Case Study as a Research Methodology
Transcript of Case Study as a Research Methodology
1
Implementation of Realism in Case Study Research Methodology
Authors
Michael Christie Pat Rowe Chad Perry John Chamard
Queensland University
of Technology
University of
Queensland
University of Southern
Queensland
St. Marys University
Brisbane, 4000
Australia
St. Lucia, 4067
Australia
Toowoomba, Australia Halifax, Nova Scottia,
Canada
+61 (7) 3864-2896
(tel.)
+61 (7) 3365-6882
(tel.)
+61 (7) 3864-1313
(fax)
+61 (7) 3365-6988
(fax)
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
International Council for Small Business, Annual Conference, Brisbane, 2000
2
Abstract
There is a significant gap in the understanding of internal management operations within
regional development boards. The deficiency has implications for research methods in
this area. The current debate on realism in case study research has examined the selection
of an appropriate research methodology. The circumstances to be researched (Eisenhardt
1989; Glasser & Strauss 1967; Yin 1989) and the theoretical paradigm adopted by the
researcher (Guba & Lincoln 1994; Layder 1993; Outhwaite 1983) determine the research
methodology in case study research. This paper builds on contributions to this debate by
Perry, Alizadeh and Riege (1997) and Perry (1998) that describe the circumstances and
paradigm that best argue for the use of case study method. Further, this paper adds to this
debate and sets out an example of a case study approach for the analysis of the qualitative
data to ensure methodological rigor. In turn, it outlines outlines an approach for the
analysis of qualitative data through multi-level analysis.
Keywords: qualitative research, case study, theoretical paradigm, methodology, multi-
level analysis
3
Introduction
There is no consensus about the best theoretical approach to be used to study a regional
development board’s (RDB) perception and execution of management processes and
roles. Regional development studies are at an early stage of development regarding the
internal management operations of a RDB (Anderson 1990; Blakely 1994; Hayton 1989;
Hodgkinson 1993; Lazerson 1988). This paper’s summary of a comprehensive analysis of
the literature identifies a significant gap in the understanding of a RDB. The deficiency
has implications for research methods in this area. In brief, this paper’s aims are twofold.
First, it contribute to our understanding of RDB’s. Secondly, it examines an appropriate
research method for building a causal explanation of the execution of management
processes and roles.
The regional development studies literature on boards
Historically, Australian governments have relied on macro- and micro-economic policies
to solve regional problems. In contrast, Canada and the United Kingdom have faced the
economic disparity between regions by relying not only on macro- and micro-economic
policies to support regional problems but also by implementing regional development
policies (Higgins & Savoie 1995; Yuill et al. 1980).
Australian focus for singular reliance on these macro- and micro- economic policies
results in successive governments dealing with regional development through a series of
superficial initiatives (Higgins & Savoie 1995). Consequently, governments have not
dealt in any depth with the many troubled sectors, industries or businesses in specific
regions. Therefore there have been ‘quite dramatic structural and spatial shifts in
Australian society’ (Maher 1993, pp. 28). The consequence of this fragmented approach
is that management expertise in a regional development board (RDB) has been under
resourced (Higgins & Savoie 1995). A RDB provides a means to deal with the complexity
of economic development and to coordinate activities across different types of
stakeholder groups. A RDB that can mobilise support within its regional community and
4
develop successful networks requires a high range of management expertise, though not
all achieve this (Blakely 1994; Danson et al. 1989).
Internal management expertise within a RDB at the board level is of particular
importance in this post-Fordist period (Amin & Thrift 1994) which can be characterised
as a period of economic history during which large public and private bureaucracies are
consolidating (Amin & Thrift 1994; Cooke & Morgan 1994). Specifically, public
bureaucracies operate with diminished resources, limiting their direct capability for
immediate involvement in regions. Moreover, large private bureaucracies (large
corporations) are contracting from regional locations within Western economies, thus
diminishing regional resources, and reducing employment.
Examples of the contraction of private bureaucracies can be found in ‘rust belts’ (Allen
1989; Hansen et al. 1990), decay of urban areas (Haubermann & Siebel 1990; Keating
1993) and the rationalisation of the welfare state (Pierson 1991; Saul 1996; Shapiro 1990;
Tower 1995) in Australia, North America and Europe. In contrast, the advance of
regional economies is occurring 'in regions like Silicon Valley and northern Italy' (Amin
& Thrift 1994; Weinstein et al. 1985). In these examples of the retreat or expansion of
regions, there is an increased complexity in the management of regional economic
development and public bureaucracies are operating with diminished resources. As a
consequence, a RDB provides through devolution by central government an alternate
structural mechanism. This alternate structural mechanism of a RDB allows for greater
regionally controlled partnering and coordination of complex regional economic
development issues (Cox & Mair 1988; Department of Industry, Science and Technology
1995; Dicken & Tickell 1992; Hassink 1999). This research of RDBs in Queensland
provides for comparison of different types of partnering and coordination of regional
economic development activities.
The changing roles of public and private bureaucracies in regions may provide an
opportunity for a RDB. Therefore, it is important to understand how a RDB perceives and
executes management processes and roles with specific reference to filling this gap. The
5
research problem is: How does an RDB perceive and execute management processes and
roles?
The deficiency in understanding raised by this research problem has implications for
research methods in this area. An appropriate research method for building a causal
explanation of the execution of management processes and roles is now introduced.
Selection of a theoretical paradigm
A theoretical paradigm is the identification of the underlying basis that is used to
construct a scientific investigation. That is, it is “a loose collection of logically held-
together assumptions, concepts, and propositions that orientates thinking and research”
(Bogdan & Biklan 1982, p. 30). Likewise, a paradigm can be defined as the “basic belief
system or world view that guides the investigation” (Guba & Lincoln 1994, p. 105).
Below we discuss four different paradigms and locate case studies as a research
methodology within one of them (Bhaskar 1978; Gabriel 1990; Guba & Lincoln 1994;
Hunt 1992; Perry et al. 1997; Riege 1997). The discussion focuses on limitations of each
paradigm for the current study on RDB’s.
Positivism: The positivist paradigm does not fit well with the research problem at the
heart of this work. A positivist paradigm may create problems if respondents are
considered to be autonomous objects for this ‘ignores their ability to reflect on problem
situations, and act upon this’ (Robson 1993, pp. 60). Positivism deems that natural and
social sciences measure autonomous facts about an individual perception of reality
(Gabriel 1990). This reality is composed of discrete elements whose character can be
recognized and classified (Guba & Lincoln 1994; Hirschman 1986, Tsoukas 1989). The
primary mode of the research inquiry of positivism is theory-testing based on deduction
(Layder 1993). The use of this hypothetico-deduction allows for statistical generalisation
to be tested, with replaceable findings being true (Guba & Lincoln 1994; Tsoukas 1989).
The principal data collection techniques include experiments and sample surveys that are
outcome-oriented and assume natural laws and mechanisms. Data collection for
positivism is carried out with the researcher being remote from the phenomena under
6
investigation. That is, the researcher operates in a one-way positivism and she/he is the
discoverer of truth is of an undeniable character (Anderson 1986).
In contrast to the positivist paradigm, the three other paradigms are more suitable for
exploring complex social phenomena that require working with people and real life
experiences and where the researcher seeks to understand the research problem by
reflecting, probing, understanding and revising meanings, structures and issues
(Hirschman 1986; Orlikowski & Baroudi 1991). In other words, not all research issues
allow an entirely value-free, one-way mirror between phenomena and the researcher.
This investigation of a RDB is an examination of stakeholders’ perceptions of the
execution of a board’s internal operations.
Thus this investigation of a RDB does not seek to identify causal relationships as a
positivist would but instead considers the complex nature of the research problem. The
researcher seeks to understand the research problem by reflecting, probing, understanding
and revising meanings, structures and issues of the managerial experiences of a RDB.
How the research problems appeared to the stakeholders of a RDB may not necessarily
be captured by positivist research methods (Hirschman 1986; Orlikowski & Baroudi
1991). In other words, to build an entirely value-free, one-way mirror between
phenomena and the researcher is not possible in this research.
Critical theory: The RDB study is interested in understanding how RDB members go
about executing their management processes and roles, not in ‘liberating’ them from
inappropriate mind sets. In contrast, the critical theory paradigm is perhaps most
appropriate when the study is attempting to intervene in the transformation of the
respondents from their mental, emotional and social structures (Guba & Lincoln 1994).
That is, in ‘liberating’ them from inappropriate mind sets. Critical theory assumes
comprehensible social realities that incorporate structures over time. Critical theory
researchers critique and transform social, political, economic, ethnic, and gender values.
Research inquiries can entail long-term ethnographic and historical research of
organizational processes and structures. Critical theory accepts that there are multiple
7
social realities, which are constructed by groups involved in the research. Thus, truth is
only known within a particular social group’s constructed reality (Easton 1982).
Constructivism: The RDB study assumes that respondent perception of actions and
activities is a reality. In contrast, constructivism provides a methodology for
investigating the beliefs of individual respondents rather than investigating an external
reality, such as the tangible and comprehensible economic and technological dimensions
of management (Hunt 1991). Thus within the constructivist paradigm, perception by
itself is not reality, for reality is a blend of perceptions and external reality. Perceptions
are important for they assist in examining complex reality, but perceptions or multiple
realities cannot be the focus of constructivist research. Similar to critical theory,
constructivism is interested in the values which are beneath the findings. Thus it uses
inductive methods. The inductive methods of constructivism require the researcher to be
a ‘passionate participant’ (Guba & Lincoln 1994, p. 112) during the fieldwork. Like
critical theory, the data depends on the interaction between the interviewer and
respondent (Anderson 1986). Both critical theory and constructivism require the
researcher to be subjective to develop knowledge in this interaction (Anderson 1986,
Guba & Lincoln 1994).
In contrast, researchers of a phenomenon like the execution of the internal operations of
an RDB require a paradigm that can deal with multiple realities, that has the elements of
both positivism and constructivism (Perry et al. 1997). This paradigm is realism, also
known as critical realism (Hunt 1991), postpositivism (Denzin & Lincoln 1994; Guba &
Lincoln 1994) or neo-postpositivism (Huberman & Miles 1985; Manicas & Secord
1983).
Realism: The fourth paradigm, realism, has elements of both positivism and
constructivism (Perry et al. 1997). This paradigm, is also known as critical realism (Hunt
1991) or postpositivism (Denzin & Lincoln 1994; Guba & Lincoln 1994) or neo-
postpositivism (Huberman & Miles 1985; Manicas & Secord 1982). Realism provides a
world view in which an actual social phenomenon can be ascertained even though it is
imperfect and probabilistically comprehendible (Guba & Lincoln 1994; Merriam 1988;
8
Perry & Coote 1994; Perry et al. 1997; Tsoukas 1989). That is, for realists the means to
determine the reality of a social phenomenon is through the triangulation of cognition
processes. Indeed, 'a perception for realists is a window on to reality from which a picture
of reality can be triangulated with other perceptions' (Perry et al. 1997, p. 554).
This investigation examines a RDB as a social phenomena through the realism's
triangulation of perceptions.
Bhaskar (1978) argued that realism interprets the world, that is, mechanisms, events and
experiences, in three domains of reality as shown in Table 1. The domains are: first, the
real domain that consists of the processes that produce events, in which generative
mechanisms or causal powers exist independently with a tendency to produce patterns of
observable events under contingent conditions. Next is the actual domain, in which
patterns of events occur, whether they are observed or not. Finally, there is the empirical
domain, in which experiences can be obtained by direct observation (Bhaskar 1978;
Outhwaite 1983; Tsoukas 1989).
Table 1 Onotological assumptions of realism
Real domain Actual domain Empirical domain
Mechanisms Events Experiences
Source: adapted from Bhaskar 1978 p. 13
Within this framework, the discovery of observable and non-observable structures and
mechanisms, independent of the events they generate, is the goal of realism research
(Outhwaite 1983; Tsoukas 1989). In other words, realism researchers observe the
empirical domain to discover by a ‘mixture of theoretical reasoning and experimentation’
(Outhwaite 1983 p. 332) a knowledge of the real world, by naming and describing the
generative mechanisms that operate in the world and result in the events that may be
observed. Given this complexity of the social science world, reality ‘is considered real
but fallible’ (Wollin 1995 p. 80).
9
The purpose of this investigation of an RDB is to discover, identify, describe and analyse
the variables of the structures and generative mechanisms of a board’s internal
operations. The goal of this investigation is the development of idiographic knowledge
affixed to natural and social science experience (Outhwaite 1987) so as to comprehend
the deeper structures and meanings of the internal management operations of an RDB.
The philosophical assumptions that support these theoretical paradigms relate to
ontology, epistemology and methodology, which are summarized in Table 2. Ontology is
the essential assumptions that are made regarding the basic elements of reality (Parkhe
1993), that is, the configuration and character of reality (Guba & Lincoln 1994). If
ontology deals with reality, epistemology examines the character and basis of knowledge
or the characteristics of the relationship between reality and the researcher (Parkhe 1993).
Methodology is the procedure carried out by a researcher to explore that reality (Guba &
Lincoln 1994; Parkhe 1993).
Table 2 Basic belief systems of alternative inquiry paradigms Item Positivism Critical theory Constructivism Realism Ontology naïve realism:
reality is‘real’ and apprehensible
historical realism: ‘virtual’ reality shaped by social economic, ethnic political, cultural and gender values, crystallized over time
critical relativism: multiple local and specific ‘constructed’ realities
Critical realism: reality is ‘real’but only imperfectly and probablistically apprehensibe and so triangulation from many sources is required to know it
Epistemology objectivist: findings true
subjectivist: value mediated findings
subjectivist: findings created
modified objectivist: findings probably true with awareness of values between them
Common methodologies
experiments/ surveys: verification of hypothesis; chiefly quantitative methods
dialogic/ dialectical: researcher is a transformative intellectual’ who changes the social world within which participants live
hermeunetical/ dialectical: researcher is a ‘passionate participant’ with the world being investigated
Case studies/ convergent interviewing: triangulation, interpretation of research issues by qualitative and/or quantitative methods (such as structural equation modelling)
Source: based on Guba & Lincoln (1994), Riege (1997)
Research Circumstances
10
The realist research methodology of qualitative case studies is process orientated and
does not deal with cause and effect relations, but with underlying causal tendencies
(Bhaskar 1978; Tsoukas 1989). Consequently, data analysis for realism is usually
summarised in a manner that is necessarily value-laden because it cannot be a process
that minimises bias with proximity of those values. If the purpose of a piece of research is
to discover, identify, describe and analyze the variables of a complex social situation, if
the goal of an investigation is the development of idiographic knowledge affixed to
natural and social science experience, a realism methodology may be most appropriate
(Outhwaite 1983).
A second situation in which realism is a more appropriate paradigm is when the area of
investigation is pre-paradigmatic in nature. Realism attempts to define and predict social
phenomena through idiographic research that is relevant when a phenomenon has not
been fully discovered and comprehended. For example, case study research may lead to a
more informed basis for theory development (Bonoma 1985; Eisenhardt 1989; Yin 1989)
in a newly developing area of research. The early stages of development or
preparadigmatic, are when the researcher’s interests, phenomena requirements and/or
existing theory seems inadequate and when these types of circumstances decree theory
building rather than theory testing (Bonoma 1985; Deshpande 1983; Eisenhardt 1989;
Gilmore & Carson 1996). A case study strategy provides data for building theory
(Glasser & Strauss 1967) that contributes to existing knowledge by analysis from another
perspective using the self as a research instrument. Model building is the logical stage in
scientific discovery when it is critical to illuminate and raise the possibility of new
perceptions (Bhaskar 1978).
In general, within the realism paradigm, a case study methodology should be chosen
when:
(i) There are particular events that are focused on a situation or context and have
specificity (particularistic) (Eisenhardt 1989; Merriam 1988);
(ii) The social organisational settings are intricate (Kaplan 1986; Morgan & Smircich
1980; Orlikowski & Baroudi 1991; Parkhe 1993);
11
(iii) The researcher seeks contextual meaning within a bounded system (Bonoma
1985; Stake 1978; Yin 1989); and
(iv) The research enterprise is inductive theory building (Gilmore & Carson 1996;
Hirschman 1986; Merriam 1988).
Particular events that are focused on a situation or context: The focus on the richness
and depth of the situation or event of case study methodology allows for the ‘opening up’
of new ideas and the interpretations of the phenomena being researched or new
perceptions. In particular, the case study is appropriate when investigators desire to
define topics broadly and not narrowly (Yin 1993). As little previous research has been
carried out on the execution of management processes and roles by a RDB within their
context, there is a gap in the research examining this situation (Bonoma 1985; Yin 1989).
Intricate social organisational settings: The current deductive theory-testing
nomothetic research methods of positivism do not necessarily sufficiently capture the
intricacy of social organisational settings (Kaplan 1986; Morgan & Smircich 1980;
Parkhe 1993). Case study research deals with these intricacies, processes, roles and
changes of organisation (Marshall & Rossman 1990). Case studies are particularly useful
when the focus of the research is on the relationship between the person [or group] and
the setting, so that it is significant to detach one from the other (Foster 1991). This
investigation deals with a RDB in a dynamic organisational setting that deals with the
action of a group of managers in their management of processes and roles. In brief, case
studies are particularly useful when the focus of the research is on the relationship
between the person [or group] and the setting, so that it is significant to detach one from
the other (Weick 1968) as is the case in this investigation.
Contextual meaning within a bounded system: This provides a way to understand the
‘bounded system’ in its own habitat (Stake 1978). Case study research reveals a particular
event in a real life context (Eisenhardt 1989; Merriam 1988). The examination of a
particular event is significant when boundaries between phenomenon and context are not
clear (Yin 1981). Examination of a particular event has the additional advantage of
examining a contemporary phenomenon that has a real life context (Yin 1981).
12
Qualitative case study research establishes a research area for clarifying greater insight
into boundaries and phenomena while empirical research requires experimental data
(Emory & Cooper 1991; Yin 1989). In this investigation, the focus is on the influence of
[p--a particular bounded contemporary event in the management execution of an RDB’s
internal operations. The context of this investigation is that Queensland RDBs differ from
other types of regional boards in Australia in that the state government does not make
appointments. Rather, appointments to a RDB involve a range of regional stakeholders
through a combination of elections and local government appointments. Qualitative case
study research establishes a research area for clarifying greater insight into boundaries
and phenomena while empirical research requires survey research/quasi-experimental
data (Emory & Cooper 1991; Yin 1989).
Inductive theory building: The final factor of the research situation is the understanding
that emerges from the data and the impression (inductive) that is provided through a rich
description of a management situation (Bononma 1985; Merriam 1988). On the one hand,
deduction attempts to identify causal construction of the managerial experience. In
contrast, case study research attempts to understand the nature of the research problem,
reflecting, forming and revising meanings and structures of the phenomena being studied.
Thus, the case method is well suited for inductively building a rich, deep understanding
of new phenomena. In this research, the case study method provided a rich analysis of
the dynamics present in the execution of management processes and roles on a RDB for
theory building based on prior theory.
A three-stage research process was undertaken, as shown in figure 1. The stages
concerned the development of prior theory and a literature review that identified an initial
research problem. In addition, issues were further refined through three pilot case studies
(Nair & Riege 1995; Robson 1993). Stage two concerned the main data collection and
stage three the final theory development. This activity recognises the importance of prior
theory to the research design (Miles & Huberman 1994; Neuman 1994; Perry & Coote
1994; Yin 1993).
13
Figure 1
Research methodology in the development and confirmation of the conceptual framework for an RDB’s execution of management processes and roles
Source: developed for this research
In brief, this case study investigation was based on a well-defined methodology to
provide the means to scientifically answer these broader questions. Prior theory
contributes in this investigation by the provision of a foundation and a means to refine the
conceptual framework collection (Lincoln & Guba 1985; Miles & Huberman 1984; Yin
1993). Additionally, prior theory in this investigation focused the literature review and
assisted in developing the research issues and interview schedule, along with a suitable
research design and system of data collection (Lincoln & Guba 1985; Miles & Huberman
1984; Yin 1993).
Definition of case study research
Case study is a research methodology that focuses on understanding the dynamics present
in a management situation (Eisenhardt 1989). There are many definitions of case research
and these definitions encompass a wide range of definitional components. These are
shown in Table 3 to highlight the range of definitions associated with case study research.
Stage I: Literature review and pilotstudies - Development
• research problem• research issues• research variables• conceptual framework• interview questions
Stage II: Case studies andevaluation
• case analysis• cross-case analysis• aggregate analysis• confirmation of conceptual
framework• peer evaluation by
international experts
Stage III: Building• theory construction• future testing ofresearch findings
• model for theexecution ofmanagement processesand roles of RDBs
14
Table 3
Definitions for case study research Author
/Definition
Hakim
1994
King
1985
McKin--
ney 1966
Patton
1990
Saunders
1981
Smith
1988
Stake
1985
Yin 1989
Holistic X X X
Absence of control X
Rare phenomena X
Sources of ideas X
Sources of hypotheses X
Situation of theory development X X
Future systematic research X X
Boundaries between phenomena and
context are not clearly defined
X X
Contemporary focus within a real life
context
X X X
How and why questions X X
Little control over events X X
Dependent on inductive reasoning X
Use of multiplicity of data X X X
Are specific X
Cannot be standardised X
Are descriptive, qualitative,
exploratory and explanatory
X X X X
Have a heuristic value X
Empirical enquiry X
Multiple sources of evidence are used X
Embedded case studies were sub units
of analysis
X
Unit chosen was temporally and
spatially bound
X
Intensive examination of specific
factors
X
Particular historical development X
Unique configuration of being X X
Bounded system X
Source: developed from Hakim (1994); King (1985); McKinney (1966); Patton (1990);
Sanders (1981); Smith (1988); Stake (1995); Yin (1989).
15
Applying the Case Method
Beer (1988, p.168) argued that qualitative research is well suited to asking the broader
questions of science, unlike ‘normal science, which attempts to answer little questions
precisely. Instead we should do broader ... studies which answer more questions less
precisely’. Qualitative research based on a well defined methodology can provide the
means to scientifically answer these broader questions that provide for new insight. The
following are suggestions for carrying out case study research in a methodologically
sound way.
Identification of Prior Theory: Prior theory in the area of research interest should be
identified through a literature review. The outcome of the review should be an initial
statement of the research problem and issues that might be further refined through pilot
case studies (Nair & Riege 1995; Robson 1993). This approach recognises the
importance of prior theory to the research design (Lincoln & Guba 1985, Miles &
Huberman 1994; Neuman 1994; Perry & Coote 1994; Yin 1994).
Single vs multiple case study research: Single case study research is applicable when
the case is:
• critical or unique or where the researcher is able to access a previously remote
phenomenon;
• critical for testing a well formulated theory;
• an exploratory study or pilot study; shown to be representative of a large population
(McKinney 1966; Smith 1988; Yin 1989).
Multiple case studies provide a purposive sample and the potential for generalizability of
findings (Miles & Huberman 1994, Patton 1990). Additionally, including multiple sites
increases the scope of the investigation and the degrees of freedom (Bonoma 1985;
Eisenhardt 1989; Miles & Huberman 1984; Parkhe 1993; Patton 1990). Multiple case
studies provide a more rigorous and complete approach than single case study research
due to the triangulation of evidence (Bonoma 1985; Eisenhardt 1989; Herriott &
Firestone 1983; Neuman 1994; Stake 1994; Yin 1994). Additionally, triangulation of data
in the context of multiple case studies provides differing research sites and data sources
16
to satisfy theory generation and verification (Denzin 1978; Deshpande 1983; Patton
1990). Finally, multiple case studies are appropriate as they provide for a rigorous
methodology for replication logic (Parkhe 1993; Tsoukas 1989; Yin 1993).
Multiple case studies provide for theory confirmation through literal and theoretical
replication (Anderson 1986; Bonoma 1985).
Integrity of case study research
This section examines the integrity of case study research in terms of validity and
reliability. Careful design can avoid or at least reduce the criticisms directed at case study
research for the lack of methodological rigour and possibility of bias (Billingsley & Poole
1986; Patton 1990; Smith 1988, Yin 1989). In dealing with these criticisms, case study
researchers have Developed a number of different approaches for increasing the integrity
of qualitative research (Reige & Nair 1996). Tests for validity have overlaps in meaning,
as do tests for reliability. These approaches tend to have similar meaning though differing
in the terminology of the tests used to determine the integrity of case study research. Case
study research can achieve integrity or rigour of validity through five approaches:
construct validity; confirmability; internal validity/credibility; external
validity/transferability and finally, reliability/dependability (Miles & Huberman 1994;
Yin 1989).
Construct validity: First, construct validity ensures adequate operational measures for
the concepts under investigation (Emory & Cooper 1991, McDaniel & Gates 1991). That
is, it “testifies to how well the results obtained from the use of the measure fit the theories
around which the test is designed” (Sekaran 1992, p. 173). Case study research can
achieve construct validity by developing its constructs through a literature review, use of
multiple sources of evidence, establishing a chain of evidence, and having key external
informants review draft case study reports. Multiple sources or triangulation of evidence
is also recommended as a technique for construct validity by such researchers as Burgess
(1984), Denzin (1978), Jorgensen (1989), Marshall and Rossman (1990), and Patton
(1990). Triangulation allows for a stronger substantiation of constructs and hypotheses
that assists in generalisability of the research findings (Bonoma 1985). Also, a study
17
protocol or interview guide can be developed to provide for a systematic process in the
interviews (Yin 1994). The subjectivity inherent in the case study method can be reduced
through prudent selection of the case study interviewees, a structured interview process,
and a structured process for recording, transcribing and interpreting the data (Dick 1990;
Lincoln & Guba 1985). Thus, a chain of evidence can be established from the beginning
of the research questions through data collection to the final conclusions (Yin 1994).
Confirmability: Confirmability is defined as ability of others to satisfy themselves that
the research was carried out in the way it is described by the researcher (Lincoln & Guba
1985; Miles & Huberman 1994; Riege & Nair 1996). The basic technique for ensuring
confirmability is developing a record of data collected (such as recorded cassette tapes,
transcriptions, interview notes, secondary sources) to allow other researchers to observe a
chain of evidence. This audit trail would allow an external observer to trace the logical
progression of reasoning from the evidence presented to the conclusions drawn. In
addition, opportunities might be provided for key informants to review draft case study
reports and the findings of the research (Miles & Huberman 1994; Yin 1994).
Internal validity/credibility: Internal validity/credibility in quantitative research is
defined as the identification of causal relationships whereby certain variables may
influence other variables in the research study (Emory & Cooper 1991; McDaniel &
Gates 1991; Miles & Huberman 1994; Zikmund 1991). In contrast, qualitative research
does not necessarily deal with cause and effect relationships of independent and
dependent variables but rather with establishing a phenomenon in a credible manner, that
is ‘generative mechanisms’ or ‘causal powers’ (Guba & Lincoln 1994; Miles &
Huberman 1994; Tsoukas 1989; Yin 1993). That is, case study research aims to locate
generative mechanisms that assist in determining inferences about real-life experiences
(Bhaskar 1978; Merriam 1988; Sykes 1990 and 1991, Tsoukas 1989).
In case study research, internal validity/credibility can be established by the use of case
analysis, cross case analysis, pattern matching, assurance of internal coherence of
findings, expert peer review, and the development of diagrams, illustration and data
matrices to demonstrate the internal consistency of the information collected. Further
18
activities to demonstrate internal validity include precisely distinguishing the unit of
analysis, linking of the analysis to prior theory identified in a literature review, and
presentation and analysis of pilot case studies (Yin 1993).
Parallel to internal validity, the techniques for credibility in the case method include
triangulation, peer debriefing, discussion of the results and conclusions with other
academic researchers (Lincoln and Guba 1985; Hirschman 1986), and making clear the
researchers’ assumptions about his world view and his theoretical orientation (Merriam
1988). Other techniques include prolonged engagement (multiple contacts) by the
researcher with the respondents.
External validity/transferability: External validity/transferability is defined as the
scope to which the research findings can be replicated beyond the proximate research
case studies or generalizability (Emory & Cooper 1991; Lincoln & Guba 1985; McDaniel
& Gates 1991; Miles & Huberman 1994; Yin 1989). Positivist research carries out
statistical generalisation (Eisenhardt 1989; Miles & Huberman 1984; Yin 1994). In
contrast, case study research carries out analytical generalization in which particular
findings are generalized into a broader theory (Perry et al. 1997); Tsoukas 1989; Yin
1994). This can be achieved through the use of a multiple case studies methodology and
by comparison of evidence (Lincoln & Guba 1985; Miles & Huberman 1984). Multiple
case studies can be used to develop analytic generalization through replication logic
and/or corroboration of findings to achieve external validity (Eisenhardt 1989; Parkhe
1993; Yin 1994). Other techniques that can be used include ‘thick’ descriptions for a case
study data base, cross-cluster and cross-case analysis, intended interview protocol, and
the use of procedures for coding and analysis (Lincoln & Guba 1985; Miles & Huberman
1994).
Reliability/dependability: Finally, the test of reliability/dependability deals with the
ability of other researchers to carry out the same study and achieve similar results
(Cassell & Symon 1994; Emory & Cooper 1991; King et al. 1994; McDaniel & Gates
1991; Miles & Huberman 1994; Singleton et al. 1993). Reliability in realism research is
based on the assumption that there is a single reality which is studied repeatedly
19
(Merriam 1988). However, data in qualitative research on the same real life situation can
be collected by different researchers, who use differing methods, and at different times.
Hence the different data sets may not come together into one conforming picture
(Neuman 1994). Therefore, to achieve reliability/dependability in case study research
demands the enactment of case study procedures so as to identify a documentation trail.
The approved case study techniques for reliability tests are to establish the case study
protocol during data collection, the execution of an interview protocol and the
establishment of a case study data base (Eisenhardt 1989; Merriam 1988; Parkhe 1993).
Finally, formation of a case study data base allows for other researchers to access the files
(Yin 1994). These techniques of reliability increase the general integrity of case study
research, but reliability still may be limited by the creativity of the researcher. For
‘creativity makes confirmability path dependent and irreversible’ (Wollin 1995 p. 27 ).
Employing the techniques noted above for improving dependability provides for greater
cohesion of explanation. This results in a more dependable understanding of the nature of
the phenomenon under investigation (Hirschman 1986).
Developing a Research Plan
The research plan is the overall program of research being undertaken, and involves the
procedures the researcher will carry out for the study (Emory & Cooper 1991). The
research plan provides procedural sign posts to keep the researcher going in the right
direction.
Some qualitative theoreticians such as (Maykut and Morehouse (1994) and Miles and
Huberman (1994) argue that historically there has been lack of documentation in
qualitative research and techniques and state that, ‘qualitative researchers shared no
cannons, decision rules, algorithms, or even any agreed-upon heuristics to indicate
whether findings were valid and procedures robust’ (Miles and Huberman 1994 p. 262).
In credible case research it is important to document the methodologies and techniques
used in order to demonstrate validity and robustness (Eisenhardt 1989; Miles and
Huberman 1994; Patton 1990; Yin 1989).
20
Example of a case study method
A problem of qualitative research is the complexity of comparative case studies. This
analysis examines the activity of the ten case studies. The research issue addressed the
internal management processes of RDBs. The case method offered in this paper is an
approach in which large volume and complex data can be analyzed systematically.
A call for greater systemization of qualitative data analysis (Miles & Huberman 1994;
Yin 1994) has been addressed by a number of researchers (Pawson & Tilley 1997; Perry
1998). This research builds on the cases and examples provided by these researchers of
the use of multi-level analysis of qualitative data in comparative case study research
(Pettigrew 1990). This section of the paper will focus on how qualitative can be
summated under the realism paradigm (Pawson & Tilley 1997; Perry 1998).
This research proceeded in three stages, as shown in figure 1. Stage one involved the
development of a conceptual framework, where research issues and interview questions
were developed through pilot case studies and attention to the literature. The conceptual
framework deals with the role of board, board structure and management practices based
on the literature review and three pilot case studies (Christie 1999). It provides a
comprehensive and focused basis to analyze the variables explaining the internal
operations of an RDB and these variables. This paper will examine stage two of case
study analysis (Patton 1990; Yin 1989). Confirmation of the conceptual framework and
the relevant research variables is undertaken in stage two, involving case study
interviews. Separate to this paper, in the third and final stage there was theory building to
explain the execution of the internal operations of an RDB.
The conceptual framework for the execution of management processes and roles of a
RDB is a prototype of the research issues and variables. The conceptual framework is the
basis of data collection through face to face interviews developed from pilot case studies
and the literature (Guba & Lincoln 1994; Parkhe 1993; Patton 1990). Data collection was
carried out at 10 RDBs. The selection of these 10 was based on the criteria of the general
analytical framework. Personal interviews were carried out with RDB members, general
managers and essential external stakeholders of the agency concerned. Analysis of these
21
data was achieved through tools and techniques such as data reduction, data matrices,
pattern identification and explanation (Miles & Huberman 1994; Patton 1990; Yin 1989).
The final model developed through the case study method provides a basis upon which to
examine a RDB as a whole. The final model permits the analysis of important events,
decisions and actions of a RDB, and their effect on the execution of management
processes and roles.
22
Analysis of interview data
Analysis of interview data commenced after interview notes and tape recorded interviews
were fully transcribed. First, for each of the 21 variables of the conceptual framework, an
interview question probed the complexity and range of activities. Second, for eight of the
variables a further question probed the perceived importance of the variable for a case
(Perry 1998). Third, the individual Likert scales were totalled to provide a summation of
the frequency of events (Yin 1993).
In the analysis of the data, interviewee's ratings were triangulated with other data
collected by the researcher to settle on a final grading. Throughout the discussion,
quotations are shown in direct quotation marks. Bias has been dealt with through the
triangulation of respondents' comments with other data sources (Yin 1993).
In the analysis of the data, five levels of analysis were carried out to identify patterns
within the data, as graphically represented in figure 2 and shown in table 4. The first three
levels consisted of analysis of individual cases, comparison of cases and then grouping of
cases with similar patterns. The fourth level was a summation of all interview questions
by cases. Level five was a set analysis of the comparison of individual cases with the
summation of cases that provided the final level of analysis of case patterns.
23
Figure 2
Overall process for analysis of the data
Source: developed for this research
The raw data was examined qualitatively for meaning. The data matrices assisted in
presenting the reduced data in a methodical way and assisted the researcher to centre and
establish the data harmoniously (Miles & Huberman 1994). These matrices are presented
graphically and in tabular form in this chapter to organise ideas and methodically
investigate relations in the data, as well as to communicate the results (Neuman 1994). In
the graphical representation, the x-axis indicates a nominal scale with categories based on
ex-post theoretical replication. The y-axis, an ordinal scale, indicates a Likert scale from
1 to 7 used in the interview protocol. The y-axis is an interval type scale but is not
accurate as it is based on multiple triangulations of the data.
A seven-point Likert scale was finally determined after initially experimenting with other
scales. It was found to provide a level of discrimination that usefully and graphically
represented the transformation of qualitative data into a quantitative measure. The scale
consisted of highest (7); high (6); moderately high (5); moderate (4); moderately low (3);
low (2); and lowest (1). However, the scale rank was not meant to be exact, as the
interview data was part of an examination for meaning. The type of graph used is a
scatter diagram and different symbols have been used to differentiate the types of cases.
Caseanalysis(Level 1)
Cross-caseanalysis(Level 2)
Groupanalysis(Level 3)
Clusteranalysis(Level 4)
Setcomparison ofLevels 3 and 4
(Level 5)
24
Level one is an individual case analysis, between interviewees, of patterns for a specific
interview question, as noted in table 4 and shown in figure 3. Level 1 identified the
similarities and differences of the activities of an individual case. The data matrix
represented this level of analysis with an initial Likert score. The Likert scale quantified
the complexity and range of activities within the cases.
Table 4 Levels in the analysis of the data
Level
Individual interview question
All questions
5 Set analysis: • Comparison of group and cluster analysis. Specifically, a comparison of case
averages for overall activity of all cases and for all questions with individual interview question as represented in the data matrices
4 Cluster analysis: • Cases are clustered by summation of
Likert scores of all cases and all questions (as represented in figure 4).
3 Group analysis: • Similar cases are grouped together and
these groups are compared for differences (see figure 3) and represented in data matrices
2 Cross-case analysis: • Patterns of similarities and differences
for specific interview question across all cases represented by data matrices
1 Within case analysis: • Patterns of similarities and differences
within a case for a specific interview question and was represented by data matrix
Individual scales of the indexes The sum of individual indexes Operational measure
Comparison of the individual scales of the indexes with the sum of individual indexes
Source: developed for this research
Level two was a cross-case analysis in which cases from level one were compared for
similarities and differences, as noted in table 4 and shown in figure 3. Thus the activities
of questions within specific interview questions across all cases were compared for
patterns and represented on the data matrix. This second Likert scale quantified the
complexity and range of activities between cases. It applied the same scale as level 1.
25
Figure 3
Formula for group analysis for one case (levels one and two of analysis)
Source: developed for this research
Level three formed the group analysis that grouped together similar cases of the cross-
case analysis, as shown in figure 4 (and noted in table 4). Similar cases were grouped
based on the similar patterns of activities within a specific question. Comparative
analysis of the resultant groupings was carried out.
A group is defined as those cases that have similar patterns of activity for a specific
interview question. Activity is defined as the actions undertaken by RDB to execute their
management processes and roles. Patterns are examined within each case and between
cases to form case groups (Miles & Huberman 1994). Group and cross-case analysis is
carried out to discern similarities and differences. These patterns are systematically
examined through the data by searching for key dimensions and emerging themes.
Through the cross-case analysis the actions of the different boards are compared and
ranked.
VariableInterviewquestion
Specific interview question for one case
Activities ofcase
Compared with
Cases 1-9
----------
--------------------
----------
--------------------
--------------------
----------
Level 1
Level 2
26
Figure 4
Formula for cluster analysis for all cases (levels three and four of analysis)
Source: developed for this research
Level four was a summation of all level three Likert scales for all cases and all 29
questions, as shown in figure 4 (and noted in table 4). Once the 29 Likert scores were
totalled for all the interview questions, an average for all cases was determined. A pattern
emerged of three clusters in this summation. The clusters consisted of a rating of high,
medium and low, as shown in table 4. In the analysis of the cases, the seven-point Likert
score average for high was six, for medium five and for low three.
A cluster is defined as a summation of all questions for an individual case. Specific
interview question are then compared to the cluster. The result is known as a set. During
the set analysis, comparison of the similarities and differences for a specific interview
question is undertaken.
In level five, the set analysis was a comparison of the case patterns of levels three and
four of the cluster and group analysis as shown in figure 5 (and noted in table 4). Level 5
consisted of three steps in the analysis. Step 1 identified the group analysis Likert score
out of seven for individual cases and questions. Step 2 identified the cluster rating of
high, low and medium. Step 3 then compared the group and cluster analysis. Specifically,
comparison occurred between an individual case with the overall activity of all questions
for that board. The outcome of this was that either the patterns were the same or different.
If patterns were different they were represented either above or below the Likert score.
Formula for cluster analysis of individual case All cases
Sum of 29 groupscales from stage 3
29Case average
Case average X 10
Low Medium High(3 onLikertscale)
(5 onLikertscale)
(6 onLikertscale)
=
27
Patterns were then examined to explain the differences between the group and cluster
analysis.
Figure 5
Level five set analysis
Source: developed for this research
Additionally, eight of the questions probed the perceived importance of the variable for
the case. The data for this question is presented in a graphic form using numbers,
symbols and weighted scores for ranking. The scale of 1 to 7 in the figures was used to
indicate the degree of importance of the variables under investigation for a case.
Interviewees were asked to indicate the importance of these factors based on their
experience using a seven point Likert scale. The scale quantified the activities for a case
and the importance consisted of: 1 = very strongly disagree; 2 = strongly disagree; 3 =
disagree; 4 = unsure; 5 = agree; 6 = strongly agree; 7 = very strongly agree.
The research are analysed based on the data drawn from responses of the 29 interview
questions. The findings from each of the interview questions have been summarised with
a figure for each interview question. The Y-axes represent a range of significance for
board activities on a seven-point Likert scale. As noted above, group analysis of each
interview question is carried out where common patterns between cases exist. Then
further analysis of the groups is carried out by a cluster analysis.
Cluster analysis was carried out after all the interview questions were analysed in level
four of the analysis. In level five, the set analysis, cases in each group in figures were
Step 1: Specific question - identify level three group Likert score (range = 1 to 7) of each of the 29questions per case
Step 2: Overall activity - identify level four of board (low, medium, high)Same
Different Below
AboveStep 3: Compare analysis of difference betweenlevels three and four
Level 5 analysis =
Step 1 = Results forlevel three of analysis
Step 2 = Results oflevel four of analysis
Step 3 = Comparison
28
compared with the overall ratings of all questions developed in level three and four. Thus,
level five insights were gained from the variations in the cluster analysis.
Conclusions
Although qualitative research has sometimes been viewed as somehow inferior to
quantitative research (Perry 1998), at least in terms of methodological rigour, we have
argued that qualitative research, as exemplified by the case method, can be fully
appropriate in a number of research situations and can be used with rigourous attention to
methodological integrity. The importance of careful design of case study research cannot
be overstated. More specifically, steps should be taken to ensure construct validity,
confirmability, internal validity and credibility, external validity and transferability, and
reliability and dependability.
References
Amin, A. and Thrift, N. 1994, ‘Holding down the global’, in Globalisation, Institutions
and Regional Development in Europe, (eds) A. Amin, and N. Thrift, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Allen, S. 1989, ‘Corporatism and regional economic policies in the federal republic of
Germany: the ‘meso’ politics of industrial adjustment’, The Journal of Federalism, vol. 19,
no. 4, pp. 147-164.
Anderson, J. 1990, ‘The new right, enterprise zones and urban development corporations’,
International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 468-489.
Anderson, P.F. 1986, “On method in consumer research: A critical relativist perspective”
Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 13, pp. 155-177.
Beer, M. 1988, “Towards a redefinition of O.D.: a critique of research focus and method”
Academy of Management O.D. Newsletter Winter.
Bhaskar, R. 1997, A Realist Theory of Science, Verso, London.
29
Billingsley, J.M. and M.S. Poole 1986, “Organisational groups in conflict: a case study of
conflict interaction from a rules perspective” paper presented at The Oganisational
Communication Division of the International Communication Association 36th Annual
Meeting, Chicago.
Blakely, E. J. 1994, Planning Local Economies Development, Theory and Practise, 2nd
edition, Sage Publication, London.
Bonoma, T. 1985, “Case research in marketing: opportunities, problems, and a process”
Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 12, pp. 199-208.
Burgess, R.G. 1984, In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research, Allen and Unwin,
London.
Cassell, C. and Symon, G.1994, Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research, Sage,
London.
Christie, M. 1999, “Entrepreneurial strategy of regional development boards: a study of
how management processes and roles are executed” unsubmitted PhD. thesis, Faculty of
Business, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Cooke, P. and Morgan, K. 1994, ‘Growth regions under duress: renewal strategies in
Baden Wurttenberg and Emilia-Romagna’, in Globalization, Institutions and Regional
Development in Europe, (eds) A. Amin and N.Thrift, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Coote, L. 1994, “Epistemological foundations of case study research methodology”
Working paper, School of Marketing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Cox, K.R. and Mair, A. 1988, ‘Locality and community in the politics of local economic
development’, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 307-
325.
Danson, M. Lloyd, G. and Newlands, G. 1989, ‘Scottish enterprise: towards a model
agency or a flawed initiative?’, Regional Studies, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 557-563.
30
Denzin, N.K. 1978, Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Denzin, N.K. and Y.S. Lincoln, (eds.) 1994, Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage,
Thousand Oaks.
Department of Industry, Science and Technology 1995, Regional Enterprise Centre
Networks: a report on the application of networked business incubators in the regional
development context, prepared by Latrobe University and Finney Whelan and Associates,
Melbourne.
Deshpande, R. 1983, “Paragigms lost: on theory and method in research in marketing”,
Journal of Marketing, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 101-110.
Dick, B. 1990, Convergent Interviewing, Interchange, Brisbane.
Dicken, P. and Tickell, A. 1992, ‘Competitors or collaborators? The structure of inward
investment promotion in northern England’, Regional Studies, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 99-114.
Easton, G. 1982, Learning from Case Studies, Prentice-Hall, New York.
Eisenhardt, K.M. 1989, “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of
Management Review, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 532-550.
Emory, C.W. and D.R. Cooper 1991, Business Research Methods, (4th ed), Irwin,
Boston.
Foster, M.E. 1991, 'Qualitative investigations into schools and schooling', Readings on
Equal Education, vol. 11, pp. 312.
Gabriel, C. 1990, “The validity of qualitative market research”, Journal of the Market
Research Society, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 507-519.
Gilmore,A. and D. Carson 1996, “Integrative qualitative methods in a services context”,
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, vol. 14, no. 6 pp. 21-26.
31
Glasser, B.G. and A.L. Strauss 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory Strategies for
Qualitative Research, Aldine, Chicago.
Guba, E.G. and Y.S. Lincoln 1994, “Competing paradigms in qualitative research” in
Denzin and Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Hakim, C. 1994, Strategic and Choices in Design of Research, Routledge, New York.
Hansen, N., Higgins, B. and Savoie, D. 1990, Regional Policy in a Changing World,
Plenum Press, New York.
Hassink, R. 1999, ‘South Korea’s economic miracle and crisis: explanations and regional
consequences’, European Planning Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 127-143.
Haubermann, H. and Siebel, W. 1990, ‘The polarisation of urban development in Federal
Republic Germany’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 14, no. 3,
pp. 169-382.
Hayton, K. 1989, ‘The future of local economic development’, Regional Studies, vol. 23, no.
6, pp. 549-564.
Herriott, R.E. and W.A. Firestone 1983, “Multisite qualitative policy research: optimising
description and generalizability”, Educational Researcher, vol. 12, pp. 14-19.
Higgins, B. and Savoie, J. 1995, Regional Development Theories and Their Application,
Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Hirschman, E.C. 1986, “Humanistic inquiry in marketing research: philosophy, method,
and criteria”, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 23, pp. 237-249.
Hodgkinson, A. 1993, ‘Local development initiatives in the mid-Atlantic regions of the
USA’, Regional Policy and Practice, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 17.
Huberman, A. and M. Miles 1985, “Assessing local causality in qualitative research”,
Exploring Clinical Methods for Social Research, Sage, Beverly Hills.
32
Hunt, S. 1991, Modern Marketing Theory, Southwestern, Cincinnati.
Hunt, S. 1992, “For reason and realism in marketing”, Journal of Marketing, vol. 56, pp.
89-102.
Jorgensen, D.L. 1989, Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies, Sage,
Newbury Park.
Kaplan, R.S. 1986, “The role of empirical research in management accounting”,
Accounting, Organization and Society, vol. 11, no. 4-5, pp. 429-452.
Keating, M. 1993, ‘The politics of economic development: political change and local
development policies in the United States, Britain and France’, Urban Affairs Quarterly,
vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 373-396.
King, G., R. Kochrane, and S. Verba 1994, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference
in Qualitative Research, Princeton, Princeton.
Layder, D. 1993, New Strategies in Social Research, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Lazerson, M.H. 1988, ‘Organisational growth of small firms: an outcome of markets and
hierarchies?’, American Sociological Review, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 330-342.
Lever, W.F. 1993, “Reurbanisation: The Policy Implications”, Urban Studies, vol. 30, no.
2, pp. 267-284.
Lincoln, Y.S. and E.G. Guba 1985, Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Newbury Park.
Maher, C. 1993, ‘Recent trends in Australian urban development: locational change and
the policy quandary’, Urban Studies, vol. 30, nos. 4/5, pp. 797-825.
Manicas, P. and P. Secord 1982, “Implications for psychology of the new philosophy of
science”, American Psychologist, vol. 38, pp. 390-413.
Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. 1989, Designing Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand
Oaks.
33
Maycut, P. and R. Morehouse 1994, Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophic and
Practical Guide, Falmer, London.
McDaniel, C. and R. Gates 1991, Contemporary Market Research, West, St. Paul.
McKinney, J.C. 1966, Constructive Typology and Social Theory, Appleton-Century-
Crofts, New York.
Merriam, S.B. 1988, Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach, Jossey-
Bass, San Francisco.
Miles, M.B. and A.M. Huberman 1984, Qualitative data analysis: A Sourcebook of New
Methods, (1st ed.), Sage, New York.
Miles, M.B. and A.M. Huberman 1994, Qualitative data analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook of New Methods, (2nd ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Morgan, G. and L. Smircich 1980, “The case for qualitative research”, Academy of
Management Review, vol. 5, pp. 491-500.
Nair, G.S. and A.M. Riege 1995, “Convergent interviewing to refine the research
problem of a PhD thesis” paper presented at Marketing Educators’ and Researchers’
International Conference, Gold Coast, Australia.
Neuman, W.L. 1994, Social Research Methods, Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights.
Orlikowski, W.J. and J.J. Baroudi 1991, “Studying information technology in
organisations: research approaches and assumptions”, Information Systems Research, vol.
2, no. 1, pp. 1-14.
Outhwaite, W. 1983, “Toward a realist perspective”, pp. 321-330, in G. Morgan (ed.),
Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research, Sage, Beverly Hills,.
Parkhe, A. 1993, “’Messy’ research, methodological predispositions, and theory
development in international joint ventures”, Academy of Management Review, vol. 18,
no. 2, pp. 227-268.
34
Pawson, R. and Tilley, N. 1997, Evaluation Research, Sage, London.
Patton, M.Q. 1990, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage, Newbury Park.
Perry, C. and L. Coote 1994, “Process of a Case Study Research Methodology: Tools for
Management Development?” paper presented at Annual Conference of the Australian and
New Zealand Association of Management, Wellington, New Zealand.
Perry, C., Y. Alizadeh, and A. Riege 1997, “Qualitative Methods in Entrepreneurship
Research” Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Small Enterprise Association of
Australia and New Zealand, Coffs Harbour, 21-23 September, pp. 547-567.
Perry, C. 1998, “Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in
marketing” The European Journal of Marketing, vol. 32, nos. 9/10, pp. 785-802.
Pettigrew, A. M. 1990, “Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice”
Organizational Science, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 267-292.
Pierson, C. 1991, Beyond the welfare state? The new political economy of welfare,
Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania.
Riege, A.M. 1997, Marketing Communication of International Travel and Tourism: A
Study of UK and German Markets for Australia and New Zealand, unpublished thesis,
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Riege, A.M. and G.S. Nair 1996, “Criteria for judging the quality of case study research”
Working Paper, School of Marketing, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Robson, C. 1993, Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and
Practitioners-Researchers, Blackwell, Oxford.
Sanders, J.R. 1981, “Case study methodology: a critique case study methodology in
education evaluation”, Proceedings of the Minnesota Evaluation Conference, Minnesota
Research and Evaluation Centre, Minneapolis.
Saul, R. 1996, The Unconscious Civilization, Penguin, Melbourne.
35
Sekaran, U. 1992, Research methods for Business, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York.
Shapiro, S. 1990, Between Capitalism and Democracy: Educational Policy and the Crisis of
the Welfare State, Bergin and Garvey, New York.
Singleton, R., B. Straits, and M. Straits 1993, Approaches to Social Research, Oxford,
New York.
Smith, R.E. 1988, “The logic and design of case study research”, The Sport Psychologist,
vol. 2 pp. 1-12.
Stake, R.E. 1978, “The case study method in social inquiry”, Educational Researcher,
vol. 7, pp. 5-8.
Stake, R.E. 1994, Case Studies: Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand
Oaks.
Stake, R.E. 1995, The Art of Case Study Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Sykes, W. 1990, “Validity and reliability in qualitative market research: a review of the
literature”, Journal of the Market Research Society, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 3-12.
Sykes, W. 1991, “Taking stock: issues from the literature on validity and reliability in
qualitative research”, Journal of the Market Research Society, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 3-12.
Tower, G. 1995, Building democracy: community architecture in the inner cities, UCL
Press, London.
Tsoukas, H. 1989, “The validity of ideograph research explanations”, Academy of
Management Review, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 551-561.
Weick, K. 1968, ‘Systematic observational methods’, in The Handbook of Social
Psychology, (eds) G. Hindzeg and E. Aronson, Addison and Wesley, Reading.
Weinstein, B.L., Goss, H.T. and Rees, J. 1985, Regional growth and decline in the United
States, Praeger, New York.
36
Wollin, A.S. 1995, A Hierarchy-Based Punctuated-Equilibrium Model of the Process of
Emergence and Change of New Rural Industries, unpublished PhD thesis, Griffith
University Faculty of Commerce and Administration, Brisbane.
Yin, R.K. 1981, “The case study as a serious research strategy”, Knowledge: Creation,
Diffusion, Utilization, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 97-114.
Yin, R.K. 1989, Case Study Research Design and Methods, Sage, Newbury Park.
Yin, R.K. 1993, Applications of Case Study Research, Sage, Newbury Park.
Yin, R.K. 1994, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Newbury Park.
Yuill, D. Allen, K. and Hull, D. (eds.) 1980, Regional Policy in the European Community,
St. Martins Press, New York.
Zikmund, W. 1988, Exploring Market Research, Dryden, New York.
Zikmund, W. 1991, Business Research Methods, Dryden, New York.