UNIT 2

CASE STUDY
Case study research is an investigative approach used to thoroughly describe complex phenomena, such as recent
events, important issues, or programs, in ways to unearth new and deeper understanding of these phenomena.
Specifically, this methodology focuses on the concept of case, the particular example or instance from a class or group
of events, issues, or programs, and how people interact with components of this phenomenon. For example, a case
study of the 2010 U.S. Gulf Coast oil spill disaster (event) would represent an instance (a case) of offshore oil drilling
accidents. A case study of an immigration law in Arizona (issue) would be an example of the issue of immigration
policies instituted by governments. And the investigation of an effort to prevent drug use at a local high school is an
example of a program case study. Researchers focus case studies on defined portions of the phenomenon of interest,
inquiry that is ordinarily limited to the investigation of contemporary events, issues, or programs rather than historical
ones. In addition, the overarching purpose of this approach is to comprehensively “catch the complexity” (Stake,
1995, p. xi) of the activities, decisions, and human interactions. Case study results offer those directly affected by the
case (stakeholders) and others interested in the event or program (audiences) extended awareness by providing rich
detail about highlighted aspects of the case. To provide a frame of reference for case study research, Scriven (1991)
defines it as the polar opposite of survey research. Survey studies seek to gather broad surface-level data about a topic,
such as state, regional, or national incidences of food poisoning. Conversely, case studies set out to examine the
particular, portraying local topics or single instances, such as the case of food poisoning incidences and treatments at
one health care facility. Lapan and Armfield (2009) explain the special nature of case study efforts as “a microscopic
approach where intensive examination of the ‘particular’ is emphasized; this is what some call ‘peeling the onion’ to
carefully view each layer of identified case related program activity” .The term case study is not a new one and has
been applied to many endeavors that are easily confused with case study research. Merriam (2009) crisply notes,
“Case study research is not the same as casework, case method, case history, or case record”.

CHARACTERISTICS OF A CASE STUDY

Bounding the Case
Case study research involves the exploration of something with clear limits or boundaries. The case study researcher
carefully defines and clearly specifies what elements of the case will be studied, that is, which portion of the program
or other phenomena is to be the focus of the investigation. This bounding of the case includes identifying the aspects
to be studied using research questions, the time frame to be included, and the exact physical locations that are part of
the research.

Such bounding communicates those parts of the case that will be included and those that will be excluded from the
study. Identifying the study’s location, the program within the facility to be observed, and the time frame within which
the study will be conducted, for example, may bound a case study of a county mental health facility. In this study, the
researcher could select the emergency care program within the mental health facility and decide to conduct the case
study for at least three months to obtain a good sample of the facility’s operation.

Focusing, limiting, or bounding case study efforts allows the researcher to use valuable investigative time for in-depth
observations that produce rich and detailed case descriptions. These study limits are necessary given the usual time
and resource constraints of any research effort.
Purposes of Case Studies

Lapan and Armfield (2009) note that many different purposes for case study research have been identified in the
literature, including its ability to explain, explore, describe, and compare educational or social programs (Yin, 2003)
and “to discover and communicate innovative ideas and programs” (Simons, 1977, in Lapan & Armfield, 2009, p.
167). Stake (1995, 2006) has provided one of the most efficient ways of explaining the purposes of case study
research, recognizing it to be either intrinsic or instrumental. Intrinsic case studies, on the one hand, focus on the case
being studied, answering questions about that entity only to communicate the illuminated operations to its participants
and other stakeholders. Instrumental case studies, on the other hand, use case results to support a theory or construct a
new way of explaining some phenomenon. In researching one or more reading classes for first graders, for example,
an intrinsic case study researcher would observe several selected program elements during at least part of the school
year and then summarize these findings to offer participants (teachers, parents, administrators) a deeper understanding
about the program’s operation. This intrinsic purpose would be served by focusing exclusively on the program itself.
Instrumental case studies, by contrast, explore instances or cases to build new theories or compare findings to current
ones to either corroborate them or question their validity. In the first-grade reading example, the instrumental case
study researcher would ordinarily collect data from dozens of classrooms, developing rich descriptions of teaching and
learning patterns. By using large amounts of concrete data from real-life contexts, the theory-building or theory- Case
Study Research 247 testing case study researcher may be able to generate new or supporting explanations (theories) of
how first graders learn to read.

Case Study Types

Case studies can be designed to include either one or several cases of the same phenomenon and can be conducted at
any number of sites. Single case studies are those conducted using just one incidence or example of the case at a single
site (one health care facility, one reading classroom). Multiple case studies can be conducted at one site where many
examples of the case are examined, such as several first-grade reading classes in one school, or at multiple sites, such
as first-grade reading classes in different schools or school districts. Multiple case studies and multiple site case
studies are usually designed for purposes of comparison and sometimes referred to as comparative case studies.
Whether at one or multiple sites, multiple cases are considered to be examples of the same type of case sharing
common characteristics. Thus one might conduct a multiple comparative case study of state-level immigration policies
in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and California, or of multiple high school drug prevention programs at five or six
different high schools. Most case studies, regardless of the design, can be completed in six weeks to three months
depending on the number of researchers and the complexity of the case. However, some case study research can be
designed for longer periods, perhaps for six months to more than a year, and are often called longitudinal case studies.

Grounded Theory

History
Glaser and Strauss are recognised as the founders of grounded theory. Strauss was conversant in symbolic
interactionism and Glaser in descriptive statistics. Glaser and Strauss originally worked together in a study examining
the experience of terminally ill patients who had differing knowledge of their health status. Some of these suspected
they were dying and tried to confirm or disconfirm their suspicions. Others tried to understand by interpreting
treatment by care providers and family members. Glaser and Strauss examined how the patients dealt with the
knowledge they were dying and the reactions of healthcare staff caring for these patients. Throughout this
collaboration, Glaser and Strauss questioned the appropriateness of using a scientific method of verification for this
study. During this investigation, they developed the constant comparative method, a key element of grounded theory,
while generating a theory of dying first described in Awareness of Dying (1965). The constant comparative method is
deemed an original way of organising and analysing qualitative data.

Glaser and Strauss subsequently went on to write The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative
Research (1967). This seminal work explained how theory could be generated from data inductively. This process
challenged the traditional method of testing or refining theory through deductive testing. Grounded theory provided
an outlook that questioned the view of the time that quantitative methodology is the only valid, unbiased way to
determine truths about the world. Glaser and Strauss challenged the belief that qualitative research lacked rigour and
detailed the method of comparative analysis that enables the generation of theory. After publishing The Discovery
of Grounded Theory, Strauss and Glaser went on to write independently, expressing divergent viewpoints in the
application of grounded theory methods.

Glaser produced his book Theoretical Sensitivity (1978) and Strauss went on to publish Qualitative Analysis for Social
Scientists (1987). Strauss and Corbin’s publication Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques resulted in a rebuttal by Glaser over their application of grounded theory methods. However,
philosophical perspectives have changed since Glaser’s positivist version and Strauss and Corbin’s post-positivism
stance. Grounded theory has since seen the emergence of additional philosophical perspectives that have influenced
a change in methodological development over time.

Subsequent generations of grounded theorists have positioned themselves along a philosophical continuum, from
Strauss and Corbin’s theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism, through to Charmaz’s constructivist
perspective. However, understanding how to position oneself philosophically can challenge novice researchers. Birks
and Mills provide a contemporary understanding of GT in their book Grounded theory: A Practical Guide. These
Australian researchers have written in a way that appeals to the novice researcher. It is the contemporary writing, the
way Birks and Mills present a non-partisan approach to GT that support the novice researcher to understand the
philosophical and methodological concepts integral in conducting research. The development of GT is important to
understand prior to selecting an approach that aligns with the researcher’s philosophical position and the purpose of
the research study. As the research progresses, seminal texts are referred back to time and again as understanding of
concepts increases, much like the iterative processes inherent in the conduct of a GT study.

Description

Grounded theory methods consist of strategies that shape data collection and analysis for the purpose of constructing
theories of the studied phenomenon.

· These strategies are flexible guidelines that researchers can use to fit their research objectives and specific topic.

· Grounded theory methods are particularly helpful for studying individual, social, and organizational processes as
well as research participants’ actions and meanings.
· Grounded theory research is an iterative process in which data collection and analysis occur simultaneously, with
each informing the other.

Grounded theory is an inductive, iterative, interactive, and comparative method geared toward theory construction
(Charmaz, 2006). A theory states relationships between abstract concepts and may aim for either explanation or
understanding. The inductive logic of grounded theory means that researchers begin by studying individual cases or
instances from which they eventually develop abstract concepts. Because this method is also iterative, grounded
theorists move back and forth between data collection and conceptualization. This iterative strategy keeps grounded
theorists asking successively more focused questions of their data and nascent analyses. In short, the method involves
researchers in an interactive form of inquiry. Much of the interactive work relies on making systematic comparisons
throughout the research process to construct concepts. This method provides rigorous yet flexible guidelines that
advance data analysis, which we describe in this chapter. Sociologists Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss (1967)
created grounded theory when they explicated the qualitative research strategies that they had used in their studies of
how staff organized care of dying patients in hospitals. They intended (1) to provide explicit, systematic strategies for
analyzing qualitative data; (2) to oppose views of qualitative methods as anecdotal, impressionistic, and unsystematic;
(3) to contest the dominance of quantitative research; (4) to demonstrate the significance of qualitative research for
theory construction; and (5) to challenge the arbitrary division of labor between theorists and researchers. Since 1967
the method has moved across disciplines and professions. Grounded theory has been widely invoked to legitimize
inductive qualitative studies, although its strategies have often been misunderstood and divisions between its
originators have spawned two different versions of the method— Glaser’s so-called classic grounded
theory approach (1978, 1998) and Strauss’s version (1987), later developed in collaboration with Juliet Corbin
(Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998; see also Corbin & Strauss, 2008). A third version, constructivist grounded theory,
first developed by Kathy Charmaz (2000) and continued soon after by Antony Bryant (2002), emphasizes the
flexibility of the method; acknowledges the standpoints, positions, and situations both of the researcher and research
process and of the participants; and moves the method further into interpretive inquiry.

Genres: traditional, evolved and constructivist grounded theory

Grounded theory has several distinct methodological genres: traditional GT associated with Glaser; evolved GT
associated with Strauss, Corbin and Clarke; and constructivist GT associated with Charmaz. Each variant is an
extension and development of the original GT by Glaser and Strauss. The first of these genres is known as traditional
or classic GT. Glaser acknowledged that the goal of traditional GT is to generate a conceptual theory that accounts for
a pattern of behaviour that is relevant and problematic for those involved. The second genre, evolved GT, is founded
on symbolic interactionism and stems from work associated with Strauss, Corbin and Clarke. Symbolic interactionism
is a sociological perspective that relies on the symbolic meaning people ascribe to the processes of social interaction.
Symbolic interactionism addresses the subjective meaning people place on objects, behaviours or events based on
what they believe is true. Constructivist GT, the third genre developed and explicated by Charmaz, a symbolic
interactionist, has its roots in constructivism. Constructivist GT’s methodological underpinnings focus on how
participants’ construct meaning in relation to the area of inquiry. A constructivist co-constructs experience and
meanings with participants.While there are commonalities across all genres of GT, there are factors that distinguish
differences between the approaches including the philosophical position of the researcher; the use of literature; and the
approach to coding, analysis and theory development. Following on from Glaser and Strauss, several versions of GT
have ensued.

Grounded theory represents both a method of inquiry and a resultant product of that inquiry. Glaser and
Holton define GT as ‘a set of integrated conceptual hypotheses systematically generated to produce an inductive
theory about a substantive area’ . Strauss and Corbin define GT as ‘theory that was derived from data, systematically
gathered and analysed through the research process’ . The researcher ‘begins with an area of study and allows the
theory to emerge from the data’ . Charmaz defines GT as ‘a method of conducting qualitative research that focuses on
creating conceptual frameworks or theories through building inductive analysis from the data’ . However, Birks and
Mills refer to GT as a process by which theory is generated from the analysis of data. Theory is not discovered; rather,
theory is constructed by the researcher who views the world through their own particular lens

Details Grounded Theory and Ethnography

Ethnography
Ethnography, from the Greek ethnos (“foreign people”) and graphein (“to write”), is the systematic study of a
particular cultural group or phenomenon. Ethnography is the primary research methodology for anthropologists; it
seeks to answer anthropological questions concerning the ways of life of living human beings. Ethnographic research
is also conducted by social scientists in other fields, including cultural studies, education, linguistics, communication
studies, health care, and criminology. Historically ethnography has been defined in ways that focus on both
the what and the how. American anthropologist Clifford Geertz (1973) famously differentiated ethnographic research
from other kinds of research not by its methods, but by its “elaborate venture into thick description” . By thick
description Geertz refers to an action, practice, or event and the meaning and symbolic importance given to it by
members of a particular society. Geertz’s classic example is the difference between a wink, a blink, and a twitch.
ethnographers talk about what they do as cultural interpretation. “Cultural interpretation involves the ability to
describe what the researcher has heard and seen within the framework of the social group’s view of reality”
(Fetterman, 1989, p. 28). The U.S.

anthropologist Ward Goodenough (1970) advised ethnographers not simply to document facts about “a society, its
organization, law, customs, and shared beliefs” but also to capture “what an individual must know to behave
acceptably as a member of a particular group”. This value on insider perspective shifts the relationship between
researcher and research participant for ethnographers. Unlike respondents, who “respond to survey questions,” or
subjects, who are the “subject of some experiment,” participants in ethnographic research are informants who “tell
you what they think you need to know about their culture” (Bernard, 2005, p. 196). Informants are experts about their
lives and their practices. And if an ethnographer is fortunate, respectful, and successful, an informant will share that
expert knowledge. As Richardson (1975, p. 521) wrote, Without the informant, the ethnographer cannot carry out his
task. The ethnographer can go only so far with figures, newspapers, and histories, and even with observations. To
complete his work, he has to turn to the informant; without the informant, he cannot be an ethnographer. However,
despite the best intentions of the ethnographer, informants are not always cooperative in providing open access to
information. Many ethnographers have written about the challenge of working with informants, who may provide
different information in a private setting than they would in a public venue, who tailor information to create a certain
impression, or who are simply uncooperative. Satish Saberwal (1969) recounted trying eighteen different times to
obtain information from an informant in Kenya before finding any success. Norma Diamond (1970) wrote about the
difficulties of working with Taiwanese women her own age who had no place to put Diamond’s status as a single
woman. Employing multiple informants and multiple research methods, relying on local assistants to make
introductions and model appropriate social behavior, and allowing time to breed familiarity have all been cited as
strategies to make the ethnographer’s presence “more familiar and less threatening” (Sarsby, 1984, p. 118).
Ethnographers collect data in hospitals and family dining rooms, in geriatric centers and on the shop floor, in jungles
and in recreational parks—wherever the activity in which they are interested takes place. In order to craft descriptions
of cultural events and cultural practices, an ethnographer studies real people doing what they do to meet the everyday
demands with which they are confronted. That is to say, ethnography is naturalistic; ethnographers focus on real
people and their everyday activities in their natural environment, whatever that may be. Classic ethnographic research
conducted in the early and midtwentieth century was focused on a single society in a single place, and resulted in
monographs on the practices of particular groups of people. Raymond Firth (1936) spent a year in Tikopia, in the
western Pacific, and his account of that visit, We the Tikopia, has become one of the great classics of ethnography.

More recently ethnographers have found that the activities that are of interest take place over a range of sites, rather
than at a single locale. Those ethnographies, termed multi-sited ethnographies (Marcus, 1998), cut across area
studies to focus on process and connections through space and time, and often across borders and boundaries. An
example of multi-sited ethnography is Nancy Scheper-Hughes’s work on the black market for the trade of human
organs. is important to remember that ethnographers do not study these sites-villages, classrooms, or global networks
—themselves. They study in them. As Geertz (1973) wrote, “The locus of the study is not the object of study” .The
object of ethnography is not the place, but particular cultural phenomena that happen to be located in one or several
places.

Narrative inquiry

According to Michael Connelly and Jean Clandinin (1990), Narrative inquiry, the study of experience as story, is first
and foremost a way for thinking about experience. Narrative inquiry as a methodology entails a view of the
phenomenon. To use narrative inquiry methodology is to adopt a particular view of experience as phenomenon under
study. (quoted in Clandinin & Rosiek, 2007, p. 38) The comments of narrative researchers Clandinin and Connelly
illustrate both the epistemic (ways of knowing) nature and the ontological (ways of being) possibilities associated
with the stories that we tell about our world. Throughout history the ability of these stories to shape meaning has been
immeasurable. Numerous scholars, linguists, philosophers, and cultural workers in general have attested to the ways
that communicating a shared understanding through stories is a social process and an essential building block for
establishing a community. Clandinin and Connelly (1990) argue, if you really want to understand a community, look
closely at the stories that the community tells about itself. We begin by positioning ourselves through (1) contexts that
have shaped what we know about a given topic, (2) our views as individuals within communities, and (3) our views as
researchers within institutions. As Catherine Riessman (1993) states, “The construction of any work always bears the
mark of the person who created it”
 Qualitative research generally uses narratives, verbal acts that include someone telling another person that an
event occurred (Smith, 1981), for descriptive purposes to categorize and form taxonomies (classifications of themes
based on similarities) to understand differences and similarities among and between stories. Narrative inquiry refers to
any study that uses or analyzes narrative materials. The data can be collected as a story (a life story provided in
an interview or a literary work) or in a different manner (field notes of an anthropologist who writes up his or her
observations as a narrative or in personal letters). It can be the object of the research or a means for the study of
another question. It may be used for comparison among groups, to learn about a social phenomenon or historical
period, or to explore a personality. (Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, & Zilber, 1998, p. 2). Distinguishing narrative inquiry
from other forms of discourse, Catherine Riessman and Jane Speedy (2007) propose that narrative inquiry offers a
focus on sequence (organization of events) and consequence (how and why events occurred). As they explain,
“Events are selected, organized, connected and evaluated as meaningful for a particular audience. Analysis in
narrative studies interrogates language—how and why events are storied, not simply the content to which language
refers” . So narrative inquiry focuses on the process of the story, how and why the story came to be, as well as what
the story might become for the individual.

A distinction between qualitative research in general and narrative inquiry is that narrative inquiry includes the
participants actively throughout the research. process. The richness of detail in the participants’ quotes conveys
identity more powerfully than any interpretation. Placing the participant as the primary teller allows the reader to
interpret the participant’s story instead of a researcher’s interpretation. The participant’s voice is central to the telling.
The term narrative inquiry was first used by Connelly and Clandinin (1990) as a methodology to describe teachers’
personal stories. Robert Coles (1989) encourages the narrative researcher to (1) include participants in the storytelling
process and (2) incorporate essential aspects of a story that help engage the audience. For example, according to
Coles, the audience must consist of good listeners.

Clandinin and Connelly (2000) view narrative inquiry as the study of transactional experience, the relationships
between the people, places, and ideas involved in the research process. The transaction that they emphasize is between
the narrator (interviewee), the listener (interviewer, potential listener or reader of the story), and the actual
environment, or, as they would say, the landscape in which the events recounted in the story occur. Hence, these three
phenomena (narrator, listener, environment) do not exist individually, but rather intersect where meaning is created
and knowledge is produced. Narrative inquiry therefore positions researchers to examine the world of their
participants as something both shaped by—and in some limited ways capable of shaping—historical interpretations.
Narratives may guide people to better understand commitments for themselves, for their community, or for society at
large.

Narrative inquiry
Narrative inquiry
According to Michael Connelly and Jean Clandinin (1990), Narrative inquiry, the study of experience as story, is first
and foremost a way for thinking about experience. Narrative inquiry as a methodology entails a view of the
phenomenon. To use narrative inquiry methodology is to adopt a particular view of experience as phenomenon under
study. (quoted in Clandinin & Rosiek, 2007, p. 38) The comments of narrative researchers Clandinin and Connelly
illustrate both the epistemic (ways of knowing) nature and the ontological (ways of being) possibilities associated
with the stories that we tell about our world. Throughout history the ability of these stories to shape meaning has been
immeasurable. Numerous scholars, linguists, philosophers, and cultural workers in general have attested to the ways
that communicating a shared understanding through stories is a social process and an essential building block for
establishing a community. Clandinin and Connelly (1990) argue, if you really want to understand a community, look
closely at the stories that the community tells about itself. We begin by positioning ourselves through (1) contexts that
have shaped what we know about a given topic, (2) our views as individuals within communities, and (3) our views as
researchers within institutions. As Catherine Riessman (1993) states, “The construction of any work always bears the
mark of the person who created it”
Qualitative research generally uses narratives, verbal acts that include someone telling another person that an
event occurred (Smith, 1981), for descriptive purposes to categorize and form taxonomies (classifications of themes
based on similarities) to understand differences and similarities among and between stories. Narrative inquiry refers to
any study that uses or analyzes narrative materials. The data can be collected as a story (a life story provided in
an interview or a literary work) or in a different manner (field notes of an anthropologist who writes up his or her
observations as a narrative or in personal letters). It can be the object of the research or a means for the study of
another question. It may be used for comparison among groups, to learn about a social phenomenon or historical
period, or to explore a personality. (Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, & Zilber, 1998, p. 2). Distinguishing narrative inquiry
from other forms of discourse, Catherine Riessman and Jane Speedy (2007) propose that narrative inquiry offers a
focus on sequence (organization of events) and consequence (how and why events occurred). As they explain,
“Events are selected, organized, connected and evaluated as meaningful for a particular audience. Analysis in
narrative studies interrogates language—how and why events are storied, not simply the content to which language
refers” . So narrative inquiry focuses on the process of the story, how and why the story came to be, as well as what
the story might become for the individual.
A distinction between qualitative research in general and narrative inquiry is that narrative inquiry includes the
participants actively throughout the research. process. The richness of detail in the participants’ quotes conveys
identity more powerfully than any interpretation. Placing the participant as the primary teller allows the reader to
interpret the participant’s story instead of a researcher’s interpretation. The participant’s voice is central to the telling.
The term narrative inquiry was first used by Connelly and Clandinin (1990) as a methodology to describe teachers’
personal stories. Robert Coles (1989) encourages the narrative researcher to (1) include participants in the storytelling
process and (2) incorporate essential aspects of a story that help engage the audience. For example, according to
Coles, the audience must consist of good listeners.
Clandinin and Connelly (2000) view narrative inquiry as the study of transactional experience, the relationships
between the people, places, and ideas involved in the research process. The transaction that they emphasize is between
the narrator (interviewee), the listener (interviewer, potential listener or reader of the story), and the actual
environment, or, as they would say, the landscape in which the events recounted in the story occur. Hence, these three
phenomena (narrator, listener, environment) do not exist individually, but rather intersect where meaning is created
and knowledge is produced. Narrative inquiry therefore positions researchers to examine the world of their
participants as something both shaped by—and in some limited ways capable of shaping—historical interpretations.
Narratives may guide people to better understand commitments for themselves, for their community, or for society at
large.
Art Based Research and Collaborative Research
Arts-based research
Arts-based research is an approach that use artistic design elements to study and reveal facets of social phenomena.
These design elements may be associated with any form of art, including various literary, plastic, performance,
musical, and digital arts, and allow the reader to expressively appreciate perceive, and enjoy the research as a work of
art. These design elements are employed in order to enable members of professional or lay communities to experience
anew aspects of social and cultural phenomena. In doing so, arts based researchers aim to raise fundamental questions
about social issues, social practices, and qualities within cultural artifacts that have become taken for granted as
obviously correct, useful, good, true, or beautiful.
For example, Coulter (2003) uses the genre of literary nonfiction to address the systemic processes that affect high
school English language learners and works to communicate experiences from their perspectives and their stories. She
uses the form of a novel to allow the reader to travel with these students and encounter the issues identified by the
researcher through the design elements of theme, characterization, figurative language, and plot structure. the
term arts-based research was originated by Elliot Eisner of Stanford University and popularized in the 1990s by
Eisner and Tom Barone of Arizona State University (formerly Eisner’s doctoral student).
In general, arts-based research texts reveal previously unattended-to aspects of social and cultural phenomena, or
allow readers and viewers to vicariously experience those phenomena from an otherwise unavailable vantage point.
This “reexperiencing” of facets of the social world may serve to problematize the value of common sensical, orthodox
ways of viewing the world in the minds of research audiences, producing doubt, disequilibrium, or skepticism toward
dominant meanings habitually associated with social and cultural phenomena.
· Research with a heuristic purpose asks readers to examine phenomena in their own lives related to the worlds
constructed in the research text.
· Research with an interrogatory purpose asks readers to reexamine commonly held assumptions about the
phenomena.
In other words, arts-based research texts aim toward a critical persuasion of readers and viewers to interrogate
entrenched social norms, beliefs, and values. In a good work of arts-based research the artist’s point of view is
inevitably (if often implicitly) present. But the text is structured in a manner that is, to some extent, open to
interpretation—that is, as Barthes (1968/1977) would say, writerly, inviting the reader into a conversation with the
text and perhaps with other members of an audience. A piece of arts-based research may be said, therefore, to have
achieved its purpose if consumers of the work are lured into rethinking (rewriting) their perspectives concerning that
which has been thematically addressed in the research text.
Collaborative Research
COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH
Collaborative research is research “with” rather than research “on.” It is research that arises out of the expressed
needs, interests, and questions of the stakeholders who are most invested in the research and its findings, and it is
research conducted in relationship with them. Collaborative research reflects a move in the social sciences away from
a hierarchical understanding of research as informing practice to an understanding of the reciprocal and
interdependent nature of research and practice. Collaborative research enables the voices of researchers and those in
the field—practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders—to be positioned alongside one another in a shared
inquiry of mutual interest and benefit.
Collaborative research can be situated within the specificity of a discipline (e.g., researchers, teachers, administrators,
and parents inquiring into ways to enhance parent engagement in schooling), or it can be situated across disciplines
where diverse voices and perspectives come together in multidisciplinary or intersectoral teams to pursue a research
question in more comprehensive, holistic, or integrated ways (e.g., researchers, practitioners, and policymakers from
health, education, justice, and social services, alongside parents and community members, researching reforms to the
provision and integration of human services delivery to enhance the well-being and academic success of children and
families living in an inner-city neighborhood).
Collaborative research can also be situated in a university–community relationship where an issue the community is
puzzling over is researched with the support and facility of university academics (e.g., a concern posed to academic
researchers in a department of nutrition by a community-based nonprofit food security organization regarding how to
work with school lunch providers to enhance the nutritional value of lunches provided in school-administered
programs). Although it can involve many types of alliances, common goals and mutuality are integral to collaborative
research—a sense that each partner has much to learn from the other and that the results of the research will be richer
through collaboration than any one partner could achieve without the other.

Characteristics
Collaborative research is based on a relationship of equity among co-researchers working together to achieve mutually
determined and mutually beneficial goals. It reflects a shared belief in both the means and the ends of the research. It
reflects the engagement of co-researchers in all aspects of the research, from shaping the research question or puzzle
and the parameters in which the research is framed, to designing and engaging in the inquiry process, to discussing
field texts, to making and communicating meaning through research texts, papers/articles, presentations,
performances, and so on.
It is important to note that the mutuality of the research is based on equity, not equality. Although authentic and
genuine participation of all co-researchers is critical to collaborative research, this will not look the same for everyone
because of the variations in the individual’s role, the time the individual can commit, and/or the skills, interest, or
confidence the individual has in different aspects of the research.
Some aspects of the research may be done together by co-researchers, whereas other aspects are done as divided labor;
some aspects may be done synchronously, whereas other aspects are done asynchronously; and some aspects may be
done to a greater extent or more frequently by some co-researchers, whereas other aspects are done to a lesser extent
or less frequently by others. There may be a symmetry to the actions of co-researchers or perhaps a complementarity
to the roles they play. Returning to the earlier example of an inquiry into parent engagement in schooling, co-
researcher participation could unfold as follows: All co-researchers would be involved in regularly scheduled and
recorded research team conversations to share stories of their experiences with parent engagement, to respond to each
other’s stories, to make meaning together of experiences captured in field text, and to monitor and adjust unfolding
research plans.
Some on-site co-researchers may keep field journals and/or reflective journals of their observations or experiences
relating to parent engagement. Other on-site co-researchers may record research moments through photographs or the
collection of artifacts. While university co-researchers are engaged in recorded conversations with participants (other
parents, educators, community members, and staff members who are not on the research team but who can add to the
inquiry), other co-researchers may also be scheduling and facilitating recorded conversations with other participants to
add to the field text. Co-researchers may be reading from a diverse range of literature, from parenting magazines to
scholarly books and articles, to infuse new and different ideas into research team conversations. Co-researchers, alone
or in small groups, may be visiting other school sites to learn about their beliefs and practices in relation to parent
engagement. Coresearchers, together as a team or in small groups, may be sharing research in progress or research
findings at the school or community level or within local, regional, or national research communities.
Flexibility in individually and collectively determining roles, and in negotiating and renegotiating those roles as the
research unfolds, enables each co-researcher to participate in ways that are comfortable yet maintain the inclusivity of
multiple perspectives and enhance the richness and outcomes of the research program. What remains important is the
sense of interdependence among co-researchers, a sense of shared responsibility for the whole of the research, and a
sense of mutual respect for each individual and the contribution each individual makes to the research process and
results.

Action Research

Action research
It is a flexible research methodology uniquely suited to researching and supporting change. It integrates social
research with exploratory action to promote development. In its classic form, action research involves fluid and
overlapping cycles of investigation, action planning, piloting of new practices, and evaluation of outcomes,
incorporating at all stages the collection and analysis of data and the generation of knowledge. The outcomes of action
research are both practical and theoretical: The knowledge it generates has a direct and ongoing impact on changing
practice for participants and on a wider audience through its publications. This entry describes the origins of action
research and its use in a variety of fields throughout the world. Action research is often used in fields such as
education, social and health services, and community development, where there is a long history of difficulties in
successfully transferring research knowledge into changes in practice. It offers a means of combining the generation
of knowledge with professional development of practitioners through their participation as co-researchers.
STEP 1 -
Investigating the current situation, in partnership, and planning change
STEP 2-
Introducing changes: trying out new practices with the aim of improvement
STEP 3-
Monitoring the impact of changes: collecting a wide range of data
STEP 4-
Analyzing and interpreting data to generate actionable knowledge
Collaborative action research can also break down the separation between policymakers and practitioners, giving the
former richer insights into practice and giving the latter active role in policy development as well as its
implementation.The first person to use the term action research was probably Kurt Lewin, a psychologist who went to
the United States from Germany during the 1940s and worked with immigrant groups to promote their better
integration into U.S. society. Lewin, like others at the time, was seeking to explain human behavior so as to enable
improvement, and his work was closely related to the socio technical research tradition developed by Eric Trist and
others at the Tavistock Institute in London. The early work at the Tavistock Institute built on a method of group
therapy developed in working with shell-shocked military personnel during World War II. In postwar society on both
sides of the Atlantic, this innovative new movement in social psychology research pursued a vision of betterment for
individuals and increased organizational efficiency through community participation in research and development.
Lewin believed that human behavior was always a function of the situation at the time it occurred; therefore, he did
not believe it was ever possible to make generalizations about human behavior that would apply to all contexts. Action
research generates knowledge about the interrelationship between human behavior and sociocultural situations rather
than generalizable truths, and it is important that it be reported in a form that includes narrative accounts and rich
description as well as analysis and interpretation so that readers can make comparisons with their own situations.
Lewin developed action research as a radical move away from traditional research methodologies.
An important feature of action research is that it is carried out by a partnership of participants who are “insiders” to
the situation under research and external facilitators/researchers/consultants. This makes research ethics extremely
important, requiring continuous sensitivity to how power relations may be shaping the partnership and continuous
inquiry into the process of collaboration as well. The nature of partnerships varies. Those who work within a tradition
of teacher-as-researcher sometimes question the authenticity of action research led by external consultants, but in
professions such as nursing, social care, and community care the external consultant often takes on a leadership role.
In the tradition of participatory action research, whole community development often starts with an external
intervention, and the direction of the research and action is negotiated with participants so that control shifts away
from experts toward community members over time. Some of this participatory action research work with strong
external facilitation or leadership can be large scale and have a major impact on community development, whereas
studies by individual teachers of their own classrooms are necessarily small scale.
One of the most important contributions of action research as a methodology for building understanding of change
and development is its unique access to insider knowledge. Through adopting the role of researchers, practitioners are
able to reflect on and make explicit the tacit knowledge that guides their practice, and their involvement as co-
researchers ensures that the knowledge generated by action research incorporates this unique—and often neglected—
component. Thus, action research forms a bridge between practitioner understanding and the generation of theoretical
knowledge to inform action.
Phenomenological Research

PHENOMENOLOGY RESEARCH
Perhaps the most chaplain-friendly qualitative research approach is phenomenology, because it is all about the search
for meaning. Its roots are in the philosophical work of Husserl, Heidegger and Ricoeur (Boss, Dahl, & Kaplan,
1996; Swinton & Mowat, 2006). This approach is based on several assumptions: (1) meaning and knowing are social
constructions, always incomplete and developing; (2) the investigator is a part of the experience being studied and the
investigator's values play a role in the investigation; (3) bias is inherent in all research and should be articulated at the
beginning; (4) participants and investigators share knowledge and are partners; (5) common forms of expression (e.g.,
words or art) are important; and (6) meanings may not be shared by everyone (Boss et al.). John Swinton and Harriet
Mowat (2006) described the process of carrying out a phenomenological study of depression and spirituality in adults
and reading their book is an excellent way to gain a sense of the whole process. Phenomenology may be the method of
choice when you want to study what an experience means to a particular group of people. May not be the best choice
when you want to be able to generalize your findings. An accurate presentation of the experience under study is more
important in this approach than the ability to claim that the findings apply to across situations or people (Boss et al.).
A study of the devil among predominately Hispanic horse track workers is unlikely to be generalizable to experiences
of the devil among persons of Scandinavian descent living in Minnesota. Care must be taken not to overstate the
findings from a study and extend the conclusions beyond what the data support.
Sampling
The emphasis on accurately portraying the phenomenon means that large numbers of participants are not required. In
fact, relatively small sample sizes are required compared to most quantitative, clinical studies. The goal is to gather
descriptions of their lived experience which are rich in detail and imagery, as well as reflection on its theological or
psychological meaning. The likelihood of achieving this goal can be enhanced by using a purposeful sample. That is,
decide in the beginning approximately how large and how diverse your sample needs to be. For example, CF can be
caused by over 1,000 different genetic mutations; some cause more pulmonary symptoms while others cause more
gastrointestinal problems. Some people with CF have diabetes and others do not; some have a functioning pancreas
and others need to take replacement enzymes before eating or drinking anything other than water. Some CF
adolescents may have lung function that is over 100% of what is expected for healthy adolescents of their age and
gender, whereas others, with severe pulmonary disease, may have lung function that is just 30% of what is expected
for their age and gender. A study of what it is like for an adolescent to live with a life-shortening genetic disease using
this approach might benefit from purposive sampling. For example, lung disease severity in CF is broadly described as
mild, moderate or severe. A purposeful sample might call for 18 participants divided into 3 age groups (11–13 years;
14–16 years; and 17–19 years old) and disease severity (mild, moderate, and severe). In each of those nine groups
there would be one male and one female. In actual practice, one might want to have more than 18 to allow for
attrition, but this breakdown gives the basic idea of defining a purposive sample. One could reasonably expect that
having the experience of both genders across the spectrum of disease severity and the developmental range of
adolescence would permit an accurate, multi-dimensional understanding to emerge of what living with this life-
shortening disease means to adolescents. In fact, such an accurate description is more likely to emerge with this
purposeful sample of 18 adolescents than with a convenience sample of the first 18 adolescents who might agree to
participate in the study during their outpatient clinic appointment. Defining the sample to be studied requires some
forethought about what is likely to be needed to gain the fullest understanding of the topic.
Design
Any research design may be used. The design will be dictated by what data are required to understand the phenomena
and its meaning. Interviews are by far the most common means of gathering data, although one might also use written
texts, such as prayers written in open prayer books in hospital chapels, for example (ap Sion, 2013; Grossoehme,
1996), or drawings (Pendleton, Cavalli, Pargament, & Nasr, 2002), or photographs/videos (Olausson, Ekebergh, &
Lindahl, 2012). Although the word “text” appears, it should be with the understanding that any form of data is
implied.
Analysis
The theoretical underpinnings of phenomenology, which are beyond the scope of this article, suggest to users that “a
method” is unnecessary or indeed, contrary, to phenomenology. However, one phenomenological researcher did
articulate a method (Giorgi, 1985), which consists of the following steps. First, the research team immerses
themselves in the data. They do this by reading and re-reading the transcribed interviews and listening to the recorded
interviews so that they can hear the tone and timbre of the voices. The goal at this stage is to get a sense of the whole.
Second, the texts are coded, in which the words, phrases or sentences that stand out as describing the experience or
phenomena under study, or which express outright its meaning for the participant are extracted or highlighted. Each
coded bit of data is sometimes referred to as a “meaning unit.” Third, similar meaning units are placed into categories.
Fourth, for each meaning unit the meaning of the participants' own words is spelled out. For chaplains, this may mean
articulating what the experience means in theological language. Other disciplines might transform the participants'
words into psychological, sociological or anthropological language. Here the investigators infer the meaning behind
the participants' words and articulate it. Finally, each of the transformed statements of meaning are combined into a
few thematic statements that describe the experience (Bassett, 2004; Boss et al., 1996). After this, it would be
appropriate to do member-checking and a subsequent revision of the final model based on participants' responses and
feedback.