CASE STUDY AS A QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

DEFINING CASE STUDY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

As one of the most common approaches of qualitative research, case studies can include data that are quantitative or qualitative. However, the role of the researcher may be significantly different when conducting a qualitative study. Qualitative research approaches place the researcher in the position of an observer who, as such, must be able to use observations to accurately describe what is being studied in its natural setting (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). Beyond observation, the work of qualitative researchers often brings the researchers into direct contact with the subjects of their studies. This intentional pursuit includes gathering information that can include the subjects’ perspectives, opinions, and experiences. The information that is collected not only informs the researchers’ initial research question(s) but also may change or broaden them (Lodico et al., 2010).

Yin (1994) made disparaging references to the body of case study research in the literature when compared to experimental or quasi-experimental research. However, case studies may be the only alternative in some instances, considering the demands and rigidity of other types of research. The design of a case study can be a single case or a multiple case in structure. In a multiple case design, the purpose of the study is to replicate the findings over sampling methodology, according to Tellis (1997). The researcher is often limited to single-case designs when replication with other cases is not possible. Through either single case or multiple case designs, the results of a case study may not be generalizable to the populations being studied; instead, they are generalizable only to the theory (Yin, 1994).

The “quintessential characteristic of case studies” is the researcher’s attempt to understand “cultural systems of action”, referring to roles in which the participants in any social circumstance are examined (Feagin et al., 1991, p. 4). Such situations may often lead researchers to attempt to answer questions that are too general or to pursue excessive objectives for a single study (Baxter & Jack, 2008). According to Yin (2003) and Stake (1995), this can be avoided by setting up boundaries for the case study. Other researchers have also shared this concern and have offered suggestions on how to bind a case. These have included: 1) Creswell’s (2003) by time and place; 2) Stake’s (1995) by time and activity; and 3) Miles and Huberman’s (1994) by definition and context. Blackwell and Jack (2008) also assert that the maintenance of a reasonable scope for a study can be ensured by binding the case.

A minimum number of cases is not required for case studies, but the sturdiness of the theory that is developed is built on the results of multiple cases that are reinforced by pattern matching, which thereby increases confidence in the determined outcomes (Tellis, 1997). Establishing meaning, rather than location, is the challenge of case study methodology. The value of multiple data sources in triangulation supports Yin’s (1994) assertion regarding the need to ethically confirm that the validity of the process is addressed. For this reason, the use of a triangulated research strategy is central to the conduct of a case study. Triangulation can be accomplished through data, investigators, theories, and even methodologies, according to Feagin et al. (1991). As part of a triangulation research strategy, Stake (1995) includes protocols to help ensure accuracy and to explain alternate findings. Also helpful in conducting case studies are the five important research design components that have been identified by Yin (1994, p. 20), namely, 1) research question; 2) propositions, if any; 3) unit(s) of analysis; 4) logic linking the data to the propositions; and 5) criteria for interpreting the findings.

The recommendations of Stake (1995) and Yin (1994) are all helpful when a researcher is considering the design of a case study. Likewise, these components can be helpful in deciding whether a case study methodology is appropriate when studying a specific phenomenon.

WHEN IS A CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY APPROPRIATE?

When researching a particular topic, the decision to conduct a case study should be based on the design and focus of the researcher’s question(s) as well as any propositions being studied. Case studies offer multiple perspectives in analyses; the researcher considers not only the thoughts, opinions, and perspectives of those being interviewed but also the interviewees and their collective interactions. Case studies can bring attention to the powerless and the voiceless (Tellis, 1997). Several examples of case study methodology are referenced.

Several examples are listed by Yin (1993) in each case, along with the appropriate research design. General approaches to designing case studies are also offered by Yin (1993). These include case studies, which can be exploratory, explanatory, or descriptive in nature. These three approaches can also include single case or multiple case studies as replicatory, but not sampled, cases. Next, two case studies will be examined in detail, and their differences will be compared. The contents of these case studies will help to better explain and describe the ways in which mentoring and coaching differ. How these two interventions might be best used to support the development of improved teacher effectiveness and leadership are also examined. More recently, educators have also embraced the case method for instructional use (Tellis, 1997), which may also prove helpful in setting the stage for either of the two interventions.

Case studies are increasingly being used in education and can serve as helpful vehicles by which to deepen both the perspectives of the novice learner and what the learner understands, regarding the topic that is being explored (Tellis, 1997). It may be possible to strengthen the impact of mentoring and/or coaching sessions by discussing topic-related case studies as supplemental readings to enhance learner-centeredness, which Talbot (2009) found could prove valuable in developing learner insights. Talbot (2009) also described the benefits of placing less emphasis on formal exchanges and replacing them with an atmosphere that is more “exploratory and enabling” (p. 195). The contents of Table 1 offer further comparisons of the differences in two case studies. These include the research question(s), the chosen methodology, the data collection procedure, the interpretation of the results, and their connections with theory. Specific key aspects of the studies detailed are also described.

TABLE 1 Comparison of mentoring and coaching case studies

View Fullscreen

STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF CASE STUDIES

Mentoring and coaching, as possible personal development interventions, are available to a variety of organizations for improving human performance, according to reports by researchers and practitioners (Van Tiem et al., 2001; Whitworth et al., 2007). Conveying the critical components of mentoring or coaching approaches can be a challenging task for those trying to facilitate the development of desired sets of complex behaviors. Kahrs and Wells’ (2012) case study on mentoring is based on a mixed method approach with interviews conducted on five high-scoring, beginning teachers on the Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES) and their mentors. Blackman’s (2010) case study is focused on coaching as a tool for developing teacher leadership. Both researchers identified high levels of self-determination and efficacy as important contributors to successful participation in their respective interventions.

Beginning teachers who scored the highest measures on the TSES were selected by Kahrs and Wells (2012) for their case study. Four important and consistent themes were identified during the data collection phase of their study. Observations, role, articulation, and feedback were all identified as requiring a high level of attention when developing professional development plans for beginning teachers. Kahrs and Wells’ (2012) case study researched the question, “What aspects of mentoring relationships are most meaningful in the growth and development of beginning teachers?” (p. 41). Interviews were conducted using Sergiovanni’s (2000; 2005) application of the concepts of systemworld and lifeworld in connection to theory in schools as well as quantitative survey data from the TSES. The findings identified confusion and depth as barriers to the practice of mentoring, and these barriers weakened the impact of the mentoring relationships. Additionally, the lack of specific feedback appeared to limit the development of a habit of reflection among the mentees. Both mentors and mentees reported feelings of frustration with the inability to deeply explore aspects of teaching that were felt to be of “critical” importance to the learning process (Kahrs and Wells, 2012, p. 44). These findings identified opportunities for preparing mentors in developing the needed skills to make them more effective. However, as referenced by Kahrs and Wells (2012), these skills require time and attention to develop, which may be prohibitive, depending on the time available for design, implementation, and results.

Blackman’s (2010) initial selection of participants was from a group selected to attend a professional development workshop on coaching. This convenience sample was based on 18 initial participants who were subjectively selected to participate in a one-day coaching skills and goal-setting workshop. From this group, three volunteer subjects were then participants in one-on-one coaching sessions for three to four months. The answers to three research questions were pursued by Blackman (2010, p. 425):

• 1. “Does providing the opportunity for networking make the coaching process more effective?”

• 2. “Is the coaching process more effective if one-on-one follow-up coaching sessions are held compared with attending a one-day workshop?”

• 3. “Is it important for the coach to have specific industry knowledge or can the coaching process be effective with the coach having only general coaching knowledge?”

Blackman’s (2010) study produced helpful findings regarding the value of networking to the efficacy of the coaching process. However, the other two questions were never adequately addressed in either the study methodology or the study results. Key to this apparent oversight is the fact that the evaluation questions that were developed were not appropriately designed or aligned to address all three of the initial research questions. Additionally, the scope of the initial questions was so broad that it is apparent that even if the evaluation questions had been addressed properly, the conclusions that could have been reached would have been weakened by the sampling technique used.

KEY ASPECTS OF CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY

Russell et al. (2005) compiled a set of several basic key elements that researchers should integrate into the designs of their case studies to help achieve quality and trustworthiness in the findings that are produced. These key elements include clearly written and substantiated research question(s) with appropriate propositions as warranted, a design for the case study that is in alignment with the research question(s), sampling strategies that are purposeful, systematic data collection and management, and a correctly conducted data analysis. These key elements can also assist the novice researcher in not only improving the quality of his or her own work when conducting a case study but also in providing guidelines for being critical consumers of studies generated by others (Russell et al., 2005).

In referencing these key aspects when reviewing the work of both the Kahrs and Wells (2012) and Blackman (2010) case studies, it becomes apparent that both of the studies could have benefited from better alignment between their research questions, propositions, and sampling strategies. Kahrs and Wells (2012) appear to have been more purposeful in their sampling selection, as they were concerned with ensuring a high degree of efficacy among their participants’ responses to the TSES. However, they did not include efficacy as a factor being studied in their research question. Blackman (2010) asked three research questions, but the study design only allowed an answer to the first of them to be addressed. Having developed a better proposition during the initial design of the study may also have strengthened Blackman’s (2010) question.

CONCLUSION

The value of mentoring and coaching as interventions for personal and professional development were studied and discussed in the Kahrs and Wells (2012) and Blackman (2010) case studies. Individual teachers who possess a high level of efficacy possess a belief system under which they feel that they can make a difference and would probably view coaching and/or mentoring as helpful strategies by which to support the expansion and strengthening of their teaching skills (Kahrs & Wells, 2012). The importance of having this type of belief system was emphasized in both the mentoring and coaching case studies. Additionally, implications for scholar-practitioners become apparent both with respect to the need for the conduct of further research in both practices and in the role of teacher efficacy when implementing these interventions. The use of additional research could also prove helpful in developing more effective training protocols and practices when preparing mentors and coaches to support and motivate others. Not attending to these implications could result in the continued implementation of poorly conceived and weakly implemented practices in professional development, thereby limiting the returns on the investments of the limited resources that are typically available in urban school settings.