| |
In case study, or monograph, you are studying only one object or one case. The method can also be used when you study a number of objects and you think that these are essentially similar. If there are slight differences these do not interest you. You want to describe the "typical" case or object or the "essence" of this genre of cases. This type of study of products aims often at demarcating what is a product or the art of making them.
In case study, the researcher usually aims at gaining the most complete possible view on the object by regarding it as a holistic entity, the attributes of which you can wholly understand only when examining all of them simultaneously. You do not want to select just a few characteristics of the object, nor construct a general model of them. Anybody reading the report of a case study can then evaluate which findings he perhaps can apply to his own problems (figure on the right). The logical processes of study and eventual application have thus some resemblance to creating and enjoying a realistic work of art, cf. Art and Science: Differences and Similarities.
If you want to continue from the case study level to general models, the usual method is to make several studies of resembling cases or objects. If you then find recurring characteristics (invariances) in them, you can construct the general model from these invariances (fig. on the left).
The most usual target in case studies is to describe the object or phenomenon - not only its external appearance but also its internal structure. The procedures become a little different depending on whether there already is theoretical knowledge which can be used as a starting point of the description. There are two possibilities:
A special style of research is called for when the aim is not only to describe but also to improve the state of the object, or to help improving or developing similar objects in the future. This style of case study is discussed under the title Normative Case Study.
Studies of classes of objects or phenomena which have existed for some time often include a description of the historical development of the object, the methods of which are discussed on another page.
Exploratory study, in other words not basing the study on any earlier model or theory, is usually laborious, slow and uncertain, so usually you will want to avoid such an approach if you can. The normal method is to start with a thorough search of literature for potential theoretical models.
If no suitable models can be found, the usual approach in exploratory case study is to examine the object alternately from different vantage points (fig. on the right), in the hope that the alternation would help you to discover why the object has acquired its present status.
If you can distinguish any historical evolution that has taken place around the object, it can help you to detect a dynamic invariance in the phenomenon.
In the case that your material consists of several similar objects or cases your target normally becomes to find out what is common to all the cases: what is the static invariance in them. When studying products it could be a typical form, pattern or proportion. When studying people it could be their prevalent attitude, widespread taste or a typical behavior.
For example, Suonpää (2002, p. 183) studied predator photographs and found that it was impossible to comprehend wilderness photography as a monolithic view. Instead, it seemed to be a structure of different intertwined discourses: commercial profitability, hunting, conservation of nature, and genuineness (manifested as a reciprocal surveillance between professionals). Each of these relations in turn became the object of his study and contributed essential views to the general picture.
On the other hand, there can be reasons for not basing the study on any earlier model or theory. Such reasons could be, for example:
Documenting becomes necessary, if the object is in the danger of being lost. Such, of course, often happens to products as well as to their creators. The aim of documenting is to gather as much facts as possible, and for this reason this activity is discussed under Gathering Data.
Phenomenological analysis means approaching the study object, the phenomenon, as man's concrete experience, as free as possible from conceptual presuppositions. The aim of phenomenological research is to obtain insights into the essential structures of these phenomena on the basis of mental examples supplied by experience or imagination and by a systematic variation of these examples in imagination. This technique of gathering information is described elsewhere.
Zu den Sachen selbst (To the things themselves) was the watchword of Edmund Husserl, the most eminent writer on the phenomenological method during the years 1906-1936. The basic method of phenomenological analysis is reduction. First, the existence of the object of study must be "put between brackets", not because the philosopher should doubt it but because the conditions around the object of study are subject to various coincidences which may obscure its real essence. The second step is eidetic reduction. The aim is to find the universal and unchangeable essence or structure of the object. A suitable method is to imagine variations of the study object and focus one's attention on what remains unchanged in these variations.
Phenomenologists believe that their method gives deeper information about the empirical world than the usual empirical methods can give. Martin Heidegger (1972, 78) gave an "existentialist" explanation for this saying that a phenomenological insight comes from the existence (das Sein) common to both the researcher and the researched:
"Understanding is the same as the existential being related to a human being's own being and ability, and it takes place in such a way that this being reflects the meaning of its own existence back to itself. ... "When our understanding develops, we call it interpretation. In interpretation, we do not acquire knowledge on what we understand; instead, interpreting is all about realizing the potentials projected by understanding" (ibid., 82, 32).
In plain language, this seems to say that everybody finds it easiest to understand the products of his own culture, and the interpretation starts from the researcher rather than from the data. We can agree, but does the phenomenological method then give better information on the topic than other methods?
Usually the answer is no, but an exception could be the so called tacit knowledge of people, for example their professional skill. In a study in the positivistic style the researcher normally tries to make the tacit wisdom explicit, by writing it down as clearly as possible - but often a great deal of the intelligence gets lost in the process. Some philosophers (notably Plato and Husserl) have noted that it is useless to try explicating things that you do not know well. Varto agrees and proposes using a work of art for the first attempts to explicate findings in a field which has not been studied and reported earlier. "If you try to fetch intelligence from nowhere it tends to remain so disjointed and fragmentary, and it expands so uncontrollably, that it is better to use fiction in describing it to others" (2001, 56). Indeed, poems and aphorisms are often used as examples in phenomenological writing.
In phenomenological study it is usual to try to improve the validity of the findings by contemplating the object in various contexts, notably in foreign spheres of culture or in ancient times. The argumentation behind this is the assumption that if different people during different periods have had similar conceptions of the object it shows a substantial invariance which can be accepted as a result of the study. Nevertheless, this logic includes the risk that the object has been understood differently in different times and cultures, in other words the object is not the same and there is no invariance after all.
The method of phenomenology is popular among dexterous essayists. When the same person asks the questions and gives the answers, all the pieces in the puzzle find their places. However, in practice, an alleged "phenomenological method" often just indicates that the writer wants to present the object in a new light and from a novel point of view and has made an extra effort to meditate its symbolical and associative attributes - often a laudable goal, of course.
The objective validity of phenomenological findings could be improved by discussing them in group. Besides, the very act of creation of phenomenological discoveries would probably be feasible in a modern innovative work group instead of the traditional lonely chamber of a philosopher, though this method has seldom been used. At least these two modes of work could be alternated. Another method to improve validity could be continuing the study with other empirical methods.
It is interesting to note that even research projects that otherwise are conducted in exact positivistic style often include a few procedures which much resemble phenomenological study. These are the initial phases of defining the problem of study, and also defining the new concepts that the problem includes. Already long before Husserl a method very similar to his suggestion was used in the philosophical analysis of concepts like 'beauty', see Beauty as Concept. Immediate benefits of the findings were perhaps meager, but they prepared the ground on which Baumgarten, Fechner and later researchers of perception could create their hypotheses and start testing them empirically. Another example from our time is the analysis of the concept 'usability', which now continues as empirical studies.
One commendable example where phenomenologically produced innovations have immediately been subjected to empirical tests is Sirkka-Liisa Keiski's study about kitchens experienced by the elderly. The researcher started her study by "putting between brackets" all the established theories and assumptions about the elderly even so far that she started reading existing pertinent literature first after she had completed the empirical study with the methods of thematic interview and observation. These empirical studies were so extensive that few phenomenologists today would be willing to similar efforts. Moreover, she checked her recommendations by constructing several mock-up kitchens which were at once tested by old people.
A common weakness in explorative case studies (both phenomenological and other) is that it is difficult to assess how generally valid the obtained knowledge is. (The means available for assessing the results of investigation are discussed elsewhere.) It is possible that the explorative project produces no generalizable theory; this kind of study is sometimes called "ideographic" (from the Greek word "idea" = "form"). An inexperienced researcher perhaps realizes this hazard only while writing his final report, but then there is little to do to improve the scope of validity for results. It would be better to contemplate the topic already when planning the project and when selecting the object of study, cf. Demarcating the Population of Study.
Today, almost every conceivable topic has already been studied in one or more special fields of research. Any arising question or potential object of case study can therefore now be investigated in the light of earlier theory.
In established fields of research you can often select your problem so that you can handle it as a special case or as an extension of existing theory in this field, created by earlier researchers. Such a practice facilitates launching a new study, but it is not always possible when the problem originates from the practical needs of people.
Instead, you can often approach the problem so that you combine the vantage points of several sciences. In this way, you can hope to benefit from at least some of the accumulated knowledge of earlier researchers. This means that you study the object successively from several viewpoints, each of which is based on an existing theory (see figure on the right). Each viewpoint adds something to the general picture.
When alternating the vista on the object the researcher can hope to understand the object more profoundly. The same method is used in the hermeneutic study of texts. A peculiar characteristic of the object can seem enigmatic in the first sight, but another perspective can give an explanation to it.
Varying vantage points means also that the researcher begins to understand the object in various contexts, each of which explains some traits of the object which can now be seen as a special case of a wider phenomenon.
The study of artists, for example, has often been based on theories that interpret human behaviour as an outcome of psychological, social and cultural circumstances. Wilhelm Scherer's (1841 - 86) general model for the biographies of artists has been much used. It explains the special character of each artist by three factors:
Works of art can likewise be studied on the basis of alternative theories like structural analysis, content analysis or semiology. (See examples of the various approaches of aesthetics.)
For example, Päivi Hovi studied how the pictures in advertisements developed in Finland from 1890 to 1930, and found that to understand the pictures you have to study them from four viewpoints or contexts which are illustrated in the diagram on the right. Each of these contexts had been the object of earlier studies and the accumulated knowledge and theory provided potential approaches for the study of the empirical material of Hovi.
An example of a gradually widening view can be seen in two successive studies made by Penny Sparke. The first one, Electrical appliances, examined the objects in just two contexts which were the changing role of the family mother, and technological development. In the later book Design in context additional points of view were the competition of enterprises, new hygienic requirements, the evolving design styles and those political or social ideologies that people wished to adhere to while selecting products. Development like this can as well be seen as a historical process, the study of which is discussed elsewhere.
Widening of the view of study is usually beneficial, however it necessarily expands the amount of work before the task can be finished. To prevent excessive growth you have to consider demarcating the extent of study more narrowly, for example by restricting the time span or the geographic or cultural extent.
The normative or educative purpose seems to have permeated already the first case studies that were made in antiquity. They explained the merits of respected statesmen, or of admired works of architecture, later also the lives of saints and esteemed artists. The purpose obviously was to present these to the younger generation as meritorious, or sometimes as avoidable, examples. Even today this approach is often used in the field of various arts where reputed critics select exemplars which are then published in exhibitions and professional journals and are hoped to guide designs in the field later on.
The starting point for a normative case study need not be that we would presume the object to be completely satisfying, or wholly intolerable. Instead, it often happens that an existing product or circumstance needs improvement in just a few respects, and the problem is how to do it. A normative case study can then be launched to give basis for planning the revision. If the project includes even practical operations for removing the problem, the entire project goes by the name R&D, research and development project.
A famous example of such a problem is the leaning tower of Pisa; much research has been done just to find out why it slants and which factors contribute to the problem. Only after these mysteries have been clarified can engineers successfully draft the plan for improvement.
Obvious candidates for normative case studies are large and expensive one-off products like houses, theatre or film productions and computer programs which sometimes need updating or betterment during their long life spans.
The object of a normative case study need not be a physical product. It can be a procedure, like is the case in methods engineering.
An important use of normative case study is to guide the development of a new version of an existing model of a product. It can be wise policy first to examine the success or failure of last year's model before starting a new design project. If the study then continues as a product development project, you will need methods that can handle directly those various attributes of products where improvement is needed. Such methods are described under the titles Normative Study of Variables, Presenting a Product Concept and Presenting the Draft and Prototype.
Because all evaluation is subjective it is important to consider and define exactly whose point of view is used in the evaluation; this aspect is discussed elsewhere under the title of Normative Research. Often the most interesting opinions come from people who have been using the product that is now going to be improved; sometimes it is the target group of future customers whose viewpoints are essential. If the normative suggestions that you are preparing shall be used by an organisation, for example in an enterprise of business, the choice of viewpoint depends also on the degree of autonomy which prevails on the various levels of the organisation. Examples of different ways of defining the evaluators are given in Normative Study.
In any case, it is the task of the researcher to define the population of people whose opinions and evaluations shall steer the development. If their number is very great, you cannot contact all of them and you have to consider constructing a sample of this population. Once the evaluators have been selected, the assessments can be gathered with a survey.
On the principles and methods of normative study there is also a separate page.
| |
January 2, 2005. Original location:
http://www2.uiah.fi/projects/metodi
Comments to the author:
