Among choices of qualitative research methodologies or strategies, I found a case study well-suited for this research. A case study is defined as:
a qualitative approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews, audiovisual material, and documents and reports), and reports a case description and case-based themes. For example, several programs (a multi-site study) or a single program (a within- site study) may be selected for study. (p. 73, Creswell, 2007)
A main reason I adopted a case study was that the current study began with a specific research problem. This led me to identify bounded systems that would be suitable to illustrate the problem. It should be noted that the current study is not an ethnography. It could be called
“ethnography-like” or “ethnographic” research in the sense that it employs data collection methods often used in an ethnography, but it differs from traditional ethnography research in methodology. The current study’s focus is on comprehending a specific research issue or problem whereas ethnography is typically used to investigate how a specific cultural group works. Another reason this is not classified as ethnography is that the current study does not involve the researcher’s prolonged engagement with the groups. Because of limited time
available for the researcher, I spent two and a half months in the Hahn-ELP and three months in the Southern-ELP for data collection.
The study is instrumental rather than intrinsic (Stake, 1995). Intrinsic case studies are conducted when a case itself presents uncommon or unusual situations (Cresswell, 2007). Intrinsic case studies do not intend to make any comparisons with other cases or other similar situations. The researcher is interested in the case itself. Unlike intrinsic case studies,
instrumental case studies begin with a particular research problem a researcher identifies. I identified a particular research problem and looked for cases that I believed would illustrate the
research problem. In other words, cases played a mediating role or became the means to illustrate the research problem (Creswell, 2007).
When choosing two programs to study, I employed purposeful sampling or chose them intentionally (Miles & Huberman, 1994). I considered two contexts that I believed could demonstrate contextual variation on the conceptions and practices of L2 writing. The most important criteria I used for case selection was L2’s role in academic studies and society. I wanted to examine one context in which English is mainly used in academia and society and the other in which English is not as dominant in academic studies and social domains. The second criteria I used was the existence of similar writing courses across the two settings. When considering a program in an English non-dominant setting, I wanted to choose a program that offers courses devoted to teaching writing for college freshmen. However, unlike what I was informed before I left to collect data in the Hahn-ELP, the program at a Korean university, English courses for freshmen were geared towards teaching all of the four linguistic modalities – listening, speaking, reading, and writing. There were no freshmen level courses dedicated only to English writing. The program offered an L2 writing course as an elective primarily for non- freshman students. At the beginning I was concerned that the program might not be appropriate to a cross-context study of L2 writing, but after observing classes and talking to students for a few weeks, I came to the realization that the lack of presence of English writing courses at the freshmen level reflects local conceptions of L2 writing. Another influential factor in the choice of the two particular programs was their accessibility. With the help of personal and professional contacts from Korea and the United States, I was able to gain access to the two programs that met the criteria described above.
Qualitative case studies in the field of second language writing often study an individual or a group of individuals to examine their literacy or teaching practices (Casanave, 2005; Leki, 2007). In these studies, cases or bounded systems are individual learners or teachers, and the researcher situates these informants in a specific site such as a single classroom or a language program to observe the participants’ behaviors and attitudes related to the research issue he is interested in. Unlike these studies, identifying cases in the current study is not straightforward. In other words, depending on the focus of inquiry, a case boundary also changes. When
comparisons of the conceptualizations of L2 writing at the program level (Research Question 1) are made, cases are two English language programs, not individual informants. Teachers are not cases, but main constituents of the cases. When comparisons shift to L2 writers across the programs (Research Question 2), each group of L2 writers in the Southern-ELP and Hahn-ELP are cases. Because of multi-levels of comparisons between the programs, teacher groups and L2 writer groups, case boundaries are fluid depending on the research focus.