Abstract
It is the situational specificity or context of qualitative research that ensures the case study remains a methodological approach, inherently valuable in practice-based research. Since this is inherently complex and multifaceted by nature, being able to provide a means of systematically analysing and framing research investigations is pivotal to the credibility of research that can highlight and illuminate these specific contextual issues. This chapter provides a means by which researchers can begin to frame the complexity of phenomena they wish to investigate by deliberately determining its parameter or scope and then framing or binding this. Beyond these processes, an insight into the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data will be provided so that theoretical outcomes can be framed and posited as part of an active contribution to knowledge. The fact that case study can be posited as both methodology and method ensures its capacity to address the need of being able to undertake context-specific evaluatory research or the overall complexity.
TopPhilosophical Stance Versus Epistemic Positionality In Case Study
Being able to delineate between the best suited epistemology for the address of question led research versus the epistemic positionality of the researcher are fundamental decision-making processes with regard to the implementation of Case Study as either methodology or method. Being able to optimally frame the research in relation to the overall purpose of the research not only ensures a rigorous and systematic approach, it also has far wider impacts on the process of designing and implementing the study in practice.
The origins of Case Study research stem from both positivist and constructionist perspectives. It was not until the latter part of the 20th Century that the approach was seen as highly relevant in the context of constructionism, primarily because of the dominance of positivism in terms of epistemological approach in social science research fora. It was the concept of axiology or a values system which prevailed and became recognised as pivotal to the holistic array of research methods available within the context of the research continuum. This changed perspectives on research characteristics and attributes so that specific focus on generalisability, validity and reliability shift to being able to address their counterparts and hence the potential for transferability, trustworthiness and authenticity, within the qualitative research arena.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Conceptual: Anything pertaining to a specific mental concept.
Boundaries: The dividing lines or limits of those subjects which can be perceived as abstract.
Triangulation: The use of multiple methods and/or data sources in qualitative research undertaken to develop a comprehensive understanding of phenomena as they emerge.
Phenomena: An object of perception.
Inductive: Characterized by the inference of general laws from instances.
Paradigm: A paradigm is a pattern or a standardized set of perspectives or standpoints.
Constructs: The formulation of diverse and/or numerous conceptual elements.
Exploratory: Pertains to something which is investigational or establishing the truth of a phenomenon.
Trustworthiness: Is the believability of what is ascertained via research.
Deductive: Characterized by or based on the inference of instances from a general, predictable law.
Credibility: The plausibility, dependability, or acceptability of a posited stance relative to the concept of truth.
Saturation: To the fullest extent and/or beyond the point regarded as fundamentally necessary.