Qualitative Research Design, Decision Making, and Organizational Change

Introduction to Research Design

"A research design indicates the full research process from conceptualization of the research problem, generation of data, analysis and interpretation of findings, and dissemination of results" (Magilvy & Thomas, 2009, What and Why... Section, ¶ 4).

What type of research design should the researcher use? To answer a study's critical research consideration, the researcher must first determine the question the study will ask. In Essentials of Research Design and Methodology, Geoffrey R. Marczyk, David DeMatteo, and David Festinger (2010) explain that the type of research design the researcher chooses for a particular study primarily depends on the question the study will address. After the researcher formulates a research question, he "must choose a research design, collect and analyze the data, and draw some conclusions" (Marczyk, DeMatteo, & Festinger, Overview... Section, p. 2). The current paper, focusing on research design, investigates similarities and differences among the phenomenology method, the survey method, the ethnography method, and the case study method. The researcher also describes the case study method in detail and discusses the strengths and weaknesses of this research method. The Breadth section of the paper serves as the catalyst for the Depth section, which concentrates on the case study method and helps highlight the attributes of a good research study.

A research design includes a number of components, Marvin L. Wolverton (2009), a real property valuation theorist and consultant as well as an emeritus professor at Washington State University, explains in the article "Research design, hypothesis testing, and sampling." These elements can include, but may not be limited to, "a problem statement, a research hypothesis, selection and definition of variables, implementation of design and procedures, findings, and conclusions" (Wolverton, ¶ 1). Methodology differs from research design in that "methodology refers to the principles, procedures, and practices that govern research, whereas research design refers to the plan used to examine the question of interest" (Marczyk, DeMatteo, & Festinger, 2010, Overview... Section, p. 1). Methodology encompasses the total process of conducting research—planning and implementing the study, drawing conclusions, and propagating the findings. Research design, by contrast, depicts the many ways the researcher can conduct the study to answer the question of interest.

The study poses the primary research question: What considerations contribute to determining the research design of a study? The following sub-research questions are designed to guide the study:

During the Breadth section, the researcher presents a compilation of relevant literature samples to address the first four research questions. The Depth section expands on the fourth question relating to case study methodology and addresses question five. The researcher recounts and discusses the research effort and presents concluding thoughts during the Conclusion section, including whether the study effectively addressed each research question.

"All research approaches have in common the general process of research that begins with a research problem and proceeds to the questions, the data, the data analysis, and the research report" (Creswell, 2007, p. 76).

Qualitative Research Methods: Breadth

During the Breadth section, the researcher presents a sampling of literature spotlighting extensive coverage of materials relating to the study's focus. In Doing Your Social Science Dissertation: A Practical Guide for Undergraduates, Karen Smith, Malcolm Todd, and Julia Waldman (2009) recommend that the researcher choose one of the following three common approaches to develop a literature review: a chronologically organized review, a thematically organized literature review, or a methodologically organized review. In this qualitative research study investigating research design, the researcher utilizes a thematically organized arrangement to frame relevant information. The following four themes serve as primary borders for data addressing the study's research questions:

Samplings of literature give the reader the necessary background to understand the research, including sources that may prove contrary to the researcher's intent. As it would be impossible for the researcher to include every published study in the area of focus, the researcher carefully chooses the most significant and relevant sources.

Study designs can broadly be classified into three distinctive groups: (1) quantitative designs, which focus on testing theory and hypothesis; (2) qualitative designs, which focus on developing theory and generating knowledge; and (3) mixed designs, which combine the two approaches (Spitzlinger, 2010, p. 4). The researcher generally uses qualitative research to gain in-depth knowledge of a few specific cases, seeking to understand how diverse components fit together and to explain a particular outcome or phenomenon. Qualitative research, characterized by inductive logic, permits understanding a situation without imposing pre-existing expectations on the subject. According to Creswell, qualitative research constitutes "an inquiry process of understanding a social or human problem, based on building a complex, holistic picture, formed with words reporting detailed views of informants, and conducted in a natural setting" (Creswell, cited in Spitzlinger, 2010, p. 5). In qualitative research, the researcher uses an interpretive, naturalistic approach.

Fred Kerlinger, a quantitative researcher, argues that no such thing as qualitative data exists: "Everything is either 1 or 0" (Qualitative versus Quantitative..., 2010, ¶ 1). D. T. Campbell, another researcher, asserts that ultimately all research is rooted in qualitative research. Despite the ongoing debate about whether quantitative or qualitative research outranks the other, numerous researchers agree that more often than not the two methods need each other. Nevertheless, because qualitative data utilizes words and quantitative data utilizes numbers, some researchers perceive one method to outperform or produce more scientific results than the other. Yet another primary difference is that "qualitative research is inductive and quantitative research is deductive. In qualitative research, a hypothesis is not needed to begin research. However, all quantitative research requires a hypothesis before research can begin" (Qualitative versus Quantitative..., 2010, ¶ 1). The underlying assumptions regarding the researcher's role represent still another major difference between qualitative and quantitative research.

The researcher's choice of research method depends on the type of study planned, the research goal, and the study's corresponding setting. Spitzlinger (2010) explains: "The [study] design determines the strategy, the data collection processes as well as the appropriate tools for data analysis" (p. 4). Most qualitative research depends on some kind of comparison to establish categorizations, links, and regularities, or to understand phenomena within the context they are experienced and observed. In qualitative study, researchers frequently examine associations, differences, and similarities among diverse objects such as individual meanings, political configurations, and statements, making comparative research prominent. The researcher must define the study's constructs and determine whether he will focus on cases or characteristics.

Qualitative research, the process of examining and investigating a phenomenon in its natural setting, may reflect experiences "as lived." During this method, after the researcher retrieves data, he typically examines this information to determine differences and similarities in the categories, patterns, and themes in the data. The researcher then describes and sometimes interprets this information. Joan K. Magilvy, Professor and Associate Dean for Academic Programs, and Eileen Thomas (2009), Assistant Professor at a College of Nursing, assert in the journal article "A First Qualitative Project: Qualitative Descriptive Design for Novice Researchers" that the primary purpose of a qualitative study may be to create a thorough narrative and detailed description of the phenomenon being studied or of individuals in their everyday natural setting.

The researcher pursuing a qualitative study may be considered the instrument of research. In this instance, the researcher may generate information by questioning individuals or focus groups, observing and documenting comments and remarks. The researcher may even participate in certain events and record personal participation through photographs. Prior to addressing the question(s) of interest in a qualitative study—typically open-ended queries—the researcher attempts to acknowledge and then set aside predetermined ideas about the study's focus. Magilvy and Thomas (2009) explain that "qualitative research data are usually text data, narratives, and stories told by people about their experiences recorded digitally, on tape, on film, or in photographs, or in notes taken by the researcher" (¶ 4).

As explained earlier, research design illustrates the entire research process from the first notion of the research problem to creating the data, analyzing and explaining the findings, and ultimately publishing the results. In addition to the phenomenology method, the survey method, the ethnography method, and the case study method, research designs also include—but are not limited to—grounded theory and narrative inquiry. Magilvy and Thomas (2009) explain that as some research designs prove to be somewhat complex, they may "require an understanding of the philosophical and disciplinary underpinnings and specific methods of data generation and analysis" (¶ 5). For some beginning researchers, qualitative descriptive design may prove more appropriate than others, as it depicts a traditionally philosophic method of research which any of the key qualitative designs—including ethnography, grounded theory, narrative inquiry, phenomenology, and case study—can influence.

One crucial element of any study that critically influences the process may be the primary research question. In a qualitative descriptive design study, the primary research question may typically be simple to generate answers within narrow margins that facilitate analysis and observation. At times, the answer may end up being one simple story in which the individual describes the experience they lived. Magilvy and Thomas (2009) explain that "the sample for a qualitative descriptive study is often smaller than in other qualitative designs and is conveniently and purposively selected" (Getting Down to... Section, ¶ 2). The individuals participating in this type of study may have a number of qualifications including experience with the phenomenon being studied, the ability to communicate properly with the researcher, and a willingness to communicate their story to the researcher (Magilvy & Thomas, 2009).

The sample size for a qualitative descriptive study can be as few as three to five individuals, but may extend to as many as 20 participants. Researchers may also choose to use one or more focus groups, which may include four to six individuals per group. Magilvy and Thomas (2009) state that "a small sample can give the novice researcher an opportunity to practice interviewing and recording skills, become a good listener, and generate a manageable amount of data" (Getting Down to... Section, ¶ 2). For beginning researchers, a qualitative descriptive study can serve as a guide for future research or be used to illustrate the results of other research such as a survey.

For any research design or method, the process for gathering qualitative data—including the interview process, observation, viewing, and contemplation—may be considered, similar to the wrapping of a gift, the outer layer of the research process. The researcher should be trained to ask appropriate questions and sincerely listen to the participants' answers: one way to begin carefully peeling back the layers. Magilvy and Thomas (2009) state that "the box inside the box parallels the process of data analysis, making sense of a phenomenon and understanding it so to describe it from the other's perspective, and the results of the analysis do not reveal themselves easily or quickly" (Methods of Data... Section, ¶ 3). Over time, as the researcher reads and rereads the data, listens to audio recordings, analyzes field notes, and clarifies the phenomenon being studied with participants, the findings "open up" in the forms of groups, patterns, and themes.

Some consider qualitative research to comprise a method where the researcher unveils a phenomenon to generate or reveal fresh understandings or offer a better description of the phenomenon investigated. Beginning the study method by removing the initial layer of wrapping can replicate the qualitative research concept of coding. Magilvy and Thomas (2009) assert that "codes are the repeated words or phrases of the participants found within and across the individual texts. The next step in the analysis process involves 'opening the boxes'" (Methods of Data... Section, ¶ 4). Boxes, also considered categories, may be regarded as code words or groups of words assembled to comprise related ideas. The researcher should then search for relationships, combining similar categories with other groups that possess similar substance and significance. The last box depicts the theme for the study. The researcher classifies themes by examining and organizing the categories into collective topics. The findings and results from a descriptive study typically portray detailed descriptions that participants generally articulate, which in turn may aid the researcher's comprehension of an individual's experience within the confines of his or her socio-cultural environment.

A basic challenge in developing qualitative case studies may be that the researcher must identify the case to be investigated as well as designate which limited system to study, as a number of credible candidates prove plausible for exemplary examination. John W. Creswell (2007), a Professor of Educational Psychology, asserts in Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches that the researcher must also decide whether he will study a single case or multiple ones. When Creswell contrasts phenomenology to narrative analysis, he explains that narrative analysis provides a general template for qualitative researchers, while phenomenology utilizes specific, structured methods of analysis. Creswell (2007) explains that phenomenology includes the following steps:

Phenomenology research began as a philosophical act, centered on the nature of an experience from the individual experiencing the phenomenon—known as a "lived experience." Dr. Lynne M. Connelly (2010), Director of Nursing at Benedictine College, Atchison, Kansas, explains in the journal article "What is Phenomenology?" that a phenomenologist researcher analyzes and examines the fundamental nature of an experience by means of interviews, observations, or narratives with individuals living an experience that draws the researcher's attention. Phenomenology centers on consciousness and the meaning of conscious experience, related to emotions, judgments, and perceptions. Phenomenological research may also focus attention on human beings as embodied beings, conveying that these individuals experience life by means of their physical bodies. Connelly (2010) explains that the phenomenologist desires "to know what the experience was like to live it, not just the person's reaction to the experience. In addition to philosophy, phenomenology as a research method is used in psychology, education, and in health care" (¶ 2).

The researcher may utilize two primary approaches to conduct phenomenological research: descriptive and interpretive. In descriptive phenomenology, the researcher attempts to set aside or bracket prior assumptions or prejudices relating to the phenomenon to help ensure these previous perceptions do not affect the research. Interpretive phenomenology—or hermeneutic phenomenology—contends, however, that because particular preconceived ideas regarding the phenomenon form a part of it, they cannot be entirely set aside. The researcher can, however, remain aware of those preconceived ideas and how they may affect the study. Before embarking on the study, the researcher should acknowledge any presuppositions or ideas relating to the phenomenon (Connelly, 2010).

Survey research does not fit any one exclusive field, as the researcher can utilize this research method in basically any discipline. According to "Writing Guide: Survey Research," edited by Mike Palmquist (2011), "Different types of surveys are actually composed of several research techniques, developed by a variety of disciplines. For instance, interview began as a tool primarily for psychologists and anthropologists, while sampling got its start in the field of agricultural economics" (Angus & Katona, as cited in Palmquist, 2011, ¶ 2).

Surveys represent one of the most common types of quantitative, social science research. In survey research, the researcher selects a sample of respondents from a population and administers a standardized questionnaire to them. The questionnaire, or survey, can be a written document completed by the person being surveyed, an online questionnaire, a face-to-face interview, or a telephone interview. Using surveys, it is possible to collect data from large or small populations, sometimes referred to as the universe of a study (Palmquist, 2011, ¶ 1).

The survey, a non-experimental, descriptive research method, proves useful when the researcher desires to collect data on phenomena he cannot directly observe. The researcher typically collects data by implementing questionnaires, although at times he may personally interview individuals. "Surveys can use qualitative (e.g., ask open-ended questions) or quantitative (e.g., use forced-choice questions) measures" (Survey Methods, N.d., Types of Surveys Section, ¶ 1).

Two basic types of surveys exist: cross-sectional surveys and longitudinal surveys. During cross-sectional surveys, the researcher collects information on a population at one particular point in time. Longitudinal surveys collect data over a period of time. "The researcher may then analyze changes in the population and attempt to describe and/or explain them" (Survey Methods, N.d., Types of Surveys Section, ¶ 3). The three primary types of longitudinal surveys include trend studies, cohort studies, and panel studies.

Trend studies repeatedly sample and scrutinize a particular population. Even though samples belong to the same population, generally they do not comprise the same individuals. As trend studies may be implemented over an extended period of time, one researcher or research project does not have to implement the entire study. Even though cohort studies similarly focus on a particular population, the researcher samples and studies the same population multiple times. A cohort study samples the same class each time, while in a trend study the researcher studies the same class at different intervals of time. During panel studies, the researcher seeks to discover why changes occur in the population by utilizing the same sample of people each time. Such studies, however, typically tend to be expensive, require extensive amounts of time, and experience high attrition rates. Attrition occurs when individuals drop out of the study (Survey Methods, N.d.).

Surveys may be administered as written surveys, oral surveys, or electronic surveys. Written surveys may include mail, group-administered questionnaires, and drop-off surveys. Mail surveys permit the researcher to choose a large sample of individuals and sample an extensive collection of subjects at a relatively inexpensive cost, though response rates may prove to be negligible. The group-administered questionnaire enables the researcher to obtain survey results in a single span of time and helps ensure a higher response rate. The challenge involves getting participants together—one way is to conduct the group survey during a regularly scheduled meeting. Despite challenges, group-administered questionnaires often prove to be the most efficient survey method for particular purposes (Palmquist, 2011).

For the highest response rate when conducting a drop-off survey, the researcher would need to deliver the survey when the majority of the potential participants were home or at a particular location. When the researcher cannot allocate the necessary time to personally interview the required number of participants but does not trust the response rate of mail surveys, the drop-off survey may serve as the best option (Palmquist, 2011).

The researcher typically uses oral surveys to obtain participants' opinions and impressions. Oral surveys, perceived as more personal forms of survey than written or electronic methods, may be administered in the following ways: (1) rather than giving each respondent an individual questionnaire, the respondents work together in a group, addressing the questions collectively while one individual records answers for the entire group; or (2) the researcher can conduct a phone survey to obtain short answers or longer answers in response to closed-ended or open-ended questions (Palmquist, 2011).

The extensive use of electronic mail and the Internet has contributed to increased use of electronic surveys. Electronic surveys may be distributed as email messages, posted on web networking sites, or distributed through publicly available computers located in high-traffic areas like libraries and shopping malls. Alternatively, an organization may upload a copy of a survey on a laptop and have respondents complete it on screen. The researcher needs to consider the following four primary concerns when creating a survey or questionnaire: the participant's attitude; the nature of the questions or considerations presented; the cost to effectively conduct the survey; and the appropriateness or "fit" of the survey to the research questions (Palmquist, 2011).

To effectively analyze survey results, the researcher needs to allocate strict attention to detail and must possess knowledge of statistics and computer software. Keeping accurate records of survey data—preferably in both written form and digitally backed-up computer files—proves vital. After the researcher filters data through the computer, a myriad of analyses can be completed. Editing to ensure the analyzed data are correct and complete serves as a vital initial step when processing this data, as it can simultaneously reduce bias, enhance precision, and provide consistency between the tables computer software produces. Following completion of data analysis, the researcher assembles results in a useable format to permit comparison between groups, within the survey group, or both. When analyzing results, the researcher can use a T-test to determine whether scores of two groups differ on a single variable, a matched T-test to ascertain whether scores of the same participants differ across diverse conditions or over time, or ANOVA if the study compares multiple groups on one or more variables. The researcher can also construct correlation measurements to contrast the results of two interacting variables within the data set (Palmquist, 2011).

Strengths of the survey method include, but are not limited to, the following: surveys are basically inexpensive, particularly self-administered ones; they prove helpful when recounting the characteristics of a large population; through mail, email, or telephone, researchers can administer surveys from remote locations, making large samples feasible; the researcher can ask numerous questions about a particular topic, contributing considerable flexibility to the analysis; and standardized questions enforce uniform definitions upon participants, making measurement more precise. Between-group research benefits from standardization as well, ensuring the researcher can collect similar data from groups and comparatively interpret the information (Palmquist, 2011).

Some weaknesses of the survey method include: when standardization forces are used, the researcher must develop general enough questions to be minimally appropriate for all respondents, which may mean some issues most relevant to numerous participants go unaddressed; surveys prove inflexible because the initial study design must not change during data collection; survey participants may find it challenging to recall information and/or truthfully respond to controversial questions; and, compared to direct observation, survey research does not readily encompass "context." In addition, surveys typically prove weak on validity, albeit strong on reliability (Palmquist, 2011).

When designing survey questions, the researcher can benefit from the following considerations: ensure items are clear to participants; avoid posing double-barreled questions; ensure respondents can competently answer questions; include only relevant questions; use short items rather than longer ones; avoid questions with insufficient information or negative implications; and ensure questions are free from biased items and terms. The researcher should also avoid using jargon or slang unless the nature of the survey specifically warrants it; create and implement consistent response methods when possible; word questions as impersonally as possible; avoid repeating wording from earlier questions, which could bias later responses; sequence questions from general to specific; present thorough and mutually exclusive response options for closed questions; and position questions with similar content together (Survey Methods, N.d.).

Ethnography comprises an extended investigation of a group—frequently a culture—based on the researcher's immersion and, ideally, personal participation in that group. Ethnography employs a number of methodologies to develop a theoretically comprehensive understanding of a group or culture and provides a detailed exploration of group activity. As it may also include literature published or written about or recorded by the group, ethnography strives to explicate "the web of interdependence of group behaviors and interactions" (Palmquist, 2011, ¶ 1). The researcher/observer attempts to identify and explain how the particulars in a specified situation interrelate.

Jane B. Singer (2009), professor and Johnston Press Chair in Digital Journalism at the University of Central Lancashire, United Kingdom, reports in the journal article "Ethnography" that ethnographic methods originated in anthropology and sociology. As these methods implement intensive fieldwork and involve studying people within their own cultural environment, they accentuate the subjects' frames of reference and the ways these individuals understand the world. The quality of the data in ethnographic studies potentially proves problematic. In addition, ethnographic research proves time-consuming, potentially expensive, and requires that the researcher be well trained. "Too little data can lead to false assumptions about behavior patterns. Conversely, a large quantity of data may not be effectively processed" (Palmquist, 2011, Ethnographic Studies Sub-section, ¶ 1).

When the researcher conducts data analysis, ethical issues must be considered. As the qualitative observational research nature involves observation and interaction with groups, ethical issues may automatically arise. Researchers should consider the following issues when analyzing data: informed consent (do participants have full knowledge of what is involved?); harm and risk (can the study hurt participants?); honesty and trust (is the researcher being truthful in presenting data?); and privacy, confidentiality, and anonymity (will the study intrude too much into group behaviors?) (Palmquist, 2011). The researcher needs to be aware of these considerations prior to the study as well as during and after he conducts the research.

Case studies do not constitute a new form of research; this naturalistic inquiry long comprised the primary research tool until researchers developed the scientific method. Although sociology and anthropology primarily receive credit for shaping the contemporary case study, case study research evolves from numerous other research areas (Palmquist, 2011), including clinical methods doctors utilize, casework techniques social workers have developed, methods historians and anthropologists implement, and the qualitative descriptions and techniques newspaper reporters and novelists use.

During the 1920s, when pro-qualitative and pro-quantitative researchers debated the merits of case study methodology, the debate became heated. Some pro-quantitative researchers argued that case studies were not scientific. From the 1930s forward, the rise of positivism increasingly influenced quantitative methods in sociology. As sociological positivists searched for stable laws of social phenomena, they criticized case study research, claiming it failed to confirm inter-subjective agreement. Case study also received criticism because few cases were studied and the character of the study's descriptions were under-standardized, making generalization difficult. By the 1950s, quantitative methods—in the form of survey research—became dominant in the sociological approach, making case study a minority practice (Palmquist, 2011).

The case study method includes the researcher collecting and presenting detailed information relating to a particular participant or small group. At times, case study research includes accounts the participants relate. The case study intensely examines a small participant pool or an individual, and draws conclusions solely about that group or participant in that exact context. Case study researchers emphasize exploration and description—not discovering a universal, generalizable truth or generally seeking cause-effect relationships (Palmquist, 2011).

Case studies typically examine the interplay of all variables to provide as complete an understanding of an event or situation as possible. This type of comprehensive understanding, arrived at through a process known as thick description, involves an in-depth description of the entity being evaluated, the circumstances under which it is used, the characteristics of the people involved in it, and the nature of the community in which it is located. Thick description also involves interpreting the meaning of demographic and descriptive data such as cultural norms and mores, community values, ingrained attitudes, and motives (Palmquist, 2011).

Many researchers relate the "doing" of a case study with the process of collecting the case study data. Robert K. Yin (2009), Chairman of the Board and CEO of COSMOS Corporation, an applied research and social science firm, stresses in Case Study Research: Design and Methods that not effectively collecting the data for the case study can potentially jeopardize the entire study. Yin explains that a good case study starts with the researcher developing research questions and a case study design. Preparing for data collection may prove complex as well as challenging. Yin (2009) explains that to conduct a case study that includes interviews, the researcher needs to know how to effectively "listen": "Listening means receiving information through multiple modalities—for example, making keen observations or sensing what might be going on—not just using the aural modality" (Yin, p. 70). To be a good listener, the researcher must be able to "assimilate large amounts of new information without bias." A good listener hears the exact words the interviewee uses, captures the mood of the experience the interviewee relates along with affective components, and comprehends the context of the world from the perception of the interviewee.

"An in-depth study of a bounded system or a case (or several cases) becomes a case study" (Creswell, 2007, p. 77).

When conducting a case study, the researcher typically focuses on individuals, examines a small group of participants, or investigates a group of individuals as a whole. The researcher uses participant and direct observations, interviews individuals and/or groups, implements particular protocols, tests, examines records, and collects writing samples to access data about participants. Creswell (2007) explains that all four research designs examined in the paper—the phenomenology method, the survey method, the ethnography method, and the case study method—have the general process of research in common. Each "begins with a research problem and proceeds to the questions, the data, the data analysis, and the research report" (Creswell, p. 76). Each of these designs also employs similar data collection processes.

The Case Study Method in Depth

The data collection in the various methods may differ in terms of emphasis, however. In ethnography, for example, the research process includes more observation. Phenomenology only utilizes interviews, whereas in case study, the researcher utilizes multiple forms of data collection to present the in-depth case picture. The researcher must also conduct more extensive steps in phenomenology than in ethnography or case study. The following table portrays a comparison of characteristics of the four qualitative approaches the study investigates.

Table 1: Four Qualitative Approach Comparison (Creswell, 2007, p. 80; Palmquist, 2011).

Survey Method: Focuses on collecting data on phenomena the researcher cannot directly observe; best suited for disciplines that do not fit any one exclusive field; draws from the social sciences; studies small or large groups of individuals.

Phenomenology: Focuses on understanding the essence of the experience; best suited for describing the essence of a lived phenomenon; draws from philosophy, psychology, and education; studies several individuals that have shared the experience.

Ethnography: Focuses on describing and interpreting a culture-sharing group; best suited for describing and interpreting the shared patterns of culture of a group; draws from anthropology and sociology; studies a group that shares the same culture.

Case Study: Focuses on developing an in-depth description and analysis of a case or multiple cases; best suited for providing an in-depth understanding of a case or cases; draws from psychology, law, political science, and medicine; studies an event, a program, an activity, or more than one individual.

In the journal article "Recommendations for Using the Case Study Method in International Business Research," Tiia Vissak (2010), a Senior Researcher at the University of Tartu in Tartu, Estonia, asserts that case study research proves particularly useful as it allows the researcher to combine existing theoretical knowledge with new empirical insights to ultimately expand and generalize existing theories. Case studies are especially helpful for discovery, description, mapping, and relationship building, but they may also be used for theory testing, refutation, refining, illustration, classification, hypothesis development, prediction, and identification of further research needs (Vissak, 2010, ¶ 4).

Because case study research does not automatically rely on previously published literature or former empirical evidence, even when the researcher does not know much about the phenomenon, he can use the retrieved data to build an existing theory. The case study method proves appropriate when current perspectives do not appear adequate, when perspectives conflict with one another, or when perspectives contradict current research (Vissak, 2010).

Case study differs from research methods that primarily focus on statistical correlations yet neglect to adequately focus on the underlying explanations. Case research can help determine contributory relationships, comprehend how or why something occurred in a particular way, and generate thick, interesting, straightforward, readable descriptions and valuable understandings (Vissak, 2010). Using the case study, researchers can also investigate experiential as well as complex processes and areas—such as increases in exporting, business-to-business marketing, business networks, or headquarters-subsidiary relationships—that occur in the contemporary, rapidly changing global environment. Case examples can also help bridge the gap that exists between academia and industry. Another strength of case studies is that the researcher can collect necessary data throughout an extended period of time, allowing the investigation to extend further than a cross-sectional snapshot of a particular process.

Case studies sometimes receive criticism as they generally prove more time-consuming and labor-intensive than some other survey methods. When interviews are used as a field tool, reaching the interviewee's location, conducting an hour-long interview, and traveling home may require the researcher to invest an entire day or more. In addition, it may take the researcher an entire day to transcribe a 60-minute interview (Vissak, 2010).

Table 2: Strengths and Critiques of Case Studies (Vissak, 2010, p. 379).

Strengths: Commonly used in many scientific disciplines; a higher response rate than in surveys; useful for generating new theory or specifying already-researched topics; can explain new, complex, and/or dynamic issues; suitable for asking "how" and "why" questions about a set of events and studying a firm from multiple perspectives; provides a holistic perspective on real-life events and the processes leading to certain results; theoretical reading and empirical research can be done at the same time; the data can be collected from a large number of different qualitative and quantitative sources; flexible in sequencing, reformulating, and adding questions.

Critiques: Unappreciated and underutilized as a methodology; sometimes considered weak and unscientific; harder to publish in certain journals; cannot handle large data sets; hard to conduct and interpret the results; time- and labor-consuming; hard to make statistical generalizations; difficult to access confidential data and the interviewee may not be totally honest; potential researcher bias from the use of key informants and selecting certain firms; a threat to end up with a weak theory or partial support of particular frameworks; hard to find a balance between depth and breadth.

The researcher can also generalize from one case in case study research when this proves useful for theory-building and testing. In some scenarios, only one critical or extreme case may exist as the sole case available for scientific investigation. Multiple cases, however, can serve to amplify "external validity and help to guard against observer bias. They may be also used for advancing theory generation, providing replication, confirming, refining or refuting the findings of the first case, investigating whether they could be expanded to (somewhat) different situations" (Vissak, 2010, ¶ 14). In multiple case studies, the researcher can more easily perceive particular patterns, generate hypotheses, and emphasize the phenomenon's complementary aspects, as well as eliminate chance associations and raise significant issues and questions. Nevertheless, in some instances, one particular case can be conducted to primarily investigate one solitary case.

Conclusion

A study cannot be effective without taking into account the steps needed to accomplish it. In the early 1990s through the 21st century, researchers have identified and utilized numerous types of qualitative research as well as the steps needed to implement them. Basically, no matter the specific method the researcher uses in the qualitative research design, the researcher must strive to maintain a non-judgmental stance throughout the study and observe and describe group differences and similarities as they occur. Although absolute objectivity proves impossible, the researcher must enter the field or study group with an open mind, while remaining simultaneously aware of personal biases. For the study to succeed, he must commit to detach from those biases as much as possible (Palmquist, 2011).