A new "pressure point"

I remember well Piantanida and Garman’s (2009) advice about constructing a logic-of-justification for a research genre. It is not simply a matter of locating a recipe for the study. Instead, one must recognize and sort through the “epistemological and methodological pressure points” in the literature and choose which ideas will best guide the study at hand (Ch. 7, Conventions of a Genre and Logic-of-Justification, para 2).

I had forgotten that Piantanida and Garman had specifically referenced grounded theory as one such genre framed by “contentious literature”!

So, as I began my background reading of constant comparative analysis (with its roots in grounded theory), I was not expecting to encounter a new pressure point.

The tension for me, however, is not within the grounded theory tradition itself but between grounded theory’s constant comparative method and Stake’s (1995) case study method.

I thought I had this part pretty well sewn up: case study research methods, followed by constant comparative analysis, and concluding with activity systems analysis. The path, while not necessarily easy, was at least clear.

Now, a bump in the path. 

Points of departure
On the subjects of generalization and sampling, I see a need to reconcile the different analytic stances of Strauss and Corbin versus Stake. With constant comparative method originating in the grounded theory tradition, and with the purpose of grounded theory being a systematic progression from descriptive to theoretical, is constant comparative analysis compatible with Stake's case study approach?

Time and again, Stake emphasizes that “case studies are undertaken to make the case understandable” (p. 85). He writes, “The function of research is not necessarily to map and conquer the world but to sophisticate the beholding of it” (p. 43). A skilled case researcher should organize his or her report in such a way as to stimulate a resonance with readers, who draw on their own past experiences with past cases to form “naturalistic generalizations” (p. 85).


Case research, then, is never about sampling: “Our first obligation is to understand this one case” (p. 4, emphasis added).

On the other hand, Strauss and Corbin (1998) present a step-by-step process of microanalysis that moves beyond description to conceptualizing and classifying and (eventually) theory building. The basic operations of theory building are 1) asking questions and 2) making theoretical comparisons -- analytic tools that guide and direct theoretical sampling.

In grounded theory, the researcher makes theoretical comparisons when in doubt or confused by the data. "The object, then, is to become sensitive to the number and types of properties that might pertain to phenomena that otherwise might not be noticed or noticed only much later" (Strauss &Corbin, p. 82). Properties and dimensions of one thing are used as tools for examining another.

Strauss and Corbin say the point of theoretical comparison is to move beyond describing and pinning down "facts." The issue, they say, is to move from the particular to the general.

The sticking point
How does the process of theoretical comparison fit with case study analysis?

Stake is clear: case studies don't produce generalizations, they refine them. Through counter example, a case study may help modify an existing generalization, but "the real business of case study is particularization, not generalization. We take a particular case and come to know it well, not primarily as to how it is different from others but what it is, what it does" (p. 8).

Particularization is the avenue to understanding, not generalization.

Or, has constant comparative method (and coding and memo writing, for that matter) become so commonplace within the broad spectrum of qualitative inquiry that it can be logically applied in descriptive case study? Has the constant comparative method become independent of grounded theory as a thematic analysis tool? At what point did the tools of grounded theory work cross over into the mainstream?

For instance, Saldaña (2013) presents six coding methods from the grounded theory “coding canon” in the newest edition of his book: in vivo, process, initial (formerly “open”), focused, axial, and theoretical (formerly “selective”). He says they all can be used in other non-grounded theory studies (p. 51).

At my breaking point

Part of my confusion, I realize now, stems from the fact that I have never clearly resolved in my head if my case is, according to Stake's terms, an "intrinsic" one or an "instrumental" one. In an intrinsic study the unique case itself is the center of attention; in instrumental study the case(s) are selected purposefully based on the researcher’s need to more fully understand an issue. Whatever the case, it’s not a process of sampling.

I think my study is somewhere in the middle: the case was practically handed to me on a silver platter, but my interest is instrumental and pre-existing. I embraced the opportunity to study the case in question because of my own a priori interests.

Stake warns that it is often not easy to categorize one’s work based on these distinctions. The researcher’s interest in the case (intrinsic versus instrumental) dictates the methods of analysis.

Where once I appreciated Stake’s broadminded stance (“..I encourage you readers to be alert for tactics that do not fit your style of operation or circumstances. Before you is a palette of methods” [Introduction, p. xii].), I now barely comprehend his musings on the “mystical side of analysis” (p. 72).

Stake writes,

Where thoughts come from, whence meaning, remains a mystery. The page does not write itself, but by finding, for analysis, the right ambience, the right moment, by reading and rereading the accounts, by deep thinking, then understanding creeps forward and your page is printed. (p. 73)

Whaaat?

Points on a continuum
Must I choose between Stake’s riddles and Strauss and Corbin’s rigidity?

In short, no. But I definitely need to write a clear articulation of the purpose, nature, and selection of my case as part of the logic-of-justification for my analytic methods.

For Stake, the case researcher must be equally inclined toward inductive analysis, which he calls "categorical aggregation," and interpretive analysis, or "direct interpretation." An intrinsic case study requires more direct interpretation, as there is little time or need to aggregate categorical data. Intrinsic case studies are more descriptive, with emphasis on particularization. In contrast, instrumental case studies are more theoretical, with emphasis on induction and generalization.

These analytical methods reside along a paradigmatic continuum with no hard-and-fast boundaries. Stake writes, "The quantitative side of me looked for the emergence of meaning from the repetition of phenomena. The qualitative side of me looked for the emergence of meaning in the single instance" (p. 76).

As with every other stage of the process, reflexivity is key:

Each researcher needs, through experience and reflection, to find the forms of analysis that work for him or her....The nature of the study, the focus of the research questions, the curiosities of the researcher pretty well determine what analytic strategies should be followed: categorical aggregation or direct interpretation. (p. 77)

The point, I think, is it is up to me to argue compatibility between the constant comparative method and Stake. The type and purpose of the case, the conceptual structure of the study, and reflexive management of evolving research questions will determine where I land along the analysis continuum.

References
Piantanida, M., & Garman, N. B. (2009). The qualitative dissertation: A guide for students and faculty (2nd ed., Kindle version.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

A new "pressure point"