Chapter 1 draft

Case study

Core Inquiry Question: How does a bounded setting function, in the context of your field and focus?

Data sources: There are many, typically at least three, over a period of time, at least a few days. Direct observations, interviews, documents, artifacts, focus groups, and other sources. Typically requires purposive sampling

Patton (2015) suggested any study could be a case study, that it’s a more umbrella category or approach to studies (p. 259)

Benefits: Most studies require early familiarity with the setting and prospects for collecting data there.

Case studies can be noninvasive. Explore the possibility of collecting data at one or more sites.

.

Can be a good choice if you might have several types of data.

Setting might be willing to be the IRB of record.

Case studies could be quantitative, if all the data is numerical. Some distinguish “qualitative case study” to indicate the data collected and analyzed is qualitative, although some descriptive numbers can be used to help the reader understand the setting.

Cautions:

Delimiting the study to clear boundaries can be challenging.

Cooperation with site is recommended early so that methodological steps can be proposed.

Awareness of local events that would compete with your request for their time is required.

Observations may require more time to get approvals for or to collect data, particularly if minors or vulnerable populations are involved.

Observations require a seperate protocol detailing what you are observing.

It can be a challenge to bracket your engagement if you are in the setting for a sustained period of time.

If evaluation is the desired outcome, it might be more aligned with the research problem to be an evaluation study instead.

Descriptions of setting could be used in the “setting” section of the methods chapter and not as data.

.

References:

Dooley, L.M. (2002). Case study research and theory building. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 1(4), 3.

Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R. K. (Ed.). (2004). The case study anthology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yin, R.K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Purpose or Premise: To describe or explore a contemporary case, one that is bound by time and place, with awareness of related contexts. In a multiple case study, do so within each case and across cases.

Ethnography

Core inquiry question: How can you describe or interpret a group or culture?

Purpose: Immersion in a setting to decipher cultural meaning.

Data sources: Rich, descriptive field notes, observations, interviews, documents.

What is the culture of this group of people?

Benefits:

Most studies require early familiarity with the setting and prospects for collecting data there.

Many sources of data.

Cautions:

Gaining access to a group; getting buy-in from participants to accept you.

Lengthy time required to collect data.

Rather than asking questions of community members directly, typically you observe, listen, infer, check your inferences over time.

References:

Atkinson, P., Delamont, S., Coffey, A.J., Lofland, J., & Lofland, L.H. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dunnier, M. and Kasinitz,P. (2014) The urban ethnography reader. Oxford University Press

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hammersley, M. (1992). What’s wrong with ethnography? London: Routledge.

Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.

Lave, J. (2011). Apprenticeship in critical evaluation practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Madison, D. S. (Ed.). (2011). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Evaluation Research

Purpose: Enhance human effectiveness through systematic data-based inquiry.

Data Sources: Quantitative and qualitative data. Surveys, interviews, focus groups, documents.

Benefits:

Evaluation research can make a contribution to positive social change if findings enacted by community partner, help provide findings that can be used in grant proposals.

A willing organization might appreciate a fresh perspective of an outsider.

Study could be delimited to a small aspect of an organization’s work.

Yin suggested case studies can also be used to do program evaluations.

Cautions:

Requires trust on community partner’s part to share data, etc.

Meaningful evaluation might require collecting data from outside and inside stakeholders, thus enlarging the scope of the study.

For dissertations the research must add new knowledge to the field and go beyond evaluating an existing program.

Consider how to keep the organization’s identity confidential. Can the data be adequately represented without revealing identifiable aspects of the organization?

Core Inquiry Question:

Formative: How is this organization doing to meet its goals? What is going on in this organization in relationship to

mission or outcomes? How is it changing

Summative: Have stated goals been met?

Recommendations?

References:

Bamberger, M., Rugh, J., & Mabry, L. (2012). RealWorld evaluation: Working under budget, time, data, and political constraints (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clarke, A., & Dawson, R. (1999). Evaluation research: An introduction to principles, methods, and practice. London, UK: Sage.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.W., & Freeman, H.E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shaw, I.F. (1999). Qualitative evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Weiss, C. (1972). Evaluation Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Interpretative Description

Also known as generic, general, basic, traditional, or pragmatic qualitative inquiry.

Basic inquiry question: What are the practical consequences and useful applications of what we can learn about this issue or problem?

Purpose: to answer straightforward questions without framing the inquiry

within an explicit theoretical, philosophical, epistemological, or ontological tradition.

Data Sources: typically interviews and focus groups and researcher’s journal. Triangulation can occur among the interviews and researcher journal, minimally.

Benefits:

Practical and flexible– helps practitioners address problems in the field.

Assuming you are inquiring into or interpreting participants’ perceptions and experiences in relationship to a practical problem, it may be constructivist. Can be descriptive.

Scholars who use this method may find new and unique ways of drawing from the toolkits of one or more established methodologies in order to build something new.

Appropriate when the experience you seek to understand isn’t an intense one, which may otherwise suggest multiple interviews in a

phenomenological frame

Use most naturalistic setting possible.

Cautions:

More than one data collection instrument may be needed carry out the study (such as

interview and focus group)

If the life experience of the participants which you seek to understand is intense or deep, it might require multiple interviews and suggest phenomenological research instead.

Some scholars have expressed concern regarding “method slurring” or methodological mixology, and not based on a philosophical tradition, as are phenomenology or grounded theory. (Kahlke, 2014)

References:

Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2015). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. SAGE Publications.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

Thorne, S. (2016). Interpretive description: Qualitative research for applied practice (Vol. 2). Routledge.

Sandelowski, M. (2000). Focus on research methods-Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing and Nealth, 23(4), 334-340.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). Clear as mud: Towards a greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2), 1 – 23.

Kahlke, R. M. (2014). Generic qualitative approaches: Pitfalls and benefits of methodological mixology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 37 – 52.

Grounded Theory

Core Inquiry Question:

What theory, grounded in fieldwork, emerges from systematic comparative analysis so as to explain the data?

Purpose: To develop theory that comes from data or the field.

Data sources: interviews, focus groups, observations, researcher journal.

Benefits:

May be suitable if exhaustive reading has been done in the field and it provide any framework with which to approach a phenomenon of interest.

Cautions:

Truly developing a THEORY from the data, and not just general qualitative themes.

Some challenge to do an extensive enough literature review to demonstrate that there is no theory to explain a phenomenon.

Data collection is typically more exhaustive to reach enough data to confirm a theory.

Grounded theory dissertations tend to be very lengthy.

References:

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Pine Forge Press.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. New York, NY:

Aldine.

Narrative

Core Inquiry Question: How can this narrative (story) be interpreted to understand and illuminate the life and culture that created it? What does this narrative or story reveal about the person and world from which it came?

Purpose: To describe individuals’ storied lives

Benefits:

Suited to unusual or unique experiences. Relies heavily on continuity of engagement by participants(s).

Cautions:

Can be time consuming.

Challenges in protecting confidentiality of participant(s)

Check with your school’s research director if you are considering

doing a single subject study

Types of Data:

Stories of life experiences (e.g., life histories, narrative interviews, journals, diaries, memoirs, autobiographies, biographies)

References:

Clandinin, J.D., & Rosiek, J. (2007). Mapping a landscape of narrative inquiry: Borderland spaces and tensions. In D. J. Candinin (Ed.), Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping a methodology (pp. 35 – 75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (2006). Narrative inquiry. In J. Green, G. Camilli, & P. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (pp. 375 – 385). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lyons, N., & LaBoskey, V. K. (Eds.). (2002). Narrative inquiry in practice: Advancing the knowledge of teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Pavlenko, A. (2002). Narrative study: Whose story is it, anyway? TESOL Quarterly, 36(2), 2013 – 218.

Phenomenology

Core Inquiry Question:

What is the meaning, structure, and essence of the lived experience of this phenomenon for this person or group of people?

Purpose:

Both a research method and a philosophy, intended to illuminate individuals’ lived experiences of a phenomenon, which does not need to be bounded by time and space, like case studies.

Data Sources:

Multiple interviews, focus group

Benefits:

Engaging if you have ongoing access to participant(s).

Cautions:

Consider how interviews (typically more than one round) would be guided by interview questions.

Phenomenology goes beyond understanding something from several participants’ experiences, as done in the basic approach.

References:

Moustakas, C.E. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Smith, J. Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London, UK: Sage.

Starks, H., & Brown Trinidad, S. (2008). Choose your method: A comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1372 – 1380.

Vagle, M. D. (2016). Crafting phenomenological research. Routledge.

Photovoice/ Visual Research

Core Inquiry Question:

What can we learn from those who cannot speak about their lived experiences in a specific situation?

Purpose:

To provide a “voice” through visual elements to help tell a story that can be interpreted for meaning.

Types of Data:

Participant and/or researcher generated or historical photos, videos, and participants’ oral interpretations of photos. Signs, symbols, artistic renderings (graffiti).

Benefits:

Can use various sources of archival and new photo and video evidence together with narrative.

Can be organized using analytic software, as with other methods

Adds additional visual dimensions to descriptive studies

Can use participant generated photos or researcher generated photos or videos in data collection

Cautions:

Needs additional equipment; camera access and photo reproduction.

May require additional time to collaborate with participants

Additional training for data collection and analysis is recommended.

References:

Mitchel, C.

(2011) Doing

Visual Research;

Sage

Publication.

Rose, G. (2016). Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials, 4th edition; Sage Publications