essential-guide-to-qualitative-in-organizational-research

324 –––––––––– QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––design. As such, there will always be too many ‘variables’ for the number of observations madeand so the application of standard experimental or survey designs and criteria is not appropriate.Issues of reliability, validity and generalizability are addressed, but with different logics andevidence.Within this broad strategy a number of methods may be used – either qualitative, quantitativeor both. Case studies generally include multiple methods because of the research issues which canbe best addressed through this strategy. Participant observation, direct observation, ethnography,interviews (semi-structured to relatively unstructured), focus groups, documentary analysis, andeven questionnaires may be used, or in combination. A case study researcher is also likely to besensitive to opportunistic as well as planned data collection. Many case study researchers, in theirpursuit of the delicate and intricate interactions and processes occurring within organizations, willuse a combination of methods, partly because complex phenomena may be best approachedthrough several methods, and partly deliberately to triangulate data and theory (and therebyimprove validity).A case study, therefore, cannot be defined through its research methods. Rather, it has to bedefined in terms of its theoretical orientation. This places emphasis on understanding processesalongside their (organizational and other) contexts. The value of theory is key. Although a casestudy may begin with only rudimentary theory or a primitive framework, the researcher needsto develop theoretical frameworks during the course of the research which inform and make senseof the data and which can be systematically examined during the case study for plausibility. Thetheory needs to provide not only a sense of the particular circumstances of the case but also whatis of more general relevance and interest. In some situations, grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss,1967; Länsisalmi et al., Chapter 20, this volume) may lead to emergent theory, while in othersituations researchers may enter the case study organization with clear propositions to examine.Either way, without a theoretical framework, a case study may produce fascinating details aboutlife in a particular organization but without any wider significance.Case study theory-building tends, generally (but not exclusively), to be inductive. Theopportunity to explore issues in depth and in context, means that theory development can occurthrough the systematic piecing together of detailed evidence to generate (or replicate) theoriesof broader interest. The method, Yin (1994) suggests, is akin to that of the detective who mustsift evidence (some of it relevant and some of it not) to build inferences about what has happened,why and in what circumstances. This detective work is undertaken not only to understand theparticular features of the case(s) but also to draw out an analysis which may be applicable on awider basis.Case study research design is therefore flexible (see Robson, 2002), in that it is able to adaptto and probe areas of planned but also emergent theory. This requires a rigorous approach to theresearch design, the formulation of research questions and the data collection. ‘Most researchersfind that they do their best work by being thoroughly prepared to concentrate on a few things,yet ready for unanticipated happenings that reveal the nature of the case’ (Stake, 1995: 55).Research case studies must be distinguished from teaching case studies, which are widely usedparticularly in business and law schools. Teaching case studies are written, sometimes quite vividly,with the intention of highlighting particular issues for teaching and learning and to encourageseminar debate. By contrast a research case study aims to examine research questions and issues,by setting these in a contextual and often causal context. Yin (1994) notes that a high quality casestudy is characterized by rigorous thinking, sufficient presentation of evidence to reach appropriateconclusions, and careful consideration of alternative explanations of the evidence.