Chpt 5, Part 1 Analyzing Data

Chapter 5: Analyzing Case Study Evidence

You will need to have clarified the reasons for defining the initial codes or subsequent codes, as we as connecting them to your original research design. In what ways do the codes or concepts accurately reflect the meaning of the retrieved words and phrases and why?

A helpful starting point is to “play” with your data:

· Putting information into different arrays

· Making a matrix of categories and placing the evidence within such categories

· Creating data displays-flowcharts and other graphics for examining the data

· Tabulating the frequency of different events

· Examining the complexity of such tabulations and their relationships by calculating second order numbers such as means and variances

· Putting information in chronological order or using some other temporal scheme

All empirical research studies have a “story” to tell.

The needed analytic strategy is your guide to crafting this story, and only rarely will your data do the crafting for you.

Four General Strategies:

Relying on theoretical propositions

The first and most preferred strategy is to follow the theoretical propositions that led to your case study.

Clearly the proposition helps to focus attention on certain data and to ignore other data. A good test is to decide what data you might cite if you only had 5 minutes to defend a proposition in your case study.

Developing a case description

The ideas for your framework should come from your initial review of literature, which may have revealed gaps or topics of interest to you, spurring your interest in doing a case study.

Another suggestion is to note the structure of existing case studies.

Using both qualitative and quantitative data

The quantitative data may have been relevant to your case stuffy for at least two reasons:

1. The data may cover the behavior or events that your case study is trying to explaining—typically the “outcomes” in an evaluative case study.

2. The data may be related to an embedded unit of analysis within your broader case study.

Examining rival explanations

Being aware (ahead of time) of this direct rival, your case study data collection should then have included attempts to collect evidence about the possible “other influences.” Furthermore, you should have pursued your data collection about them vigorously—as if you were in fact trying to prove the potency of the other influences rather than rejecting them. Then, if you had found insufficient evidence, you would less likely be accused of stacking the deck in favor of the original hypothesis.

Chpt 4, Yin Collecting Case Study Evidence

Chapter 4 Collecting Case Study Evidence: The Principles You Should Follow in Working with Six Sources of Evidence

Six Types of Evidence

· Documents

· Archival Records

· Interviews

· Direct Observation

· Participant Observation

· Physical Artifacts

Three Principles of Data Collection

1. Use Multiple Sources of Evidence

2. Create a Case Study Database

3. Maintain a Chain of Evidence

Chpt 3, Yin Preparing to Collect Case Study Evidence

Chapter 3: Preparing to Collect Case Study Evidence

For additional topics also should be a formal part of any case study preparation: training, developing a protocol for the investigation, screening candidate cases, and conducting a pilot case study. The protocol is an especially effective way of dealing with the overall problem of increasing the reliability of case studies.

A well-trained and experienced investigator is needed to conduct a high quality cast study because of the continuous interaction between the theoretical issues being studiend and the data being collected.

A basic list of commonly required skills are:

1. Ask good questions and interpret the answers

2. Be a good listener and not be trapped by his/her own ideologies or preconceptions.

3. Be adaptive and flexible so that newly encountered situations can be seen and opportunities, not threats

4. Have a firm grasp on the issues being studied, even if an exploratory mode.

5. Be unbiased by preconceived notions including those derived from theory.

Asking Good Questions

As you collect cast study evidence, you must quickly review the evidence and continually ask yourself why events and facts appear as they do.

One insight into asking good questions is to understand that research is about the questions and not necessarily about answers.

Being a Good Listener

Being a good listener means being able to assimilate large amounts of new information without bias. As an interviewee recounts an incident, a good listener hears the exact words used by the interviewee (sometimes, the terminology reflects an important orientation) capture the mood and affective components, and understands the context from which the interviewee is perceiving the world.

Exercising Adaptiveness and Flexibility

Having a Firm Grasp on the Issues Being Studied

The point is that case study data collection is not merely a matter of recording data in a mechanical fashion, as it is in some other types of research. You must be able to interpret the information as it is being collected and to know immediately, for instance, if several sources of information contradict one another and lead to the need for additional evidence—much like a good detective.

Avoiding Bias

Human Subjects Protection

Case Study Training (Seminar)

Protocol Development and Review

The Cast Study Protocol

Should have the following sections:

a. An overview of the case study project (project objectives, case study issues, and relevant readings about the topic being investigated)

b. Field procedures (presentations of credentials, access to the are study “sites” language pertaining to the protection of human subjects, sources of data and procedural reminders)

c. Case study questions (the specific questions that the case study investigator must keep in mind in collecting data “table shells” for specific arrays of data, and the potential sources of information for answering each questions

d. A guide for the case study report (outline, format for the data, use and presentation of other documentation, and bibliographical information)

The Field procedures of the protocol need to emphasize the majo tasks in collecting data, including:

a. gaining access to key organizations or interviewees

b. having sufficient resources while in the field

c. developing a procedure for calling for assistance and guidance

d. making a clear schedule of the data collection activities that are expect ted to be completed within specified periods of time

e. providing for unanticipated events, including changes in the availability of interviewees as well as changes in the mood and motivation of the case study investigator

Chpt 2, Part 4 Yin

What Are the Potential Single-Case Designs?

Rationale for single-case designs

o Critical case in testing a well-formulated theory

o Extreme case or unique case

o Representative or typical case

o Revelatory case

o Longititudinal case

Potential Shortcomings:

Case may later turn out not to be the case it was thought to be which would change the research question.

Holistic versus embedded case study

o More than one unit of analysis occurs when, within a single case, attention is also given to a subunit or subunits

o A typical problem with the holistic design is that the entire case study may be

o conducted at an unduly abstract level, lacking sufficiently clear measures of data

o A further problem with the holistic design is that the entire nature of the case study may shift, unbeknownst to the researchers, during the course of the study.

o An embedded design can serve as an important device for focusing a case study inquiry

An embedded designs, however, also has its pitfalls. A major one occurs when the case study focuses only on the subunit level and fails to return to the larger unit of analysis

What Are the Potential Multiple-Case Designs?

The evidence from multiple cases is often considered more compelling, and the overall study is therefore regarded as being more robust.

Rationale for multiple-case designs-The simplest multiple-case design would be the selection of two or more cases that are believed to be literal replications, such as a set of cases with exemplary outcomes in relation to some evaluations questions, such as “how and why a particular intervention has been implemented smoothly”

Multiple-Case Studies: Holistic or embedded

The difference between these two variants depends upon the type of phenomenon being studied and your research questions in an embedded design, a study even may call for the conduct of a survey at each case study site.

chpt 2, Part 3 Yin

Criteria for Judging the quality of research designs

Four tests have been commonly used to establish the quality of any empirical social research:

Construct validity: identifying correct operational measures for the concepts being studied;

Internal validity: (for explanatory or causal studies only and not for descriptive or exploratory studies): seeking to establish a causal relationship, whereby certain conditions are believed to lead to other conditions, as distinguished from spurious relationships;

External validity: defining the domain to which a study’s findings can be generalized;

Reliability: demonstrating that the operations of a study—such as the data collection procedures—can be repeated, with the same results

Construct validity-

Three tactics are available to increase construct validity when doing case studies.

The first is the use of multiple sources of evidence in a manner encouraging

convergent lines of inquiry, and this tactic is relevant during data collection.

The second tactic is to establish a chain of evidence, also relevant during data collection.

The third tactic is to have the draft case study report reviewed by key informants.

Internal validity-

Internal validity is mainly a concern for explanatory case studies, when an

investigation is trying to explain how and why event x led to event y.

Tactics: pattern matching, explanation building, addressing rival explanations, and

using logic models.

External Validity-

Case studies (as with experiments) rely on analytic generalization. In analytical generalization, investigator is striving to generalize a particular set of results to some broader theory.

Reliability-

The objective is to be sure that, if a later investigator followed the same procedures as described by an earlier investigator and conducted the same case study all over again.

Document the procedures followed in the earlier case.

The use of a case study protocol to deal with the documentation problem in detail

and the development of a case study database

Chpt 2, Part 2 Yin

The Role of Theory in Design Work-

For case studies, theory development as part of the design phase is essential, whether the ensuing case study’s purpose is to develop or to test theory.

The simple goal is to have a sufficient blueprint for your study and this requires theoretical popositions, usefully noted by Sutton and Staw (1995) as “a (hypothetical) story about why acts, events, structure, and thoughts occur” (p. 378). Then the complete research design will provide surprisingly strong guidance in determining what data to collect and the strategies for analyzing study data is an essential step in doing case studies.

Asking yourself challenging questions about what you are studying, why you are proposing to do the study, and what you hope to learn as a result of the study.

Generalizing from case study to theory-Theory development does not only facilitate the data collection phase of the ensuing case study. The appropriately developed theory also is the level at which the generalization of the case study will occur.

A fatal flaw in doing case studies is to conceive of statistical generalization as the method of generalizing the results of your case study.

Analytic generalization, in which a previously developed theory is used as a template with which to compare the empirical results of the case study.

Chpt 2, Part 1 Yin

Chapter 2-Designing Case Studies

Definition of Research Designs

In the most elementary sense, the design is the logical sequence that connects the empirical data to a study’s initial research questions and ultimately to its conclusions

Another way of thinking about a research design is a “blueprint” for your research, dealing with at least four problems: what questions to study, what data are relevant, what data to collect, and how to analyze the results.

Components of Research Design:

For cast studies, five components of a research design are especially important.

1. a study’s questions

2. its propositions, if any

3. its unit(s) of analysis

4. the logic linking the data to the propositions

5. the criteria for interpreting the findings

The biggest part of this design for me right now is the propositions. As I think about studying collaboration, I feel like I should look at two components: leadership and, motivation theory (or maybe not) and followership. Regarding followership, here are some thoughts:

Who are the individuals a leader leads? How do these individuals respond to a

leader or to other followers? In Followership, Kellerman (2008) explores these questions by expanding the body of leadership literature. Kellerman suggests the current environment provides active and powerful followers. Kezar, Carducci, and Contreras-McGavin (2006) underscore Kellerman’s suggestion noting “the context in which leadership takes place has changed and new perspectives and ideas about leadership have been introduced” (p. 3). The historical focus on leadership and how an individual may enhance his or her leadership style, characteristics, or traits has captured interest and energy from multiple entities. Kellerman (2008) introduces a lesser-examined perspective by considering followers and followership. Kellerman defines followers as “subordinates who have less power, authority, and influence than their superiors, and who therefore usually, but not invariably, fall into line” (p. 213). Followership is defined as “the response of those in subordinate positions (followers) to those in superior ones (leaders). Followership implies a relationship (rank), between subordinates and superiors, and a response (behavior), of the former to the latter” (p. xx).

Follower-to-Follower Influence

The author describes different types of followers by referencing historical examples such as the Nazi Era and the Catholic Church Sexual Abuse Scandal. Examining followers and followership structures, types, or philosophies is an important area, which has received little attention. Conversely, a voluminous amount of research exists which covers leadership. Kellerman (2008) presents an examination of this other side of the leadership equation. To expand the view would mean understanding followers and followership as rigorously and thoroughly as has been undertaken to understand leaders and leadership. In seeking a deeper understanding of followers, Kellerman (2008) examines the impact of follower-to-follower influence. Researching how followers may influence other’s thoughts and actions is an area where little scholarship has focused. In situations such as the Holocaust it is impossible for one individual, Adolf Hitler, to have single-handedly killed six million Jewish people. Kellerman explains how blame may be placed on the individual leader due to “leader attribution theory” (p. 11). Although Hitler has been cited as the person responsible, millions of individuals were followers which ultimately had an impact on the outcomes of Nazi initiatives.

Leaders admittedly exert significant influence on followers. The potential exists then, that the influence of fellow followers may be important. Affirming Kellerman’s suggestion that followers play a role in influencing other followers, Lambert and others (2002) writes “The changing nature of partnerships is altering the course of our conversations together” and “These newer conceptions of partnerships are essential since reciprocity and interdependence create equitable relationships that form the patterns that give rise to learning” (p. 85).

The suggestion, by Kellerman, that follower-to-follower influence may be impactful is worthy of note. As we continue to learn more about efficient and effective work environments, examining the influence exerted by followers will likely prove vital. Entities such as higher education would be well served to examine follower-to-follower influence due to its unique structural context. Faculty and the professorate function and accomplish goals and objectives in a flat, less hierarchical context than found in corporate structures. Examining the influence of follower (or peer) faculty on other faculty may identify important criteria for establishing or perpetuating cultural components. Although corporate and business entities are quite different from a college or university, follower-to-follower influence is an area of importance when considering culture and influence in all work environments. Kellerman (2008) suggests the impact followers may have on each other in both positive and negative ways. Understanding how follower-to-follower influence occurs and identifying key factors in such influence may assist both leaders and followers in making thoughtful decisions. There is a need for additional literature and research in this area.

Courage

In Followership, Kellerman (2008) references the construct of courage. The author suggests a failure to exhibit courage by both leaders and followers on a regular basis. Courage may be an overlooked, but critical, component in the work environment. Kellerman provides examples of governing boards that lack the courage to hold wayward executives accountable, often resulting in harm being done to the company, others, or both. Courage however is needed in day-to-day operations in addition to the governing board examples. Leaders and followers must develop the courage in order to speak truth to others. Leaders often lack the courage to hold direct reports accountable; conversely, followers often lack the courage to challenge authority and power. While challenging power and authority proves difficult, just as intimidating and, quite possibly as essential, is the courage to challenge in follower-to-follower situations. In Followership Kellerman suggests significant power lies in the follower-to-follower relationship.