The paradigm chosen for a research study determines how research data is collected, analysed and presented. The two identified paradigms are positivistic and phenomenological or interpretive (Darke, Shanks & Broadbent, 1998; Collis & Hussey, 2003).
A positivistic paradigm tends to produce quantitative (numerical) data, measures and statistically tests relationships between variables, follows a deductive process and is context free. Large samples can be used and data collected with relative speed and ease. Positivistic studies have a high reliability – they yield the same results on different occasions, but a low validity rating – they do not always measure what they are supposed to (Collis & Hussey, 2003).
Other criticisms of positivistic studies are that the rigid structure of the study design can impose constraints on results and may ignore relevant and interesting findings. Assumptions about positivistic studies are that reality is objective and singular and apart from the researcher, the researcher is independent from the subject of study and it is free of values and bias (Collis & Hussey, 2003).
Phenomenological studies tend to produce qualitative data; they investigate the nature of variables and their relationships, are inductive and generate theories. They can be time consuming and expensive but allow for small samples, and by being contextual they enable the understanding of the nature or qualities of phenomena (Collis & Hussey, 2003).
Phenomenological studies are said to have a low level of reliability due to the inductive process and the simultaneous shaping of factors, and a high degree of validity due to the researchers ability to explore topics in depth, gaining a fuller access to the knowledge and meanings of respondents (Collis & Hussey, 2003).
Assumptions made about phenomenological paradigms are that reality is subjective and multiple, the researcher interacts with the subject, it is value-laden and there is an element of bias, is context bound and that accuracy and reliability is achieved by means of verification (Collis & Hussey, 2003).
Case study research has been used within the positivist and phenomenological paradigms. In the positivistic case-study approach the research is concerned with empirical testability of theory in order to discover general principles governing the natural and social world. The interpretivist approach attempts to understand phenomena through exploring the meanings respondents apply to them (Darke et al, 1998).
Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) note that inductive and deductive logics are mirrors of one another; inductive theory building from cases producing new theory from data and deductive theory testing completing the cycle by using data to test the theory.
The case study has been criticised as being essentially intuitive, primitive and unmanageable, and that it cannot be regarded as a rational or scientific venture (Yin, 1981). Other misunderstandings about case studies are that:
• General, theoretical (context-independent) knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical (context-dependent) knowledge;
• One cannot generalise from a single case and therefore, a single case cannot contribute to scientific development;
• The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses, and that other methods are better suited for testing hypotheses and theory building;
• It is often difficult to summarise case studies (Flyvbjerg, 2006).
4.2.1 Case study definition and description
The case study is described as a research strategy focussed on understanding the dynamics within single settings (Eisenhardt, 1989), that can be compared to an experiment, a history or a simulation, all of which may be considered alternative research strategies (Yin, 1981).
A case study is defined as an empirical enquiry that investigates contemporary phenomena within its real-life context when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident, and use multiple sources of evidence (Yin, 1981; Darke et al, 1998).
Case studies are also described as rich empirical descriptions of particular instances of a phenomenon that are typically based on a variety of data sources (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).
Single cases provide in-depth investigation and rich description (Fidel, 1984) while multiple case-study designs allow literal or theoretical replication and cross case comparison (Darke et al, 1998; Eisenhadt & Graebner, 2007). Each case serves as a distinct experiment that stands on its own as an analytical unit (Eisenhardt, 2007). Single cases are appropriate if they are revelatory (the situation is previously inaccessible to scientific investigation), if they represent a critical case for theory testing, and if it is an extreme or unique case. Single case studies may be used for exploration and followed by multiple-case studies (Benbasat, Glodstein & Mead, 1987).
Some key characteristics of case studies cited by Benbasat et al (1987) are: • The phenomenon is examined in a natural setting;
• One or a few entities are examined – person, group or organisation; • The complexity of the unit is studied intensively;
• Case studies are more suitable for exploration, classification and hypothesis development stages of the knowledge building process;
• The investigator should have a receptive attitude towards exploration; • No experimental controls or manipulation are involved.
The process of building theory from case study research begins with the definition of the research question; theoretically sampling a case from a specified population to constrain extraneous variation and sharpen external validity whilst focussing on cases that replicate or extend theory; craft instruments using multiple data collection methods to strengthen theory grounding by triangulating evidence; collecting data using multiple sources; analysing data; shaping hypotheses and searching for the “why” behind relationships to build internal validity; and enfolding the literature by comparing it with conflicting and similar literature, building internal validity, sharpening generalisability, improving construct definition and raising the theoretical level (Eisenhardt, 1989).
4.2.2 Case study purpose and importance
Researchers need to understand the ill-structured and blurred world of complex organisations. People make organisations complex and different, and they are different in nature from data and processes. People have different and conflicting objectives, perceptions and attitudes, as well as change over time (Avison et al, 1999).
Scientific discipline without a large number of thoroughly executed case studies is a discipline without a systematic production of exemplars (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Case study research is used to develop theory, provide descriptions of phenomena, test theory, and provide evidence for hypothesis generation and used to explore areas where existing knowledge is limited (Darke et al, 1998).
Developing theory is a central activity in organisational research (Eisenhardt, 1989). The relevance of theory building from case studies is that it bridges rich qualitative evidence to mainstream deductive research. The emphasis on developing constructs, measures and testable theoretical propositions makes inductive case research consistent with deductive research (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).
Case studies are useful when natural setting or contemporary event focus is needed (Benbasat et al, 1987). Situations applicable for case study research are when little is known about a phenomenon; when current perspectives seem inadequate, have little empirical substantiation, conflict each other or common sense; or when theory-testing findings suggest the need for new perspectives (Eisenhardt, 1989).
The case study methodology enables an in depth investigation into the subject chosen. It allows the researcher to ascertain and retain the characteristics of real life that are evident and meaningful to the situation (Yin, 2009). It also is suited for research where the object of research is the study of systems and policies (Cullen, 2007); as is the case for identifying and investigating the governance elements of family businesses.
4.2.3 Data collection and analysis
Sources of evidence used are
• Archival – organisation charts; service, personnel and financial records; • Interviews – open-ended or focussed;
• Observations – absorbing and noting details, subtleties and actions in the research environment;
• Questionnaires; and
• Documentation of memoranda and reports
(Fidel, 1984; Benbasat et al, 1987; Eisenhardt, 1989; Darke et al, 1998).
Quantitative and qualitative data can be used (Yin, 1981; Darke et al, 1998). The analysis of data occurs throughout the study. New data is constantly analysed and the
results of previous analyses direct future investigation. During analysis, problems that are of major importance are identified (Fidel, 1984).
Data triangulation increases research credibility. The contextual and data richness of the study should be presented and a clear chain of evidence established. Researcher reasoning in establishing cause and effect should be stated and defended, and research should move from objectives and questions to assumptions and design choices, specific data uncovered and conclusions (Benbasat et al, 1987).
4.2.4 Validity, reliability and generalisability
Multiple sources of data (data triangulation) and the triangulation of theories are to be used to increase validity and overcome bias. Triangulation strengthens case study findings by converging information from a variety of sources, providing multiple measures of the same phenomenon (Darke et al, 1998; Collis & Hussey, 2003). Internal validity is maintained by means of pattern matching logic where interview responses are analysed for replication. Explanation building is used to develop ideas for further study and not to conclude the study (Yin, 2009).
External validity is achieved through the use of existing theory in the research, to which empirical findings can be compared. This results in analytical generalisability whereby research results are generalisable to theoretical propositions and not populations (Yin, 2009).
Reliability is achieved by following the documented research procedure and with the development of a case study database so that the same conclusions can be deduced in the repetition of the research of the same case study (Yin, 2009). Maintaining the chain of evidence from the original research questions to conclusions drawn, compiling a case study database of findings, and key informant (interviewee) review the reported research findings further strengthens validity (Darke et al, 1998; Yin, 2009).