In the end, what I’m taking away from all of this how much good case study is a balancing act full of choices that can impact your study:
From Merry – “This seems to fit the description of a case in that it is a complex phenomenon with a purpose (Stake, 2) and there are many views about what is happening (Stake, 12). This phenomenon can be viewed as a system (Stake, 2), but where the boundaries should be drawn is not clear cut and would shape the case study differently.�

From Grace - “Gerring appears to embrace case studies as existing in both worlds, as both particularizing and generalizing. He says, "Iit seems justifiable for case studies to function on two levels simultaneously, the case itself and some broader class of (perhaps difficult- to- specify) cases" (p.79). Critical to this is identifying the population from which the case is taken, and understanding how the case fits into the larger context. What this speaks to is a well thought out research design -- the one 'law' of research that should never be broken. “

From Bethany- “I see that there are a tremendous number of theoretical approaches that I never even considered using (largely because I didn’t know they existed). So now I’m faced with the possibility of changing my approach which is both daunting and exciting at the same time. It’s amazing that each theoretical framework will result in it’s own unique final product.�

There are many ways that things can be done and still fall into the category of “case study�. On the flipside there are times when the term case study is used inappropriately when the “case� is in fact an example or a device. I believe that all of us are clear on the difference after weeks of practice.

I have found that working on proposing a case study and researching the story have been very helpful exercises. I’ve really enjoyed the different perspectives of our class and I’ve realized just how difficult it would be to write a case study that pleased all of us. After listening to us pick dozens of articles to pieces I think I may have learned more from all of you than the books. When I do my own case studies I will think of all of you. The graphics will have to be well done for Bethany, I will have to prove to Grace that it was in fact a case study, I will need to prove its value and significance to Matt, I will need to be able to justify my methods to Maggie, I will make sure my research is grounded for Merry and I will need to make sure to have an interesting story for Roopa. (I could have used almost anyone’s name for any example, but you get what I mean.)
This sounds like a goodbye post. How depressing ☹ It has been great studying this with all of you – hope everyone learned as much as I did. ☺

Looking back on the postings, I think it may be in some ways easier to focus on the research methods and the case write-ups when studying cases that are outside one's own area of research. When reading research within one's own area of interest, it is easy to get caught up in the content rather than focusing on the details of the writing.

I did not start out with a sceptical view of case studies as many of my classmates did, so I do not feel a shift that way. I am still convinced about the complexity and difficulty of doing good case study research and that I want my case study to be rigorous and significant.

I am also still struggling with what the story is about my case study. I listed several possible approaches early on, and guess that I am still considering which will emerge as the most intriguing.

Over the semester (and post looking back at my previous posts), I think I have a better sense of what a case study should be and the logistics of actually building such a study. But beyond the overall sense of clarity (perhaps), reflecting back on my posts and thoughts over the last few months, I find that I am still holding on to some of my opinions, while others have slowly evolved....

For instance, I was really glad to have readd the Eisenhardt peice: "Eisenhardt's piece, in my opinion, is most notable for the practical angle she lends to case study research. For me any research should further knowledge beyond just the boundaries of the specific site of study." I haven't changed my mind about that, though I now think that context specific studies do have a place of importance in building a corpus of knowledge.

About Stake: "By claiming that in an intrinsic case study, the case is of the highest importance and that in an instrumental case study issues are primary is it implied that the case and the issues therein are separate? Can the case be said to be important simply by itself, devoid of issues? Aren’t the issues the very factors that define/set up the case? What about the case is so interesting to the researcher is not for the issues involved therein?"

Looking back at that comment...I am still not very sure about how fine or decisive a line one can draw between a case and the issues although I do how one could parse the case study into case and issues. But perhaps the field of study is also a decisive factor in that, I assume. However, Stake's book is high on my list because of his tabels and charts and lists that help set up the study.

Going back over the selection of case studies that we read for this class, the broad range that was covered has been rather helpful in terms of framing research questions, writing the case narrative, exploring issues, and problems/ issues one could perhaps avoid or anticipate (and take corrective action against) (especially cases such as the IM case, the cases on workplace communication, the Huffman and Kastman-Breuch cases).

Reflection
Well, I’m clearer now about cases as bounded phenomenon, but I’m still muddled by the ability of a researcher to set those limits when they are not readily visible. There seems much justification is needed for time limits – when those limits might be something like a convenience for getting a dissertation done. I’ve been further challenged by Stake writing that “events and processes fit the definition (of a case study) less well,� since in rhetoric, we seem to love the event for a case study! So I use that quote in my paper and counter with examples of rhetoric using events as case studies. I guess setting the limits of what you will and won’t study helps bound the case.

Also, I understand case studies as a strategy, not a method, like interviews. That was a pretty major step for me, in the beginning.

Original
“Yin's chapter 5 was super for me. I especially like the setup of general analytic strategies, and the techniques were pretty helpful too.�

Reflection
I went back to chapter 5 to see what exactly I felt was so helpful about that chapter. I keyed in on the specific analytic techniques that began on page 116. The one that has been most helpful to me as we write our case narratives is time-series analysis, specifically the chronologies (page 125). Chronologies allow us to “trace events over time� as more than “a descriptive event� (125). Although Yin seems to set it up to create a causal relationship (what comes first, must come first), I’ve found it helps me immensely in setting up the context for my case study.

I was really struck by Mary Schuster’s article, and how helpful the contextualizing of medical vs. midwifery model of childbirth was to understanding the birth center. I’ve found in my case narrative that I can’t simply jump into the EWG report without first explaining why it was so unique. I first need to discuss the CDC’s biomonitoring efforts, and so on. While it is more work to understand and summarize this for the reader without getting bogged down in the particulars, it is really useful in helping to make my case unique and (I hope) worth pursuing.

In all, this class has helped me immensely as I look toward dissertating and getting a defensible method ready for a prospectus. Thanks, Laura!

Admittedly, I began the semester skeptical of the case study approach and not yet convinced that it would be applicable to my dissertation work. My preference was for quantitative research made up of large, representative samples, the “credibility� of statistical significance, and the “reward� of generalizing my results to a larger population. My fixation at the time was the usefulness and application of what was learned. How would knowing a great deal about a particular case ever be useful in a broader context? Gerring’s definition of a case study helped me to appreciate that a single case indeed can be related to a broader set of cases when we understand how it fits into the larger context. In defining a case study as “the intensive study of a single case (a spacially delimited phenomenon observed at a single point in time or over some period of time) where the purpose of that study is – at least in part – to shed light on a lerger class of cases (a population)� (p. 20), Gerring addresses the usefulness factor that I find so important.

Given Stake’s definition of case study research, “We do not study a case (a specific, a complex functioning thing) primarily to understand other cases. Our first obligation is to understand this one case� (p. 4), I wonder how accepting he would be of Gerring’s perspective! What Stake brings to my developing acceptance of the case study approach is the emphasis on inviting the reader into the case through detailed description and “storytelling.� Through “empathic understanding� and “conveying to the reader what experience itself would convey� (Stake, p. 39), the distinct quality of the case approach adds richness to our insights and depth to what we ultimately gain from them. I may not always agree with Stake, but he has opened my eyes to the potential for nuance and detail in empirical research.

Finally, Yin’s detailed protocol further legitimizes the case study approach. I now recognize that it is possible to conduct disciplined yet flexible case research that results in credible new insights and contributes to the ongoing conversations in our field. As the semester winds down and I further analyze the case for the final paper, I clearly see a place for case study research in the study of collaborative processes in virtual teams. In this emergent field of research, it is through such detailed “particularizations� that patterns, relationships, and new meanings will be brought to light.

Here is an excerpt from my original post:

"Before I go into my personal perspective on case study research and what I hope to get out of this class, I'd like to share Maggie's confusion regarding the reading and common interpretations of what it is to do "case study" research. Indeed, the Stake text seems to offer a form of research that is nebulous at best: not quite ethnography, and hesitant as to how far one generalizes given the research performed. Dr. Gurak's doctoral research, on the other hand, is something with which I am quite familiar (and not simply because I've read her book for a previous class--it's quite good!). It's simply more journalistic; one uses a narrative to explain the formulation of a certain event and, where necessary, the reactions thereto. These reactions also entail a certain (necessary, I believe) level of interpretation on the part of the author--something to which Dr. Gurak alludes at the end of the chapter and which is carried out in much of her book."

As we have confirmed via countless in-class discussions on the matter, case study research IS nebulous. It is this cloudy, shape-shifting beast that seems to conform to whatever research someone wants to do or whatever kind of generalizations they want to make so long as they are looking at something that is unique and time-bound as an "event." But, as Dr. Gurak wisely noted during the first two class sessions (and citing Yin, I believe), case study research isn't a method so much as a strategy. It can help to legitimize research, yes (and, as I originally and correctly presumed, I find this to be the most valuable part of the class), but it IS a strategy in the sense that you are constantly seeking out the pertinence and interest involved in the workings of this event. Research questions are directed towards extracting meaning out of the event, but they also seem to anticipate a certain flexibility and mutability. And this is why I have found the framing of these case "narratives" so intriguing during the semester: There isn't always a chronology of events presented in the articles surveyed, and there needn't be, but there should be, at the least, a sense of narrative in terms of a.) providing background as to the unraveling or exigence of the event, and b.) the careful *process* by which the researcher himself/herself undergoes evaluation of the artifact/voices examined. It is that process--made explicit or implicit (or, more pertinently, described in a methods section versus made apparent in the findings)--that seems to govern the success of case study more than any of the criteria listed by Yin. Case studies should be refined, yes; interesting, yes; allow for alternative views, yes; unique, of course... but they should illuminate the process, the enlightenment involved in working from within a certain time frame--either an actual time frame in the case of longitudinal studies or even the time frame of the event itself. Particularly useful to us as rhetorical researchers, naturally motivated to seek out specific rhetorical causes and effects, is to keep in mind this sense of a continuum; we need not present the facts as such, but at the least, our questions should be open to the intrinsic nature of the case and the instrumental nature of our use thereof--the way we position ourselves within our research in order to find out how, in a given place, in a given time, human communication has shattered or shone in the way it has.

Sadly, my subsequent post had to do with my presentation, although I did anticipate a sort of "what is a case study?" flavor. In terms of my current case, it was probably a useful exercise in that I managed to come away with a sense of what made case study research important to ME, particularly in terms of navigating a certain time-bound event and extracting from it, not only an intriguing narrative involving a rhetorical shaping of image to reflect ecoconsumerism, but reasons why this is important for such research conducted in the future. Normally, I would be looking at how such an event works to shape the industry; in this case, I am looking at how the context shaped the case in such a way that it can shape future cases.

(Original Post)
I found Stake's explanation of writing the report incredibly valuable. His suggestions for organizing the report are new to me, and I predict his box method might work its way into my initial write up/outline. Stake says that "readers should be counted on to do their fair share of the work" (122), but how much is a 'fair share'? How do we know what to give them up front and what to make them 'work' for? I've always thought of a case study as a kind of story, or as a narrative of a phenomenon, so I was surprised to read Stakes argument that "case study reporting generally is not storytelling" (127). After reading his explanation of why a case study isn't a story, I agree with his claim and appreciate the three paths he offers further down on p. 127.

(Reflection)
- I don’t think I’ll use Stake’s box method after all, though I think it’s good to know that I have it if I need it. I remember being so shocked that "case study reporting generally is not storytelling" (127), though I’m starting to get over that now and am able to look at these studies more holistically.

(Original Post)
The thing that struck me about this week’s readings is the way that each author/researcher presented alternative views/explanations. Though each case had specific goals to inform the reader of a certain theory, event, or phenomenon, none of them were afraid to say, “I (we) believe this, however, it could also be looked at this way…� I took this as maturity on the part of the researcher; the explanations of alternative reasoning definitely boosted their credibility in my opinion.

(Reflection)
- Alternative explanations are still strangely fascinating to me. Thinking that the outcome will be ‘A’ and it turns out to be ‘B’, and it’s ok, you’re not wrong – you just discovered what was really going on. I think I like alternative explanations so much because finding one means that you’ve come to a conclusion, which is a nice thing to do in a case study.

(Original Post)
I’m getting more excited about our mini studies as each week goes by, though I have a number of questions about our approach/getting started. Reading successful cases is one thing, but writing your own is something totally different (I imagine). It would be incredibly helpful for me if we could spend some time in class asking questions that are specific to our project for this class (perhaps we don’t need to do this now, but maybe in a few weeks). I realize that all of our readings are supposed to be informing our mini cases, but it may be helpful to talk more specifically about the cases that we have in mind.

(reflection)
- I am having a lot of fun writing the case narrative, it’s interesting to think about how I would have approached this kind of a paper at the beginning of the semester vs. how I’m approaching it now – I think it shows a lot of growth and new understanding.

(original post)
Yin mentions using software to code, is that what most researchers do now? I’d be interested to hear about your coding experiences and whether or not you’ve found software to be useful or imposing.

(reflection)
- After reading through a number of different perspectives on coding, I think I will give software a chance. If it doesn’t work for something as coding sensitive as grounded theory, I’ll stop and do it all by hand (which is fine with me too).

(original post)
Chapter 2 (Stake) reiterated that nothing is ever as simple as it seems. I always thought of research questions as simply being the jump off for the rest of the study, not realizing how much time one needs to spend evaluating, testing, and reworking them. I guess I was surprised that there are so many ways to approach research question design…

(reflection)
- Research questions are still tough for me. I have so many of them! Narrowing my study down to one question that covers all of the things I’m getting at seems impossible – is there a remedial research question seminar or something? That might be really helpful. But in all seriousness, looking at all of the cases we studied over the semester has helped to show me that you have to just get something down and go for it. A girl could spend her whole life writing and rewriting these things. At some point I think it’s helpful to say – enough is enough! I’ve got to get this thing going.

(original post)
I like how this week's readings armed us with an arsenal of research weapons. Yin and Eisenhardt's practical approach to case study design clearly illustrated what’s normally a very 'messy' process. As a young (and somewhat inexperienced) researcher, blueprints like these are incredibly helpful in getting through the unfamiliarities of case study research.

(reflection)
- I still agree with this – to an extent. I think that having a plan is helpful, and definitely useful initially, though now I see the value in allowing research to evolve organically, and to be smart enough to document how and why things change from the original plan (if they do).

(original post)
The content of our readings extends the introduction to research methodology from Mary Lay Schuster’s 8011 class. In 8011 I was working on a case study that used Glaser and Strauss’s grounded theory methodology, which at the time seemed like the best way to gather and analyze my data. However, when reading both Yin and Gerring (of whom I still have mixed feelings about – he just doesn’t seem relatable) I see that there are a tremendous number of theoretical approaches that I never even considered using (largely because I didn’t know they existed). So now I’m faced with the possibility of changing my approach which is both daunting and exciting at the same time. It’s amazing that each theoretical framework will result in it’s own unique final product. Additionally, I never really considered doing a multiple / cross case study, it didn’t seem necessary – but now I feel like this option needs to be explored since it’s such an important feature for Yin.

(reflection)
- I’m still planning on using Grounded Theory, though I think I now have a better understanding of how difficult it can be. A multiple or cross case study would still be great – but I’m more interested in the particulars of the Red case as it’s own little phenomenon right now.

(original post)
There's something about case studies that I've always (at least for the last several years) found captivating. I like the idea of telling stories through research, and case studies are well suited to narratives that explain experiences which would otherwise be untold and/or lost with time. Like some of you I'm also a bit fuzzy on exactly what a case study should be, but maybe that's one of the reasons so many researchers enjoy using this methodology. It's subjective in a sense that it works for the researcher - it's flexible and dynamic, able to adapt with changing situations, and I like that.

(reflection)
- I think I still feel this way. Which I guess that could be bad – but I think we’ve decided that case studies are often fuzzy and subjective.

(original post)
In 8011 I began to work on a case study about Product Red, a global brand working to alleviate AIDS suffering in Africa. The way Red uses new media to promote 'social justice' is a new concept in branding, and I look forward to the opportunity to further explore the Red case this semester. I feel that I have a good start on this project, but there's still a lot of work to be done before I can arrive at any conclusions (though I guess that's not always the goal of case studies).

(reflection)
- I don’t think that my goal with the Red study is to arrive at conclusions, rather I just want to explore my research questions and see what I come up with. I may reach conclusions, but they might not necessarily be generalizable, which is fine by me.

So I think that's all for now. Tomorrow's discussion should be lots of fun!

Bethany

1. As Bethany and others have alluded, the foremost concern is probably that you affect the case as you study it. Not only does this make it hard to discern a chronology of events (if you so choose) that starts outside of your own thesis; you are possibly shaping your design of the "experiment" so as to provide optimal results. Tebeaux does a pretty good job here, although she is somewhat nondescript about her effect as researcher on the students (did they know prior to evaluations? etc.). Although she very briefly glosses over student eval. concerns regarding a lack of access to help and later declares that such courses must be carefully constructed so as to offer students access to the instructor (how so? why did she not do this herself? what lessons were learned here?), I do think she let problems arise as they would normally and tried to take a more objective stake in the reporting of results and "product" as opposed to process (outside of a proposed "model" for distance ed.).

2. Feasible? Sure. The theory and tech have changed, I'm sure, but I'm sure this sort of educational case study is going on in a billion places around the world as we speak. Distance ed. always finds the need to pat itself on the back for being workplace-savvy; this sort of arrangement of an educational case study seems to do just that: The requisite amount of hedging ("Sorry, collaborative learning!") tempered by a real-world application. Sadly, I'm not sure "product-based" education really rings any better nowadays than it did at the time.

3. Obviously, the potential to affect student learning with the study would increase tenfold in a classroom-based setting. On the other hand, such an intra-environmental study would allow for a richer description of student learning "process" and possibly a greater sampling of student voices.

The Tabeaux piece was well-written and informative, but perhaps my lukewarm reception of the article was affected by my interest in distance education. However it was interesting to see the way in which the
"basic theory of distance education" was enriched and enhanced to provide a theory specific to tech. writing. The detailed tables and assignment sheets/criteria made the paper more immediate and comprehensible.

Zooming out for a moment, besides the mechanics of the case and the checklist of requirements of what a case study should be, high on my list are clarity and readability, and I look at the Breuch, Tabeaux, Gurak, Huffman, and Zuboff pieces as models as I write the narrative of my own case.

I think it would be immensely difficult to successfully critique your own teaching. We all make lesson plans with certain learning outcomes in mind. However, why our lessons work might not be the reason that we might think.
I find each classroom of students has particular personality. Some classes just seem to catch on to concepts at different speeds. My current class seems to really get audience analysis, whereas one of my classes last semester just didn’t get it at all. In April I was still waiting for the proverbial light bulb to turn on. If each class is unique in some way even with the same basic preparation being able to I’m not sure it would be possible for me to articulate what I do differently between one class and the next. Or if it has less to do with my teaching and more to do with skills, knowledge, and attitudes the students have when they walk in the door.

I also wonder about true anonymity. If I were to write an article about student work, giving students pseudonyms, would it really be anonymous? With the amount of group work, peer review, and oral presentations about final projects, I think many students could guess. For example I had a student that in a final presentation titled a slide “My feasibility project – WTF� (and no he was not working with the Wellington Trade Foundation or similarly abbr. co.). Does that mean that I have to eliminate this happening from research if it was applicable?

Kastman-Breuch presents her case in a well-organized and direct fashion. The purpose of the study is clear from the outset and the resulting issues appear fully developed. I appreciate the contribution it makes to technical writing instruction and found myself thinking about how to incorporate some of her conclusions into my own teaching. I do, however, have a number of questions about the study itself. First, I was under the impression that we should not conduct a “formal study� with classes we are actively teaching, yet both Kastman-Breuch and Tebeaux are studying their own classes. Second, I’m curious how clients were found and convinced(?) to participate in the course. There was a commitment of time and effort on their part with no guarantee that the students would produce adequately. Finally, I’d like to know how the interview data was coded. What brought the researcher to the 3 issues ultimately explored in the article. How did they emerge from the data?

In the Tebeaux piece, I appreciate the detailed outline of course content and structure but would’ve liked more details of the actual teaching process. I feel that case study research that “invites� the reader into the story or process has more impact. Also, the research question driving this study didn’t initially jump out at me – is it ‘explaining how a distance technical education course builds on the basic theory of distance education?’ To partially address some of Merry’s questions, I’m concerned about bias creeping into studies of our own classes. While the classes we teach provide a ready-made sample, how objective can we be with our own material and students? Had the Tebeaux piece been in a FtF class, such as Kastman-Breuch’s, there would’ve been more traditional “observations� of what went on in the class. However, I think online exchanges could also be offered as “observations� of what transpired in the class. The only thing missing is the visual piece. I wish Tebeaux had done more of that.

Looking forward to the discussion Merry!!

- Aside from the concerns of participant safety and confidentiality, I think that we need to be highly aware of what outcomes our research will have. In any environment, but perhaps especially in educational settings, it’s important that our research work to affect change (at least I think so). Perhaps there are higher expectations for education based research to result in some action, whether it be policy or classroom related. I think this would be a great question for Lee-Ann, it seems like she has a lot of experience with classroom research and the ways that research results in change.

2) What model for an educational case study does Tebeaux present? It is still a feasible model for what we might report today?

- I think that her model is still feasible. Though the technology she’s talking about has changed, I think her approach and her methodology still make a lot of sense. I like that she shared her assignment sheets, and think that her visuals (tables and charts) were actually really helpful in communicating the research findings (it seems that a number of the articles we’ve read over the semester have been less effective with visuals). This article was interesting in a sense that while I was reading it, though I knew it was 12 years old, a lot of the findings and information still struck me as useful/applicable to distance learning today (i.e. the fact that students in the distance learning class received higher grades than the students in the ‘real’ class, though I guess this may not be true and/or generalizable anymore).

3) What differences would occur if the class being studied was classroom based or distance based?

- It would seem that there would be some significant differences in teacher/student interaction, student attitudes in and towards the class material, interaction between and amongst students, and other factors such as jobs, families, and home life that aren’t as big of a deal in distance learning.

4) In class we might try sketching out a plan for an educational or classroom case study. This could be for a course you are teaching or might be teach or for an observation of another person teaching.

- I think this sounds like a great activity, and though classroom research isn’t really my thing, I think we could all benefit from this kind of a plan – is Lee-Ann in on this?