Exploring different perspectives about the case study methodology
I begin this section by providing a bird’s eye view of some of the authors’ perspectives about the current application or practice of case study methodology, the features of the case study, the definition of a case study, types of the case study, strengths and limitations of the case study, the case in the case study and I end by positioning this study within its appropriate context.
Case study approach seems to be one of the principal means by which inquiry within the social sciences is conducted. Despite the popularity of this design, it has been argued by most scholars that there is little agreement in the way the structure is organized. Research practitioners continue to apply/use this design but fail to clearly articulate what is it that they are doing. These views are expressed by among others Verschuren, (2003); Yin, (2009); Rule and John, (2011;
2015) and Thomas, (2011). These scholars point to the many flaws which render this methodology inappropriately employed. These flaws range from the very definition of case study, to the application of the methodology itself. Verschuren, (2003) identifies ambiguities with this design. Key among them is the perception that most people see it broadly as any type of research, or case study as a type of research as being clear, or the object to be studied and
94
how it is looked at as well as the results obtained, are not clear. His other argument is that the scholars’ perception of a case study is confined to one single case only, instead of being looked at, as a way of doing research at a broader level. The definition of the case study, too, he claims, seems too hazy – it is given little specificity by some scholars while others advocate for its use in any context, as long as it contributes to the knowledge of the case to be studied. Verschuren further points to the results of the inquiry using this methodology and questions the researcher’s independence due to his/her interactive role with participants as opposed to researching ‘from a distance’, which then makes the results of the inquiry questionable. Yin, (2009) confirms the argument by pointing out that some researchers see it as the exploratory stage of some other type of research method, thus submerging it or under-representing it, in such studies. He, however acknowledges some of the prejudices against case studies, and he provides a number of variations within case studies, as a research methods. These flaws are elaborated in Yin, (2009, pp 19–20).
Key features of a case study
In trying to close the misconception gap within the case study methodology, VanWynsberghe, (2007); and Yin, (2009) provide the following key features of a case study. A case study calls for an intensive and in-depth focus on the specific unit of analysis. It requires a small sample size than would be in a survey. It should give a reader a sense of “being there” by providing a highly detailed contextualised analysis of an instance in action and in addition, it employs multiple data sources.
With these arguments and features of the case study methodology in the next section, I provide a definition of a case study; how I identify a case within a case study and; the strengths and limitations of a case study.
Defining a case study
There are a lot of scholars who contributed to the definition of a case study, for example Tellis, (1997); Harling, (2002); Johansson, (2003); Simons, (2009); and Rule and John, (2011). They
95
point to the features such as the empirical nature of case study, its focus on a contemporary phenomenon, its depth and attention to context, and its spatial and temporal boundedness.
Yin, (2009) looks at case study holistically and gives it two lenses. The first lens looks at a case study as scope-based and his second lens, sees case study within its technical context. Referring to a scope-based lens, Yin talks about “real-life context” and in its technical contexts. He includes data collection and analysis strategies such as its reliability regarding multiplicity of data sources and data needing to converge in a triangulation fashion, and how it benefits from development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis. Written as a complete and perhaps more encompassing case study it denotes:
…an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon in-depth and within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident. The case study inquiry copes with the technically distinctive situation in which there will be many more variables of interest that data points, and as one result. It relies on multiple sources of evidence with data needing to converge in a triangulation fashion, and as another result. It benefits from the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis (Yin, 2009, p.18).
Types of case studies
There are several types of case studies, but the most prominent and commonly used ones are exploratory, explanatory, descriptive, intrinsic, instrumental and collective. Yin, (2003) identified the first three types: exploratory, explanatory and descriptive; while Stake, (1995) added three more, which are: intrinsic, instrumental and collective case studies. Each type of case study, is briefly explained below:
Explanatory: Seeks to answer questions that sought to explain the presumed causal links in real life interventions that are too complex for the survey. The exploratory type explores situations in which the intervention has no clear, single set of outcomes. The descriptive type is used to describe an intervention or phenomenon in its real life context.
96
The intrinsic type is driven by the particular interests of the researcher, due to an interest in learning about a particular case because of its unique features. The Instrumental type is used when a researcher aims to accomplish something other than understanding of a particular situation. This type provides insight into an issue or helps to refine a theory (Stake, as cited in Baxter and Jack, 2008).
The collective case study (as the name implies) is used when collective case studies are similar in nature and description to multiple case studies (where a particular case is extended to cover several cases, to learn more about the phenomenon, population or general condition (Yin, 2003).
Identifying the case in the case study
A case in a case study is determined by the boundaries of the case. It is the unit of analysis. It is the “what” of the study. It ranges from a person, a class, a practice, an institution, a programme, event, policy or a relationship. Issues for consideration when constructing a case are: a) the decision on what will constitute a case; b) the delimitation of the time frame (whether spatial – settings where this case will be investigated); temporal (setting out chronological boundaries e.g.
whether it is contemporary or historical) and thematic (identifying issues to be investigated with the case) and c) consideration on what will be investigated with the case (Rule & John, 2011).
Strengths of a case study
This approach is used for a number of purposes as it bears particular strengths. Key among them, are that it can generate an understanding of insights into a particular phenomenon by providing its comprehensive description and illuminating its relations to the broader context. It can be used to explore a general problem or issue within a limited or focused setting. It can also be used to generate theoretical insights, either in the form of grounded theory that arises from the case study itself in developing and testing theory with reference to the case (Rule & John, 2015). It is flexible in terms of what it studies. It can employ a wide variety of methods (in data collection
97
as well as in data analysis) depending on what is appropriate to the case (triangulation i.e. process of using multiple sources and methods to support propositions of findings).
With the elaboration of the strengths of the case study methodology, in the next section I use scholarly writings to identify possible weaknesses or limitations that the methodology has.
Limitations of the case study methodology
Some authors (Pillay, 2006; and Yin, 2009), have identified some limitations on the use of case study methodology. Key among them are its quality and rigor, especially if the researcher is not fully conversant with the methodology. There may be problems with the validity of information.
Case study’s generalization of finding especially from single cases may not be possible. The other limitation is its possible bias due to over exposure of the researcher to human subjects.
Having briefly discussed the case study methodology in general, the study now takes its positionality about the type of case study that it used, as well as the rationale for its application.
The type and case for this case study
In this particular study, the case is a group of Basotho women belonging to the PBA. This case study uses both the exploratory and instrumental type (as described by Yen and Stake in the previous section). It is exploratory because investigations were conducted into relatively unknown areas of research. Within the study area, there has not been a study of a similar nature.
Although it is primarily exploratory research, it also has descriptive elements in that it provides an in-depth description of the case, and explanatory elements since it uses theoretical lenses (feminism, transformative learning theory and communities of practice theory) to make sense of the data. The instrumental type was relevant for this case study in that it sought to understand more than what was obvious to the researcher; it provided insights into an issue and helped to refine a theory (Tellis, 1997, p.1).
98
The focus within this case, is on the learning experiences of the women as they went through various processes of coping and learning about their HIV positive condition, the ARV programme and the wider socio-cultural situation of the district and the country. The case study examines these women, from the period 2005 to 2012. This case study uses a qualitative style that I describe in the section below.
A qualitative style
A qualitative approach involves taking people’s subjective experiences as the essence of what is real for the study. This style makes sense of people’s experiences through interacting with them, listening carefully to what they say and to make use of data collection techniques such as interviews, questionnaires, group discussion etc, to elicit responses from the people. Situated within the paradigm of interpretivism, qualitative style relies on first-hand accounts, and it tries to describe what it sees in rich detail and it presents its findings, in engaging and sometimes evocative language. The style according to the following scholars (Blanch, Kelly, and Durrheim 1999; Simons, 2009; and Rule & John, 2011), focusses on how people feel, think and act.
The next part looks at data collection methods and processes, data generation and analyzing and reporting.