as a whole and comparing the case to them, using survey research on a random sample of cases and co-ordinating several ethnographic studies. The last two ways are beyond the scope of the individual student researcher, but generalisability could be achieved through comparison with other similar studies undertaken with one’s target population, (Silverman, 2005, p. 129) in other words ‘fitting your case in the overall picture, showing how similar the case is to others of its type’ (Denscombe, 2007, pp. 43- 44). In his study of Beachside comprehensive school, Ball (1981) argues that the school was typical of most comprehensive schools at that time (Hammersley, 1992, p. 86). On the other hand, Donmoyer (1990) and Stake (1995) argue case study research concerns ‘particularisation, not generalisation’ (Stake, 1995, p. 8). The lack of generalisability is not such an issue as all research is tentative especially in ‘fields such as education, … in which there is a concern with the individual’ (Donmoyer, 1990, p. 183). However, in my opinion the findings of this present research will be more valid and reliable if substantiated in more than one case, thus the multi site case study approach is more appropriate, although

sufficient data needs to be collected and documented to supply evidence to support the findings of the report (Silverman, 2005, p. 224), and there needs to be clear evidence of the methods used (see further Chapter 6).

An alternative solution to the problem of generalisation is ‘fuzzy generalisation’ (Bassey, 2001) as opposed to statistical generalisation (Bell, 2005, p. 12). Bassey (2001) focuses on the concept of relatability, building on an emphasis on the need for ‘thick description’ so that one has all the necessary information to make ‘an informed judgment about issues of fit’ between the situation that is being studied and others (Bell, 2005, p. 12). It is a qualified form of generalisabilty, focusing on possibility rather than certainty. Although Hammersley (2001) disputes Bassey’s conclusions about fuzzy generalisation, Pratt (2003) claims it is of value as it is more beneficial to practitioners, and enables them to engage in debate with research. It is important that generalisability can be achieved through the concept of fuzzy generalisation, clear comparisons between the case and other similar case studies, and the establishment of strong links between the case and theory. In this research design, the case study functions as a means of generating data about the situation in Catholic schools in England in the early twenty-first century. For it to be more than a description, the findings will be linked to social theory; showing that the data ‘fits with’ or ‘challenges’ the predictions of theories about the development of social capital, or the development of perception of religious identity.