The Case Study as Research Method

Yves-Chantal Gagnon

• Publisher: Presses de l'Université du Québec
• Year: 2011
• eBook ISBN: 9782760528444
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Social Science Research & Methodology
• Index: Social Sciences

The main advantages of case research are that it can produce an in-depth analysis of phenomena in context, support the development of historical perspectives and guarantee high internal validity, which is to say that the observed phenomena are authentic representations of reality. In short, the case study is adaptable to both the context and the researcher.

STAGE 1

 

 

 

 

 

ASSESSING APPROPRIATENESS AND USEFULNESS

 

The purpose of the first stage in conducting a case study is to determine whether the case method is appropriate to the subject at hand. To do so, the researcher should begin by considering his underlying approach, which is to say his intellectual framework, way of thinking and philosophical underpinnings (Aktouf 1987).

STEP 1.1 Define your approach

A researcher who is considering conducting a case study, or using any other qualitative research method, should subscribe to the constructivist approach, which holds that society is not a given, as it is for the positivists, but rather constructed through the relationships individuals forge with each other (Hagedorn 1983). Investigators who adopt this standpoint strive to understand the behaviour of individuals by examining the influence of their environment on their actions (McMillan and Schumacher 1984). They therefore attempt to probe deeper than the information yielded by quantitative research methods, which are useful but focus on testing selected variables without fully taking into account the context in which they are being measured (Yin 1981a). The qualitative researcher wants not only to determine the correlations among the variables but also to know how and why those correlations exist (Eisenhardt 1989; Mintzberg 1979). It can therefore be said that deciding to carry out a case study is not just a methodological choice but also affects what will be studied (Bardin 1996).

From the constructivist point of view, organizations (including businesses) are complex social systems. To understand them, we need detailed descriptions of situations, events, people, interactions and behaviours. We must understand how things happen before considering why. Only qualitative methods can produce information of this type (Patton 1982; Worthman and Roberts 1982). The result «is not a laboratory study of individuals nor even a field study comparing work groups, but rather a case study in which the organization is viewed as an intact, integrated whole» (Bullock 1986: 33).

Clearly, in this case we will adopt an ideographic rather than a nomothetic research strategy. Ideographic research attempts to understand a phenomenon in context, while nomothetic research uses the procedures of the “exact? sciences to arrive at general laws (Franz and Robey 1984; Weick 1984). In ideographic research, the study is designed to increase our understanding of a particular phenomenon rather than to produce generalizable results (Bardin 1996).

For example, when I was researching the technology adoption practices of medium-sized business executives, I approached the businesses, their nature, and the events and processes occurring in them as constructed, in line with the constructivist outlook. Therefore, it was not enough to interview the owners or managers to learn about the operation of their business. We had to investigate all the actors, their behaviours, their interactions, and when and in what specific circumstances the behaviours and interactions occur in each business. So, in addition to describing, dissecting and explaining the behaviour of the medium-sized business executive, we needed to collect precise, detailed data on the dynamics of the technology adoption processes. This meant gathering, in context, exhaustive situation descriptions of those processes, the related events, the interactions among the people involved, and their observable behaviour. I also had to find out about these actors’ experiences, beliefs and thoughts with respect to the technology adoption process. The constructivist approach does not regard technology as deterministic. If we approach the technology adoption process from this standpoint, we must attend to: 1) the people involved in the process; 2) the context; 3) the site at which the technology is being introduced. In other words, it is not enough to study the technology to determine its impact on a business.

STEP 1.2 Outline the research problem

To determine the appropriateness of the case method, the nature of the problem under study must also be considered. It must be borne in mind that case studies are best suited to practical issues in which the experience of the subjects is central and the context of the experience is decisive (Benbasat 1984; Benbasat et al. 1987; Bonoma 1983; Roethlisberger 1977). According to Yin (1981a: 98), “The need to use case studies arises whenever: an empirical inquiry must examine a contemporary phenomenon in its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident.?

We must therefore define the object of study and consider the existing theoretical base on the subject. This entails identifying the phenomenon we are seeking to understand, its context and the main issue it raises. To do so, the researcher is well advised to consider why he or she took an interest in the topic. At this stage, the researcher should also conduct a preliminary survey of the literature to determine what is already known about the phenomenon. However, the research question will be precisely defined only in the next stage.

STEP 1.3 Determine whether the problem is of the exploratory or raw empirical type

Once the research problem has been roughly defined, we can determine whether the issues it raises belong to one of the two types that most readily lend themselves to case studies, namely exploratory and raw empirical. Investigators who use the case method seek to systematically infer meaning from the events they observe (McMillan and Schumacher 1984; Rothe 1982) but this does not necessarily mean they have no preliminary ideas and conceptions about the research question. If they do, the research can be considered exploratory in nature; if not, it can be considered raw empirical research, in which the researcher is interested in a subject without having formed any preconceived ideas about it (Benbasat et al. 1987; McMillan and Schumacher 1984; Whyte 1963).

An exploratory study deals with a subject that is clearly important but has been previously neglected for various reasons. Raw empirical research precedes an exploratory study, insofar as the research potential of the subject has not yet been established with sufficient certainty to warrant tackling it in earnest (Benbasat et al. 1987; Gagnon and Landry 1989; McMillan and Schumacher 1984; Whyte 1963).

STEP 1.4 Answer preset questions to determine appropriateness

Researchers should consider four points before undertaking a case study (based on Benbasat et al. 1987: 372). The research problem is compatible with the case study method if each of the following questions can be answered in the affirmative:

1. Can the phenomenon of interest be studied outside its natural setting?

2. Must the study focus on contemporary events?

3. Is control or manipulation of subjects or events unnecessary?

4. Does the phenomenon of interest enjoy an established theoretical base?

In the case of my study of the technology adoption behaviour of medium-sized business executives, the answers to the four questions confirmed that the case study approach was appropriate. Regarding Question 1, the executive’s technology adoption behaviour is related to the specific setting where the technology is being introduced: it cannot be properly understood without taking into account corporate culture (which is likely to be quite different at a medium-sized business than a major corporation) and the existing relationships among the people who will be affected, directly or indirectly. Each technology adoption setting is different and the business executive’s behaviour may be more entrepreneurial or more administrative, depending on the context. It was therefore important to understand the interaction between the technology and the environment in which it was being introduced.

Regarding Question 2, post hoc examination of the technology adoption process would not have enabled us to identify and understand all the concomitant events. Some events may fade in importance over time; for example, in one case I observed, an air conditioning failure on a swelteringly hot day had a devastating effect on the patience and morale of shop-floor employees, who were already under pressure due to problems with the introduction of a new technology. The upshot was a walk-out, sparking second thoughts about the technology. However, six months later, in the dead of winter, only the technical problems were cited to explain the reservations about the project.

Question 3 can also be answered in the affirmative. Not only were control or manipulation of the subjects and events unnecessary, but they would have altered the phenomenon of interest.

Finally, with respect to Question 4, there was indeed a solid theoretical base for research on technology adoption and on the differences between entrepreneurial and administrative behaviour. However, those two bodies of literature had never been used in conjunction to study business executives’ technology adoption practices.

Once it has been established that the problem of interest meets the criteria for case research, the next stage is to consider how to proceed in order to obtain accurate results.

 

STAGE 2

ENSURING ACCURACY OF RESULTS

The accuracy of the results must be a paramount concern for the researcher from the beginning to the end of the study. Therefore, the steps that will be taken in the course of the project to ensure accuracy should be considered at the very outset, as soon as the appropriateness of the case method has been established. The purpose of this vital stage, which should inform all the others, is to demonstrate not only that the results were obtained through a rigorous process, but also that they correspond to reality.

The value of a scientific study depends in large part on the investigator’s ability to demonstrate the accuracy of the results. This is particularly true for qualitative research methods such as case studies: since these methods are more flexible, they can attract sloppy researchers who hope to avoid the direct evaluation to which the results produced by quantitative and experimental methods are automatically subjected (Hlady Rispal 2002a, b; Kvale 1987).

The concept of accuracy embraces two components: reliability and validity. Reliability relates to the consistency of the observations, meaning the replicability of the results: if the same phenomenon were investigated by other researchers using the same methodology, they should arrive at roughly the same conclusions (Kvale 1987). Validity relates to the connection between the results and reality. A ...

Table of contents

• COVER
• FOREWORD
• INTRODUCTION
• STAGE 1
• STAGE 2
• STAGE 3
• STAGE 4
• STAGE 5
• STAGE 6
• STAGE 7
• STAGE 8
• CONCLUSION
• APPENDIX
• REFERENCES