This week’s theme was qualitative
method and case study research. We chose a research paper on both studies and
analyzed this to get a better understanding of how both research methods work.
During the lecture Hanna
Hasselqvist, one of the researchers of 'A
car free year', presented their research and their findings during this process. I came
to the understanding that in comparison to other researches the generazibilty
of the results of a case study is even less. As the findings are limited to a
certain group or circumstances, the results can't be used to say something in
general. For instance in the case study 'A
car free year' the results were based on findings of 3 families within one
year. Their experiences are personal and would differ per family.
It made me think of the information
in table 1 in the paper ' Building
theories from case study research' one of the steps was to compare with
conflict or similar literature and one of the reason's for this is to sharpen
the generazibility, this made me question how to do this if the extent of
generalizability is so small?
On the other hand, you can compare
it to other similar researches and if the findings are quite the same, the
findings might be valid, but I am not sure if it's valid enough to become a
generalization.
One of the topics we talked about
during the seminar was, what a case study actually is and what the differences
are between a case study and a qualitative research, we came to the definition
of a case study being – a study of a
specific group during a certain event, setting or time, to test a particular
context. This study is done on an area that you don’t know that much about. With
this being said I thought about the case study that I choose and analyzed for this
theme. The paper was about the lack of attention and participation of students
due to the high amount of technology use during lectures. The research was done
by a teacher who had observed these phenomena during his lecture and decided to
observe another class at another university to see how the situation is there. Because
the teacher already knew a lot about this subject he started the research with
a lot of biases that also affected the eventual results to the extent that his
results were based on the group that confirmed to his research topic. During
the group discussions we discussed this and we came to the conclusion that it
is a matter of importance that you have some knowledge on the research area,
but that this shouldn’t lead to biases or affect the results in a negative way.
I also came to the understanding
that the difference between case studies and qualitative research is that you
start a case study with a broad research question during the process you narrow
this down. And the data that you gain can’t just be analyzed and seen as the
case study, you use different methods to gain data and this often overlaps with
the analysis. Another difference is that you keep going back in the process
until you feel you have reached saturation.
To conclude, this week’s theme was
interesting and I feel like I have a better understanding now. I contributed by
pointing out some parts of the paper that I read that were strange to me or
rather strong, this led to discussions that gave a clearer view on the
different aspects of a case study and the qualitative research.
Interesting post, and a clear growth in understanding of the theme(s) for this week!
ReplyDeleteI think your comments on bias, and in extension hypotheses, is very relevant. To me, the fact that case studies allows and encourages researchers to continuously interact and analyse their data is what makes the method/concept interesting. In contrast to other forms of research, where the relationship between researcher and data is less interactive and the framework for research topic more rigid, case studies continue to evolve and motivate their questions until they (just like you write) reach saturation.
After the seminar and lecture, I have asked myself wether or not case studies could be a never ending stories for researchers that are to critical to themselves and hence never establish this saturation. "What if we find more?", "What if there are other aspects to consider?". I can only speak for myself, but sometimes it is hard to know what you have found if you didn't know what you were looking for in the first place. Food for thought!
Hi! Same like you I found this week's theme very interesting. As you mention here I also think that it is very beneficial to the whole research process that case study allows researcher go back and forth during the whole process until he finds and analysis the most important/significant points of the study. In this case, case studies can really benefit to building new theories or analyzing themes no on talked about previously. For example, case studies can help experimenters adapt ideas and produce hypotheses which can be used for later testing and so on.. Thanks for your great thoughts!
ReplyDeleteI like your style of clearly stating what was new and how did it change your perception of the topic. Great reflecting! :) As probably for many of us, the case study as an approach brought up many questions, since it's quite a broad approach and way of conducting scientific studies. After reading and discussing a lot about the generalizability of case studies, it not only depends highly on the case itself but I also came to the conclusion that not all scientific research has to be generalizable in that way how we often like to think of it. Case studies bring up new questions and solutions on the matter, give us a lot of knowledge which can be used when framing further studies and yes, at some extent they also give us generalizable pieces of information, since the studied phenomena often has multiple parts.
ReplyDeleteI slightly disagree on the thought of knowledge about the topic resulting as possible biases in scientific research, because one should be able to recognize prejudice based on own experiences from objective and acknowledged knowledge. As everything you do or write as a researcher has to be well-justified so that the reader of your paper can state where the information or justification for a certain method or conclusion came from, I don't see why a researcher would state something biased in the paper without any properly conducted experiments. Science is based on knowledge building on knowledge, so this brings us back to the very beginning and the first theme of what is knowledge! Let's not go back to that, but I think we can all agree that one of the most important qualities of a decent researcher is to stay open-minded towards the topic and information that might come up.
Anyway, thank you for discussion and your thoughts on this topic! :)
What I found to be of particular interest with your text was the attempt to define
ReplyDeletewhat distinguish design research from quantitative research in general. Your
reasoning on how the teacher’s previous knowledge might have biased him,
evokes questions on how much previous knowledge a researcher is allowed to
have before entering a case study? Where do you draw the line of how much
knowledge that is acceptable? I do not see it as realistic that a research should
devote so much time and effort to a subject where he/she has no prior knowledge at all. I think that triangulation should be mentioned as a way to see if the results deriving from the different data collections contradict or support each other. By cross-checking the data, regularities can be found! I like the structure of your text and how you went back to the literature and models provided for this theme. Good job!
The issue of bias as quite an interesting question, and the previous comments made me think about the experience the researcher must have in order to conduct case study research. One thing came to my mind regarding this case: as the science becomes more integrated and transdisciplinary (e.g. there are a lot of new disciplines built at the edge of other ones such as biochemistry, biophysics, social psychology etc.), there is a high chance that the researcher already has some knowledge about related spheres. Of course, here we are not talking about the sociologist who is suddenly conducting the research in place physics but about the contiguous disciplines. In this case there is a high chance that he or she will see something new and derives the unexpected results what spotlights another angle of the problem.
ReplyDeleteHi! I think your post was very interesting to read, it was a good reflection and it seems you have a good understanding of the theme for this week. You brought up some interesting points, I found the issue about bias very interesting and very relevant. The fact that case study allow researchers to keep interacting with their data, they continue to evolve and motivate their questions until, like you write, the researchers reach saturation.
ReplyDeleteHi! You mention that the generalization of case studies are even less than other researches which, for me, pinpoints one of the most interesting parts of case studies. I think the fact that you can not draw any general conclusion from a case study makes them intriguing, because you can only say something about your specific case. The possibility is high that the outcome would have differ with other participants and during other conditions for example. I think it is fantastic that this kind of research has a given place in the research domain because sometimes it is really important to study and contribute knowledge about one specific case rather than trying to determine how something works in every cases. Thanks for an interesting blogpost!
ReplyDeleteOy,
ReplyDeleteYou are raising an interesting point with the paper you've chosen. I had thought about the prior knowledge as a benefit for the researcher but thinking that this knowledge would result as a biased thinking therefore leading to a biased research leading to biased result didn't cross my mind. This is interesting to think of it, but I think if this happens it does make you a bad researcher because you are looking for what you to see and not what you are truly seeing. It should never be the case.
Good point, thanks for your reflection
Hello!
ReplyDeleteI was also reflecting about the challenges of generality within case studies. How can the researcher possible know if the sample of 3 families (in the car-free year research) is representative for a larger population? But after doing some research in different journals and reading the article ”Building theories from case study research” again I understood that the aim of case studies is not usually to test theory it’s to develop and build new theories. To conform the findings in a case study you can either compare with other cases or within the case.
Thanks for sharing some interesting thoughts!
I think you make an important point in differentiating qualitative methods from a case study. I think it's rather common for people to perceive case study as a qualitative method since it focuses solely on one phenomenon. However, just because a case study evolves around one particular phenomenon it doesn't mean that the only approach of choice will be qualitative - there are various ways to approach a case study with quantitative methods, or a combination of both. I remember that during the seminar, the idea of case studies being a "meta-method" was brought up, and I think that is a rather accurate way to approach the concept of the field.
ReplyDelete