Generalisation

On using case studies in my methodology chapter I'll have to comment on generalisation. Mason {2002} says it's not easy, that you have to know what your argument is and its relationship to the production of theory - and that's what I'm struggling with - relating real practical engagement to the engagement literature and social capital theory. I have to support each claim I make with the relevant linking material, Mason says.

The points to make must include:

• Qualitative research must produce explanations that have wide resonance and are generalisable even though case studies provide a compact unit of research {Payne, 2005 }
  
• Case studies should be interesting
• Case studies should maximise what can be learnt from that particular case
• Acknowledgement that limited generalisation is possible or appropriate to qualitative research

I need to find how Stake distinguishes between types of case study. From the web, I gather it's:

1. The intrinsic case study where ‘ this case is of interest… in all its particularity and ordinariness’ , ‘let the case reveal its story’
2. The instrumental case study in which a case is examined mainly to provide insight into an issue or for refinement of a theory.
3. The collective case study – number of cases studied in order to investigate some general phenomenon.

I want instrumental case studies to gain insight to the phenomenon of engagement. Collective case studies would be nice if I could get them. I'm not using intrinsic case studies, so don't need to go into details of what the project or programmes are - and that helps to keep confidentiality and anonymity.

---

Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching. London, Sage.
Payne, G. and M. Williams (2005). "Generalization in Qualitative Research." Sociology 39(2): 295-314.
Stake, R. E. (1995) The Art of case study research, Sage. or in
Stake, R. (1994) Case studies, in Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y.S. Handbook of Qualitative Research, London, Sage

Research design

Following Jennifer Mason I'm matching my research questions to the methods that I intend to use to answer them. For example, if a subquestion is:

How does engagement contribute to an effective project?

then I'll use

• Observation
• interview data
• shadowing

I'm getting a table for each research sub question with headings of data sources, justification, analysis and relationship to theory. I am changing some headings for the ethics proforma that I must submit. That includes practicalities and ethical issues.

The justification for interviews is that they will provide client manager’s accounts of how they and the users engage with each other and with the consultants. Observation will triangulate that data, though I don't know that I will have much opportunity to observe or shadow, depends on the access I get. So another column in my table will be practicalities, like access, time, equipment.

---

Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative researching, (2nd ed Edn), Sage, London. 973

Ethics

I was reading Mason's advice on qualitative design when I came across her advice on ethics too. She advises on layout - use a table with rows for each research question and headings for data sources, justification for using those sources, practicalities and consequent ethical issues. Then she has a chapter on each type of qualitative data source, like observation or interview, with advice on the possible ethical issues. So it's quite thought provoking.

Research questions	Data sources and methods	Justification	Practicalities (e.g. resources, access, skills)	Ethical issues [1]

I need also be aware of the ESRC framework held here.

---

[1] Taken from Mason, J. (2002) Qualitative researching, (2nd ed Edn), Sage, London. 973