Case study approach

I have use case studies because:

• a case study approach "allows the investigator to take advantage of emergent themes and unique case features"{Eisenhardt, 1989 }
• a case helps understand the different views of people working on the same project, their "claims, concerns and issues" {Guba, 1989 : p184}. The context is the constant and the participants are the variables.
• a case study allows organisation of data around the themes of IT and the public sector

---

EISENHARDT, K. M. (1989) Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.
GUBA, E. G. & LINCOLN, Y. S. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation, Newbury Park, CA; London, Sage.

Case selection

To investigate the phenomenon of engagement I need a collection of instrumental case studies. It would be nice to have a formal sample, because I might expect that such samples would represent some population of cases {Stake, 2005 #1371}. But the sample size I have is "too small to warrant random selection". So I have a purposive sample instead, a variety that represents different types of organisation, different IT projects and different types of third parties (consultants, suppliers, contractors). So I've chosen cases that seem to offer opportunities to learn and because these cases are accessible.

The other thing my cases seem to have in common is something successful about them - the participants are proud of their work.

---

STAKE, R. E. (2005) Qualitative case studies. IN DENZIN, N. K. & LINCOLN, Y. S. (Eds.) The Sage handbook of qualitative research. London, Sage Publications.

Intrinsic and instrumental case studies

Intrinsic and instrumental interest in cases matters according to what you are researching

• Intrinsic - because you want to understand this particular case better
• Instrumental - I examine the case to provide insight into an issue. The issue I'm interested in is engagement in relationships therefore my cases are instrumental. Hence, I can study a number of cases jointly. so I have ..
• Multiple or collective case studies because I'm investigating the phenomenon of engagement and how it can add value or help to deliver value. "It's instrumental study extended to several cases" says Stake.

"It would be interesting to know the details of what IT system the organisation was implementing"

commented a supervisor on a paper I wrote on a case study. But in reply, I must point out that this is not an intrinsic case study, but an instrumental case, one of a collection of cases to investigate the phenomenon of engagement and as such, whilst it would indeed be interesting to know technical details, that information does not explain the phenomenon and so those details are not relevant. Furthermore, if including such details makes it easier to identify the participating organisation, it is better to leave them out.

---

STAKE, R. E. (2005) Qualitative case studies. IN DENZIN, N. K. & LINCOLN, Y. S. (Eds.) The Sage handbook of qualitative research. London, Sage Publications.
in DENZIN, N. K. & LINCOLN, Y. S. (Eds.) (2005) The Sage handbook of qualitative research, Thousand Oaks ; London, Sage Publications.

Methodology chapter

Walsham (p166) refers to Guba and Lincoln's fourth generation evaluation. It's worth using this evaluation idea in the methodology chapter. Their proposed approach is "characterized as measurement oriented, description oriented and judgment oriented." Then Walsham says the key to this approach "the key dynamic" - what's a dynamic? - " is negotiation". He states that the approach is interpretive. What's the difference between an interpretive approach and the constructionist perspective that Guba and Lincoln think it to be?

"they take a position that evaluation outcomes are not description what things are or really work, but instead represent meaningful construction that aid an individual to make sense of situations."

Walsham also states that actors value shaping sense making and that power relationships are also important.

These ideas all feed into a practical methodology.

See Guba and Lincoln's twelve steps (p185) for how to use them to rationalise or justify an approach.

---

GUBA, E. G. & LINCOLN, Y. S. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation, Sage.
WALSHAM, G. (1995) Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. European Journal of Information Systems, 4, 74-81.

Theoretical framework

Choosing a methodology for a research project involves choosing appropriate methods, depending on what access is possible and how the researcher is thinking. The research process is informed by the researcher’s theoretical perspective, which is a philosophical stance. The theoretical perspective is itself informed by the epistemology and ontology. So the research process has four elements that inform one another: epistemology, theoretical perspective, methodology and methods (Crotty, 1998).

What the constructionist approach is
Constructionism is the idea that there is no objective truth but that we all construct our own reality, meaning is constructed and different people construct meaning in different ways. People need to have mechanisms for understanding what each of them is doing and need rich forms of conversations that are adequate to dealing with the complexity of social relationships so it’s sense making.

(Guba & Lincoln refer to the constructivist paradigm (Guba and Lincoln, 1989))

Why use the constructionist approach here
Clients and consultants can construct each others roles and clients are actors or agents who shape each others standing of what they do. Schein categorises those roles and so does Bovens.

Disadvantages of the constructionist approach
Czarniawska warns of the difficulties of employing the constructionist stance because the logic of representation is conventionally used between researchers but the medium of everyday organisational life is the logic of practice so there can be difficulties of communication between researchers and managers (Czarniawska, 2001).

---

Crotty, M. (1998) 'Introduction: the research process'. The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process, Sage, London.
Czarniawska, B. (2001) 'Is it Possible to Be a Constructionist Consultant?' Management Learning, 32 (2), pp. 253.
Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation, Sage.