RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
3.5 METHODOLOGY
3.5.2 Case study research
qualitative research, and coupled with the degree of flexibility, lent credence to issues of reliability and validity in my research.
According to the interpretive paradigm, the scientific method of studying the social world is partial, because human activity involves beliefs, values, intentions and goals which give activities meaning. An interpretive approach thus “looks for culturally derived and historically situated interpretations of the social life-world” (Crotty, 1998, p. 67). This approach rests on the premise that “knowledge is constructed not only by observable phenomena, but also by descriptions of people’s imitations, beliefs, values and reasons, meaning-making and self understanding” (Henning et. al, 2004, p. 20). Much of the knowledge of the participants on their leadership role thus differed according to their own interpretation of the needs and culture of the school I conducted my research in. Their individual values and cultures brought different though not necessarily dialectical points of view on the need for teacher leadership, a point potently made by Henning et. al (ibid).
I concur with the definition offered by Yin (1994) in that the school as the case of my
research seemed to offer many more variables of interest on my very first arrival. There were matters relating to recent large-scale infrastructural developments, display cabinets
overflowing with trophies and memorabilia, large advertising boards that pointed to
collaboration with the private sector, as well as with other off-campus University satellites, all of which whilst interesting, fell out of the boundary of my case to be researched. The temptation to the novice researcher to gather data outside one’s framework of investigation should be avoided at all costs, and it was precisely the observational framework on teacher leadership by Harris and Lambert (2003) as well as the ‘prior development of theoretical propositions’ by Grant (2008) that honed my focus on the case in question.
Defining the case itself initially presented a number of challenges and the dichotomy was to establish whether the school or the teacher leaders themselves were the case of inquiry.
Anderson et al (1998, p.153), state that “one difficulty in case study research is actually defining the case...in any case study, the researcher should have a clear vision of what the case is and what the unit of analysis will be examined”. For the purpose of my research, the school as described in the ‘context’ section is the case, whilst the three teacher leaders are classified as the units of analysis. As will be described in more detail to follow, I
administered a survey questionnaire and also used a school observation schedule to gain an initial generic understanding of the ‘case’, in this instance, the school. More detailed methods such as individual journal entries for each teacher, interviews and observations in practice were employed in the attempt to gain a rich, descriptive interpretation of the units of analysis.
The purpose behind choosing case study research is that it is firstly particularistic and
secondly that it is descriptive in nature (Merriam, 1998, pp. 29-30). The primary school as the case of my inquiry was indeed a unique, peculiar school in that it demonstrated clear signs of large-scale teacher leadership through the successes it had achieved over the years. These successes were largely in the domain of public discourse, both from Department Officials pronouncements, as well as the confidence parents showed in the democratisation of the school. Here I refer to the powerful, representative governance structure, the academic achievements in the form of educator qualification improvement, as well as the prowess the school enjoys in sport and cultural events, all of which were regularly captured in local media. I sought to then conduct my research in the school in order to portray “what it is like”
to be in the particular situation, to catch a close –up reality and offer a “thick description”
(Geertz, 1973) of the participants lived experiences of, thoughts about and feelings on teacher leadership. I attempted to intensively investigate in an in-depth manner, the
interdependencies of parts and patterns of teacher leadership within the school (Cohen et al.
2007).
This could only have been achieved by acknowledging that the capture of such rich data is both time and context bound. The attention to issues such as value, interpretation and perception cannot be found in the positivist approach where influences of context are scientifically separated out and controlled. The researcher becomes part of the case and, as stated by Bassey (1999), the case study achieves greatness, when through the portrayal of a single instance locked in time and circumstance, the researcher is able to communicate enduring truths about the human condition.
Case study invokes within the researcher an academic responsibility to practice reflexivity, and in so doing, creates the platform for the researcher to develop his skills in accurately representing his findings. The main purpose behind such a postulate is that the recipients and other scholars, perhaps even the respondents themselves can at a later stage, re-experience’
their contribution to the study. This is referred to by Stake (2005, p. 450) as the ability “to describe the case in sufficient descriptive narrative so that readers can experience these happenings vicariously...”.
Although this seems to suggest matters relating to validity and reliability of the study, it was for me rather the most apt depiction of the case in its natural context, which seemed a priority whilst conducting the fieldwork. On the other hand, reflexivity, according to Guba and Lincoln (1981), is the process of reflecting critically on the self as researcher, the human as instrument, the conscious experiencing of oneself both as inquirer and respondent. Reinharz (1997, p.3) argues that we not only “bring the self to the field...we also create the self in the field”. This was a clear reminder of the need to be acutely aware of one’s subjective position within the study and the need to clarify, beforehand, issues relating to my being a researcher rather than a principal of an adjacent school. The notion of reflexivity was to me, during the research process, inextricably linked to voice, and this is best described by Hertz (1997, pp.11-12) as “a struggle to figure out how to present the author’s self while simultaneously writing the respondent’s accounts and representing their selves”.