I really enjoyed this week’s lecture and seminar
because the examples we were provided with were extremely interesting and
inspiring. Inspiring in a sense that people have the freedom to test and make
unlimited experiments in search for answers and improvements (as in the Hanna Hasselqvist's research which is structured around
the question - can people cope living without their automobiles; and motivated
by the unpleasant consequences such as pollution, due to their excessive use
and the increasing traffic).
Even though the topic was for both qualitative and
case study researches, I will focus on the case study one since I have found errors and misinterpretations I have made in my original blog post
on the topic.
If asked again to describe what it is I would no
longer go with the definition I used already - "strict set of rules".
Instead, I would say that it is a study with varied set of tools for use
in order to catch more complexity. However, it has no strict hierarchy
of stages establishing the process. I cannot see anything strict in it after
the discussion, as I perceive its development as a result of the spontaneous decision-makings
the participants come with throughout the study. Also it is not necessary to be
for a long period of time but rather for “sufficient enough” for final
conclusions to be reached.
During the discussions
one of my group members shared what the case study of her choice is about and
what surprised
me was how the participants in it were completely unaware of the conduction
happening. Comparing this case to the one we were introduced to during the
lecture, we concluded that it really depends on the case study type whether a
more objective result would be reached when the participants are introduced to
its ideas and concepts or not at all. I think this is interesting point since I
was left with the feeling that the more the members are familiar with the study and aware of its
development and structure, the more productive the outcomes would be. On the
other hand, it seems that in such case studies as the one my
co-student described, the result is objective due to the fact the researcher
was observing its participants from aside, reaching conclusions on their
natural and intact attitude and behavior.
So the way I
imagine the case study now (because usually using associations is my way of
processing) is like a vehicle, which transports pieces from both the past and
the present directly onto the “training” platform using certain experience as a
starting point. It helps us learn from past situations and currently happening results/consequences.
From what I got, a
good case study is defined as such if it manages to balance between facts and
emotions (as a behavioral outcome). It has to shorten the distance between
science and everyday life in an attempt to introduce its participants with the
process of development until certain stage and then put them in a situation
where they are led by their own choices. In other words, the participants are
given the theoretical instruments and from there they are expected to apply it
in practice following the framework of the case study. By that they are
supposed to filter out whatever they consider as important, differentiate the
real problems and come up with a plan for action. So it can be seen as a game
of puzzle solving with evidence.
Furthermore, in the seminar we also discussed how the research can be focused on one singular case or tracking a number of such. An
example I found useful for this differentiation between the case study method
and the cross-case method is the one mentioned in John Gerring’s book on the
topic. Said in short, it compares the two possible methods one can use in order
to learn how to build a house. You can either study the construction of many
houses or you can study the construction of one particular house. The second
approach is the case study one. Both methods are concerned with the same
general subject but follow different paths of the goal.
Overall, what
I feel as an essence of the case study approach is its way of teaching one to take
responsibility with what he/she has learned during its development (the gained
knowledge and skills) by being a platform, which grants learning conditions.
Used resources:
Gerring, J.
(2006); Case Study Research: Principles and Practices; Cambridge University
Press
Hey! Thanks for such a great post! I really liked how difficult terms you put in such an easy words and examples. I totally agree with you when you say that case study "shorten the distance between science and everyday life". Case study is a great way of trying out how one or another thing would work, or how a group of people would act in certain situation and so on. This allows researcher to gain knowledge about particular and very narrow theme/case or topic, which later results into researcher's contribution to the knowledge production. It is indeed like a "puzzle game", piece by piece putting up a research as different methods can overlap within and complement each other. Great reflection!
ReplyDeleteHi! You're reflection was interesting to read, thank you! I really liked your example of the difference between the case study method and the cross-case method, that you can either study the construction of many houses or you can study the construction of one particular house, and that the case study is the second option. I think that made it very clear! I think it was very interesting studying case study method this week, as it was something I was familiar with, but hadn't studied that much before. I agree with you when saying that it shortens "the distance between science and everyday life". It's a great way of finding out how a specific thing works, or learn about a specific phenomena, and I think it would be very interesting do explore further!
ReplyDeleteI liked your explanation about the differences about the case study and cross-case method - that was a new term for me.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree slightly with the statement that the more the participants of the experiment know about the purpose of the study, the more objective it is. Sometimes it may lead to the so called social desirability - when instead of speaking his or her mind the subject of the study tells whatever the researcher want to hear. In case with the car-free research, the families could lessen the negative effects of their decisions to abandon automobiles, and exaggerate the positive ones. So that if the study aims at finding new ways to encourage people to reduce the usage of the cars, and the subjects know that, they will try to persuade others and hide some drawbacks. How to eliminate it? To tell that the aim of the research is to explore the life of the families without the autos - what sounds, in my opinion, quite neutral.
I found your reflection really interesting to read because it seems like you have learned and reflected a lot on case studies during this week. Something that characterize a case study is the iterative process, which means that you can move back and forward in your study as many times as you want until you find something to build on. This can seem a bit messy but it is through these iterative processes new insights and knowledge develops, and just as you mention, there is nothing strict in that. I liked the part where you discuss whether the participants should be aware of the case study’s condition or not and if that might affect the objectivity of the outcome. I think this vary from study to study, because the case Hanna presented could not have been done unless the families understood the conditions. But I think in other cases, the outcome might be more “natural” if the participants are not that familiar with the concept and structure of the study. Thanks for a great reflection!
ReplyDeleteNice example with monitoring one house or many to explain case study vs cross-case.
ReplyDeleteThe blind case study was interesting that you brought up as you mention that never struck your mind. I think it depends on the goals with the study what is a better idea. It's also possible to choose a middle road; tell participants part of the goal with the study but not all of it.
Your own reflection in how case study completely transformed from being very strict according to rules into something more dynamic was interesting to follow.
What a great review on the topic. Not only did you manage to provide an insight in your personal learning curve by adapting your definition, but you manage to put it in very simple terms: "A study with varied set of tools [...] in order to catch more complexity". Furthermore the mentioned example is very enriching and very fitting to describe the environment of case studies.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have to agree with you that case studies apparently do not follow any strict hierarchies or rules as such. It is, I think, the most open minded and unbiased research one can do since it does not try to please or answer a specific hypothesis or tries to come up with a theory. It simply takes the situation as is and analyses the occurring phenomena.
Hi, great posts and good reflecting – thank you! There were a few points I'd like to further discuss. First, in your first post you brought up a very good point about the continuous comparison between "kids nowadays" and "kids back then" – I really hope the researcher had even some justification for this hidden agenda. Another thought of mine concerns your writing about the sample's unawareness in a case study. I got the impression that you felt a bit confused at some point, but I reached the same conclusion as you did. I'd like to stress it even more: it depends highly on the nature of the study, the phenomenon that is wanted to be examined. To put it simply, in the cases of human behavior one has to be very careful of not guiding the sample towards the desired results with too detailed information about the study. The unawareness, however, brings up another important question which we haven't even discussed that much on this course: ethics. Which are the ethical limits for conducting a study where the participants have as little prior information as possible? What is the "right" amount of information and could that limit be blurred in some cases if there is good justification for it?
ReplyDeleteThanks again and good job! :)
Hi,
ReplyDeleteNice summary of the theme!
Although I think you make a good point in saying that case studies are using a varied set of tools in the process, I don’t necessary agree with you that case studies aim to ”catch more complexity”. I’d actually say the opposite, as I believe case studies explores a phenomenon in order to identify interesting features - but instead of determining relationships and casual effects further, I think it mainly lays out a foundation for further research. I think that is why a hypothesis isn’t set in the process, because there is no goal such as verifying or falsifying a certain understanding.
On another note, I suppose using a quantitative approach within a case study might be able to give some deeper understanding, but I don’t think one single case can be enough to verify complex relationships.
Overall, I think you wrote quite an interesting reflection. Definitely enjoyed reading it.
Oy,
ReplyDeletevery interesting point you are bringing here to the reflection. I reflected as well on the matter or not the case study should be aware or not. But I think, as you mentioned, it all depends on the goal of the actual study. When the participant is aware of why and on what he is observed, studied, his behaviour could change. This is called social disability, when one in order to make a good impression do certain things because he thinks this is what he should do. And in this case, it provides the researchers with faked result that doesn't give a true visual on the matter.
but in certain studies, making the participant aware, like the one free year car is obviously the right thing to do !
Thank for your reflection !
I like the fact that you've realized that your first interpretation of what a case study is was a bit shallow and inaccurate. I feel as though what you've laernt during this week has given you a much deeper and complex undertsanding of the concept so it was really interesting to read your reflections. I also enjoyed the part where you describe the difference between a case study and a cross-case method, because that was something I missed myself. Good job!
ReplyDelete