establishing generalizations about the wider population to which that unit belongs.
(Cohen et al. 2000: 185) Case studies, as the name indicates, concentrate on special cases. General-izations from case studies must be handled with care. To serve as a founda-tion for generalizafounda-tions, case studies should be related to a theoretical framework, which in turn may be adjusted as case study results provide new evidence. The ‘generalizability’ of case studies can be increased by strategic selection of critical cases.
(Mikkelsen 2005: 92, emphasis in original) The case study is, in many ways, ideally suited to the needs and resources of the small-scale researcher. It allows, indeed endorses, a focus on just one example, or perhaps two or three. This might be the researcher’s place of work, or another institution or organization with which they have a connection: a company, a voluntary organization, a school, a ship or a prison. Or it might be just one element of such an organization: a class, a work team, a community group or a football team. Or the focus might be on one individual, or a small number of individuals, as in life history studies or analyses of how top man-agers have reached their positions.
Many of you may be familiar with case studies, and their analysis, through their use as examples on courses (especially in business studies or health care).
In this sense, case studies are often used to illustrate problems or indicate good practices. The distinction between this usage of case studies and case study as a social research method lies in the explicit recognition, in the latter usage, of an underlying methodological philosophy about how we know the social world, and its linkage to a body of theory and practice in the literature.
Box 3.10 summarizes two contrasting examples of case study research. One involved the study of five national cases, the other just one family. While the latter was explicitly qualitative in approach, the former showed concerns with representativeness, and might also have been described as a survey.
Restricting your research to a detailed study of one or a small number of cases does not, however, mean that the context for those cases can be ignored.
It is a temptation, as it is with action research, for the researcher to immerse themselves wholly in the details of the case. This is a tendency which should be guarded against. Box 3.11 identifies this tendency, alongside other advantages and disadvantages of this research approach.
You might like at this point to look again at the section on Focusing in Chapter 2, and particularly at Box 2.6.
One other caution about adopting a case study approach to your research project has already been mentioned in this book. It also applies to action
research, as well as to other research approaches. This concerns the tendency for small-scale researchers, particularly those in employment who are receiv-ing support from their employers, to base their research projects within their places of employment. While you may in practice have little or no choice about this, if you do have some choice, you should consider other alternatives.
See the section in Chapter 2 on Researching in your workplace.
Case studies may be progressed in a variety of ways. Yin (2003: 5) identifies six types of case study, defined along two dimensions:
Box 3.10 Two examples of case study research
Save the Children’s Health Sustainability study looked at the way in which primary health care in developing countries was financed and organised through five case studies in countries with different character-istics. The study had a strong theoretical framework, and a standard set of information was gathered through substantial fieldwork in each country . . . In each case study country an analysis was undertaken of the histor-ical development of the health sector, an appraisal of the key factors (political, organisational and economic) which determine the context of health sector operation and development, and an analysis of the role of government, donors and communities.
(Laws et al. 2003: 345) In essence this is a case study methodology in which I study one case – my family – within the context of being a family with one member that has a physical impairment.
(Davis and Salkin 2005: 210) This research project examined the impact of physical impairment on family dynamics, and specifically on siblings. The first author’s interest in this came from her own experience. She looked in the literature for evidence that others had shared her experiences, and found that little had been written on the sibling relationship. She was ‘aware of the moral ethics of speaking for [her sister]’ (Davis and Salkin 2005: 210), so in writing ‘it was important to me that I not attempt to give my accounts of Kathy’s experiences’. Instead, she made a ‘conscious effort to give both of us voice’ (p. 211). The article includes recollections, feedback and conversations, with the researcher’s thoughts after the conversations written in parentheses.
• in terms of the number of cases: single or multiple;
• in terms of the purpose of the study: exploratory, descriptive or explanatory.
Thus, we can talk in terms of single descriptive case studies, and multiple exploratory case studies, and so forth. Exercise 3.2 explores these categoriza-tions a little further.
Box 3.11 Advantages and disadvantages of case studies
Advantages
1 Case study data is drawn from people’s experiences and practices and so it is seen to be strong in reality.
2 Case studies allow for generalizations from a specific instance to a more general issue.
3 Case studies allow the researcher to show the complexity of social life.
Good case studies build on this to explore alternative meanings and interpretations.
4 Case studies can provide a data source from which further analysis can be made. They can, therefore, be archived for further research work.
5 Because case studies build on actual practices and experiences, they can be linked to action and their insights contribute to changing practice.
Indeed case study may be a sub-set of a broader action research project.
6 Because the data contained in case studies are close to people’s experiences, they can be more persuasive and more accessible.
(Source: adapted from Cohen et al. 2000: 184) Disadvantages
The disadvantages of case studies are linked to their advantages, in particular:
1 The very complexity of a case can make analysis difficult. This is particu-larly so because the holistic nature of case study means that the researcher is often very aware of the connections between various events, variables and outcomes. Accordingly, everything appears relevant. It is not, however, and to write up your case as if it is does not make for good research! You might think about this in terms of a Russian doll metaphor, where each piece of data rests inside another, separate but related. You need to show the connections but not lose sight of the whole.
2 While the contextualization of aspects of the case strengthen this form of research, it is difficult to know where ‘context’ begins and ends.
Experiments
The experiment is a situation in which the independent variable (also known as the exposure, the intervention, the experimental or predictor variable) is carefully manipulated by the investigator under known, tightly defined and controlled conditions, or by natural occurrence. At its most basic, the experiment consists of an experimental group which is exposed to the intervention under investigation and a control group which is not exposed. The experimental and control groups should be equivalent, and investigated systematically under conditions that are identical (apart from the exposure of the experimental group), in order to minimise variation between them.
(Bowling 2002: 216, emphasis in original) For many people undertaking small-scale research in the social sciences, the idea of conducting experiments may seem rather strange. The experimental method is particularly associated with the physical sciences, where materials and non-human life forms are more amenable to experimentation. Indeed, experiments are at the heart of what is known as the scientific method, with its practice of formulating and testing hypotheses through carefully designed and controlled tests. The associated terminology appears very precise and suggestive.
Experiments are, however, widely used as a research approach in a number of the social sciences, particularly psychology (which is often classified as a science rather than a social science), but also economics, health care and edu-cation. Box 3.12 summarizes two contrasting examples of experimental research, one hypothetical in nature, in the social sciences.
There are good reasons, though, for more caution in the use of experiments as a research approach in the social sciences. As already indicated, the social sciences are concerned with human behaviour and perspectives. A strict application of an experimental approach to research in these areas would suggest exposing one group of individuals to the experiment – which might be beneficial or disadvantageous, and difficult to judge in advance – while denying it to others. There are, in other words, ethical issues around the use of experiments involving people. Yet, while they appear particularly evident in the case of experiments, these issues are just as strong for other research approaches. They apply to action research, to case studies and to surveys as well.
These issues are discussed further in the section on Access and ethical issues in Chapter 6.
Some of the considerations to be borne in mind when designing a useful social experiment are addressed in Exercise 3.3. The advantages and disadvantages of experiments are summarized in Box 3.13 (facing page).