Good research is not about good methods as much as it is about good thinking. (Stake, 1995, p. 19)
Writing is thinking on paper. -- William Zinnser
 |
| Perspicacity 1936 |
For a Tuesday night class, I was asked to lead discussion on a reading selection about case study research in the field of literacy.
This was a prime opportunity, as I am in the middle of a self-directed, crash course on case study methodology for my own dissertation. Remembering the advice of a former university instructor who said that presenting a formal, scholarly talk on a subject is good preparation for the eventual task of academic writing, I used this occasion to sort out my nascent understandings of the case study literature, namely the works of two leading methodologists, Stake (1995) and Yin (2008).
First, to catch everyone up: Although I already have written and defended a dissertation proposal, I feel my research design, which includes case study, is flimsy. I proposed a project using Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and activity systems analysis within a case study, but I am not at all versed in case study method. In my proposal I devoted my time to a thorough treatment of CHAT, which is a substantive theoretical and analytical frameworks that does not provide a clear logic of design. Thus, in the literature, you will encounter CHAT theorists who specialize in other methods, such as design-based research, ethnography, and case study.
So, in consultation with my professors, I decided that part of my work this semester -- even as I am actively collecting data and beginning initial analysis -- would be to take a closer look at the case study tradition and develop an appropriate "logic-of-justification" (Piantanida & Garman, 2009) for its use in my study.
I began the presentation on Tuesday evening with the above quote from Stake and an image from Rene Magritte, whose artwork Stake references both on the cover and in Chapter 6 of his 1995 book, The Art of Case Study Research.
I loved Chapter 6 of this book. Stake demonstrates how epistemology is expressed through multiple overlapping and intertwined researcher identities: teacher, participant observer, interviewer, reader, storyteller, advocate, artist, counselor, evaluator, consultant. The researcher is all of these, but his or her "style" determines the emphasis given each role.
In a section titled "Case Researcher as Interpreter," Stake argues that "research is not just the domain of scientists, it is the domain of craftspersons and artists as well, all who would study and interpret" (p. 97). He connects case study to the Surrealist Magritte, who juxtaposed everyday images to make assertions about the world and humanity. "Magritte worked his white clouds against luminous blue sky again and again, drawing attention to ourselves as creators of meaning -- and to the artist as our agent, helping us toward new realizations" (p. 98).
I enjoyed Stake's discussion about "researcher as interpreter" and decided to include a bit of that in my presentation on Tuesday. I selected Magritte's Perspiracity as a discussion starter. I had to look up this word, which means "acute mental vision and discernment." I thought this connected nicely with Piantanida and Garman's discussion around the concept of phronesis, the wisdom and "theoretic perspective" that guides the researcher "toward a form of representation that can convey the complexity of the phenomenon clearly and persuasively" (Ch. 13, Warranting a Thesis, para 3). Stake simply called it "good thinking."
[Confession: As I browsed thumbnails of Magritte's art on the Internet, my initial reaction to the image of the stiff man in a suit painting a bird while studying what appears to be a common chicken egg was, "How sad, uninspired, and predictable." Maybe Magritte's title is a tongue-in-cheek joke? Still. Some scholars in the UK, at least, also made the Perspicacity and phronesis connection, as evidenced by the book cover to the right, shared with me by a classmate just this morning! Wild, huh?]
For the presentation on case study, I wanted to do something more than just deliver a tired, bullet-pointed explication of methodological conventions. So, I delivered a tired, bullet-pointed explication of methodological conventions -- with a twist. I tried framing the presentation (embedded below) as my personal process of constructing a logic-of-justification.
One idea, in particular, that I wanted to put out there is the novice researcher's struggle to break out on his or her own while self-consciously clinging to "prescriptive formulas" (Piantanida & Garman). This theme came out in full at the end of the presentation, during Q&A time, when I shared some of my own questions:
- Which perspective on case study (Stake, Yin, others???) is a good epistemological fit for my project? Do I need to align with one perspective? By paragraph three of his introduction, Yin already sounds more objectivist than Stake, using terms like "validity" and "chain of evidence." Also, in answer to the question, "How does one know to use case study?" Yin writes, "There's no formula, but your choice depends in large part on your research question(s)." This is opposite of an interpretivist mindset that would say the researcher's proclivities and epistemology determine the method/approach.
- Where does the rich, narrative description (experiential text) of case study fit into a CHAT dissertation? As a stand-alone chapter?
My project resides on a continuum, somewhere between masterpiece and paint-by-numbers.
Section Four of The Qualitative Dissertation portrays six students' maneuverings along this same continuum. Interestingly, of the six interpretive exemplars, I most related to the journeys of Jean and Joan, who each produced highly conceptualized, arts-based inquiries. While I am not doing anything so artsy (I am doing one of the more hum-drum qualitative genres out there!), I appreciated their struggles "to come to grips with the issue of genre" in the midst of doing their studies.
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1T9_KtfS6XvpnpLQtHRkv6TqwS8g7PCi3o8GlB8AFxgA/edit?usp=sharing
References
Piantanida, M., & Garman, N. B. (2009). The qualitative dissertation: A guide for students and faculty (2nd ed., Kindle version). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed., Kindle version). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Yin writes, "There's no formula, but your choice depends in large part on your research question(s)." This is opposite of an interpretivist mindset that would say the researcher's proclivities and epistemology determine the method/approach.
ReplyDelete***
Hm. I hadn't thought of this as a contradiction, but I see what you mean. In actuality I highly doubt many people go around mastering new methodologies every time they come up with a new research question. The variety of methodologies I have used have been selected more because of who my audience is than my own epistemological belief (e.g. publishing a quantitative content analysis last year because I knew the IT journal audience I wanted to reach would not take 'thematic analysis' seriously.) It sure did feel weird, though developing a coding scheme, doing rater training and calculating inter-rater reliability!
Yep, I get the craving for structure and recipes. If you can't find one, you can create one, and then that becomes your default methodology for the work that you do - and others can use it as well.
yes, that is exactly what my adviser said: innovate, craft your own methodology and document it well. Probably another good reason to read more dissertations and book-length studies because wouldn't that sort of lengthy, methodological discussion get cut from a journal article.
ReplyDeleteOops. i forgot to embed my slideshow.