There are a number of different ideas as to what a case study is, though the common denominator is that the case should be a contemporary, complex functioning unit that is investigated in its natural context, via a range of methods (Lee & Saunders, 2017; Maxwell, 2013). Lee and Saunders (2017) suggest that there are two alternative approaches to case study research – the orthodox approach and the emergent approach. These are similar to Maxwell (2013) variance-orientated and process-orientated approaches. The orthodox approach (variance orientated), best typified in the work of Yin (1984, 2003, 2009, 2018), defines case studies as a research method (Jankowicz, 2005; Yin, 2018) or a research
strategy (Hartley, 2004). Within this approach, scholars take an implicitly positivistic view of case study research, working with variables and the correlations between them, often using quantitative methods (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017; Maxwell, 2013). This epistemological
position usually involves asking a question, developing hypotheses, identifying variables and then developing observable constructs that can be measured using statistical means (see the Eisenhardt (1989) method for an example of this). The orthodox approach therefore relies heavily on a linear process of research – largely thanks to the work of Yin – and it is currently the dominant approach taken in case studies research (Lee & Saunders, 2017). However, when discussing human phenomenon, following strictly linear processes can be restrictive for researchers, who feel they have to complete the initial stages, as dictated by
Yin, before they can move beyond them (Lee & Saunders, 2017). There is also a tendency, in the work of Yin especially, to ignore the underlying epistemological positions of
researchers who take a social constructionist point of view.
The emergent, or process-orientated, approach, on the other hand, takes an interpretivist perspective in order to understand participants’ sense-making of events or phenomena, and often employs qualitative methods (Lee & Saunders, 2017). This approach is most frequently related to the work of Stake (1995, 2005, 2006) and has been discussed in depth by Lee and Saunders (2017). These interpretivist approaches to case studies are rooted in a social constructed view, in that scholars using them hold that knowledge is constructed rather than discovered (Stake, 1995). The focus is therefore on asking how and why people act in certain ways and the meanings they generate (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017) and it is the perceived relationship of concepts to empirical reality that matters –
participants will have different understandings and researchers using the emergent approach will view what they can see as what people have helped to construct (Lee & Saunders, 2017). This is akin to my own philosophical positioning, as set out in chapter 2. Stake suggests that the crucial element of case study research is not the methods of investigation, but the interest in individual cases, drawn from naturalistic, holistic, ethnographic, phenomenological and biographic research methods (Stake, 1995). Researchers working in the emergent approach simply see the case study as a series of strategic choices, made through the selection of institutions or instances of a phenomenon that are the best way of answering a research question (Lee & Saunders, 2017). This view of case studies as choices results in a flexible research design, which enables the researcher to engage with the research problem in the most appropriate way.
The central premise of this research is an understanding that, in order to study leadership, one must study the construction of social and relational arrangements that result in leadership (Tourish & Barge, 2010). Following the arguments above, this perspective called for a case study approach that was consistent with the philosophical positioning of this study. This study therefore takes an emergent approach, utilising the strategic choice of an instrumental, collective-case study, and collecting qualitative data (Stake, 1995, 2005). It focused on the phenomenon of shared leadership in experiential agency teams and extended the instrumental study to three cases. In doing so, it challenges the dominant discourse in both case study and leadership research. As Flyvbjerg (2006) noted, in social science research, the balanced between positivistic, quantitative, large sample studies and qualitative, in-depth, rich data case studies is biased in favour of the former. As Kuhn (1987) suggested, a discipline without a large number of thoroughly executed, qualitative case studies is ineffective as it lacks the systematic production of exemplars (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 242). This is certainly true in the field of leadership, in which according to Sweeney et al. (2019) in their review of shared leadership studies until 2019, the majority of studies (73%) relied on quantitative research designs (see 6.5 for a further discussion on this).
Using Stake (1995) and Lee and Saunders (2017) emergent approach to case study research, I argue that it was the most appropriate and viable choice for this research for three reasons:
1. Case study research enables the researcher to explore complex issues, when a holistic in-depth investigation is required. In particular, case studies answer the ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions (Stake, 2005), which are fundamental to a social
and research questions for this study were exploratory in nature, it required a research design that allowed for exploration of the phenomenon, to facilitate understanding in order to propose a leadership approach that will be useful for practitioners and academics;
2. Case study research allows the researcher to examine the data within a specific context (Merriam, 1998) – this is particularly relevant for this study, which used the theoretical developments of shared leadership as its departure point. Shared leadership, as noted in chapter 6.2, places the leadership context at the centre of leadership processes (Spillane, 2006; Thorpe et al., 2011). This centralisation of context in the conceptual area also reflects the social constructionist perspective of the research, which focuses on the ‘integrated complexity of the situation’ – in other words, the connections made among people, action, meaning and context (Tourish & Barge, 2010, p. 334). The case of shared leadership in teams this cannot be considered without the consideration of the context of experiential agencies, because it is within this setting that leadership is developed and utilised (Baxter & Jack, 2008);
3. The case study is the only viable approach to elicit implicit and explicit data from the multiple entities within an events organisation – this reflects calls in the leadership literature to undertake multi-level research (Burke et al., 2006; Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984; Dionne et al., 2014; Yammarino & Dansereau, 2011; Yammarino et al., 2005; Yukl, 2010). The units of analysis within the case study were therefore drawn from across the organisation, from upper management and leadership teams, through to account executives and creative team members.