Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
ABSTRACT
G
ood quality research is essential. However ensuring the quality of
qualitative research is not as easy as it sounds. An important question in
qualitative and evaluation research is centred on the question of how the
credibility of the research could be enhanced? This is especially true in research
aimed at theory development when a case study strategy is utilised. This is the
main theme of this article.
Utilising criteria for quality research is one way of doing it. However, as pointed
out in this article, due to the different ontological and epistemological beliefs of
researchers belonging to the various paradigms, the criteria for trustworthy,
credible research can never meet everyone’s approval. Therefore a growing
number of scholars (Schwandt 1996) have moved beyond measuring the quality
of research by using criteria to implement specific strategies for managing the
research process. In general these strategies are also applicable to case studies.
However, because the case study strategy is intertwined with theory
development, it is reasoned that there are specific formalised strategies aimed
at generating theory that could be used to enhance of the quality of case
study research. It is also argued that strategies using both an inductive and
deductive approach to theory development could be used to construct a more
comprehensive methodology for developing theory in case study research.
Firstly, qualitative research is not a new approach for social study. Spanning
many decades, it has witnessed various changes throughout the years. Furthermore,
it has encircled various traditions and practices with a number of exponents. Notably,
qualitative research has used various approaches and methods of collecting, analysing
and interpreting data, as well as writing qualitative reports.
Secondly, qualitative research is constantly changing. It is clear that as we strive to make
sense of the social world and create new knowledge or revisit what we know we tend to
use approaches spanning various disciplines in the social sciences. Furthermore, we are
increasingly relying on humanities-based approaches and practices. Shank (2006:218) writes:
“One thing is for sure – qualitative research will continue to change. Qualitative research has
been in motion ever since it first started coming together as a cohesive movement, and there
is no reason to suppose that it will not continue to grow and develop”.
Thirdly, qualitative research is an umbrella term for different approaches to this type
of research. Notably, each has its own theoretical background, methodological principles
and aims (Flick, 2007:6). Denzin and Lincoln (2005:xv): write: “There is no one way to
do interpretive, qualitative inquiry. We are all interpretive bricolage stuck in the present
working against the past as we move into a politically charged and challenging future
(emphasis in original)”.
Finally, in light of the ever-changing nature of this field of study, there is no uniform
definition for qualitative research. As Denzin and Lincoln (2005:xv) state: “The open-
ended nature of the qualitative research project leads to a perpetual resistance against
attempts to impose a single, umbrella paradigm over the entire project”.
Nevertheless, for our purposes it is useful to have some understanding of qualitative
research of which arguably the most realistic is taken from the second edition of The
Handbook of Qualitative Research (2000): “Qualitative research is an interdisciplinary,
transdisciplinary, and sometimes counterdisciplinary field. It crosscuts the humanities,
the social sciences, and the physical sciences. Qualitative research is many things at the
same time. It is multiparadigmatic in focus. Its practitioners are sensitive to the value of
the multimethod approach. They are committed to the naturalistic perspective and to the
interpretive understanding of human experience. At the same time, the field is inherently
political and shaped by multiple ethical and political allegiances. Qualitative research
embraces two tensions at the same time. On the one hand, it is drawn to a broad, interpretive,
postexperimental, postmodern, feminist, and critical sensibility. On the other hand, it is
shaped to more narrowly defined positivist, postpositivist, humanistic, and naturalistic
conceptions of human experience and its analysis” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000:1048).
Case studies are used when investigators have little control over events and when the
focus is on contemporary phenomena within a real-life context – especially when the
boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident. Qualitative case
Case study research needs to be carefully planned and designed. The following questions
may be helpful when designing a case study (cf. Simons 2009):
• How would you constitute your case? For example what is your unit of analysis (a
classroom, an institution, a programme)?
• Where do the boundaries of your case lie? (They might change; the event is sometimes
only decided at the end)
• What audiences do you hope to address?
• What key questions (for example evaluation questions) or foreshadowed issues may
guide your collection of data? What is the rationale/theory for each?
• What is your criterion for selection of the case or cases – intrinsic, instrumental, other
region or acceptability?
• What ethical norms/guidelines will underpin your data collection and analysis and
how would you do this?
• Do you want to engage participants in the identification of issues, data gathering and
analysis and how would you do this?
• Do you wish to start with a theoretical framework or generate a theory of the case?
• Whose values matter – participants, stakeholders, institution?
• Which methods (the most appropriate) are you going to use to gain an understanding
of the issues?
Some researchers suggest that one of the problems of case study research is that
one cannot generalise. In fact, this is not the case. However, the way in which one
generalises from a case differs from adopted forms of research that utilise large samples
and quantitative measures. There are two particular ways to approach this issue. One
is to examine how we can generalise from the case to another situation of a similar
or dissimilar nature. The other is to find out what we can learn more directly from the
case itself. All these forms of generalisation are not formal propositional generalisations.
Moreover, all maintain a connection with the context in which they were generated. The
following forms (cf. Simons, 2009:164-7 and Flyvbjerg, 2006:224-228)) of generalising
from the single case are highlighted:
Cross-case generalisation – is adopted in a collective or multi-site case study where
common issues are identified across cases and interconnecting themes. There is a degree
of abstraction and it is the closest to propositional form.
Naturalistic generalisation – recognises similarities and differences to cases with
which readers are familiar, appeals to tacit knowledge, provides vicarious experience and
is useful in policy context and professional practice.
Concept generalisation – identifies a concept theorised in the case, which has
significance in other cases – whether similar or dissimilar.
Triangulation
Triangulation is an activity where more than one methodological approach is brought
to bear on a single point with the aim to enhance scientific rigour (Denzin, 1989:235).
Researchers using the case study strategy could therefore systematically triangulate more
than one case (the collective case study); investigator; paradigm (mixed methods) theory
and methods of data gathering and analysis with the aim of enhancing the scientific rigour
of their studies (Flick, 2007:42-44).
Peer debriefing
This involves exposing oneself to a disinterested peer in an analytical session and using the peer
as a sounding board for new ideas, insights and hunches gained during the research process.
Member checks
Member checks are performed by “testing” the data, analytic categories, interpretations
and conclusions with members of those groups from whom the data was originally
obtained. This can be done both formally and informally during the course of observation
and conversation (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008).
External auditing
With this strategy a researcher who is not involved in the research process examines “both
the process and product of the research study. The purpose is to evaluate the accuracy and
evaluate whether the findings, interpretations, and conclusions are supported by the data”
(Cohen & Crabtree, 2008).
CONCLUSION
ase studies have an important function in generating hypotheses and building
theory (cf. e.g. Eisenhardt, 1989). Today scientists agree that case studies could
well be used to generate hypotheses, as well as hypothesis testing. A high-quality
NOTES
1 See Schurink, 2009.
2 “Intellectual puzzles can and do take a variety of forms connected to the ontological and epistemological positions
encapsulated in the research, and grounded within the specific context of their research problem. It is also the case that
different theoretical and intellectual traditions in the social sciences are preoccupied with different kinds of intellectual
puzzles, and consequently different kinds of social explanation” (Mason, 1996:15).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baxter, P. and Jack, S. 2008. Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation
for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report. 13(4): 544–559.
Bailey, K.D. 1978. Methods of Social Science Research. New York: The Free Press.
Cohen, D.J. and Crabtree, B.F. 2008. Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care:
Controversies and Recommendations. Annals of Family 6, Medicine available at http://www.
annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/6/4/331.
Creswell, J. 2007. Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches. Thousand
Oaks: SAGE.
David, M. (Ed.). 2006. Editor’s Introduction. Case study research: SAGE benchmarks in social
research methods. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Denzin, N.K. 1978. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. 2005. Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research
(3rd ed.) London: Sage.