Approaches of Qualitative Research such as

Phenomenological, Ethnographical & Case

Studies
Qualitative researchers seek to understand a phenomenon by focusing on the total
picture rather than breaking it down into variables. The goal is a holistic picture and depth
of understanding rather than a numeric analysis of data. There are many different types of
qualitative research; we consider briefly eight of the most widely used approaches: basic
interpretative studies, case studies, document or content analysis, ethnography, grounded
theory, historical studies, narrative inquiry, and phenomenological studies.

PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDIES

Phenomenology has its roots in a 20th century philosophical movement based on the
work of the philosopher Edmund Husserl (1859-1938). As research tool,
phenomenology is based on the academic disciplines of philosophy and psychology
and has become a widely accepted method for describing human experiences.
Phenomenology is a qualitative research method that is used to describe how human
beings experience a certain phenomenon. A phenomenological study attempts to set
aside biases and preconceived assumptions about human experiences, feelings, and
responses to a particular situation. It allows the researcher to delve into the
perceptions, perspectives, understandings, and feelings of those people who have
actually experienced or lived the phenomenon or situation of interest. Therefore,
phenomenology can be defined as the direct investigation and description of
phenomena as consciously experienced by people living those experiences.
Phenomenological research is typically conducted through the use of in-depth
interviews of small samples of participants. By studying the perspectives of multiple
participants, a researcher can begin to make generalizations regarding what it is like
to experience a certain phenomenon from the perspective of those that have lived the
experience.
Following is a list of the main characteristics of phenomenology research:
• It seeks to understand how people experience a particular situation or
phenomenon.
• It is conducted primarily through in-depth conversations and interviews;
however, some studies may collect data from diaries, drawings, or observation.
• Small samples sizes, often 10 or less participants, are common in
phenomenological studies.
• Interview questions are open-ended to allow the participants to fully describe
the experience from their own view point.
• Phenomenology is centered on the participants’ experiences with no regard to
social or cultural norms, traditions, or preconceived ideas about the experience.
 • It focuses on these four aspects of a lived experience: lived spaced, lived body,
lived time, and lived human relations.
• Data collected is qualitative and analysis includes an attempt to identify themes
or make generalizations regarding how a particular phenomenon is actually
perceived or experienced.
Researchers conducting phenomenological studies are interested in the life
experiences of humans. This type of research can be applied to wide variety of
situations and phenomena. Below are just a few examples of topics that would lend
themselves to phenomenological study:
• How do parents of an autistic child cope with the news that their child has
autism?
• What is it like to experience being trapped in a natural disaster, such as a flood
or hurricane?
• How does it feel to live with a life-threatening aneurism?
• What is it like to be a minority in a predominantly white community?
• What is like to survive an airplane crash?
• How do cancer patients cope with a terminal diagnosis?
• What is it like to be a victim of sexual assault?

Methods

Phenomenological and associated approaches can be applied to single cases or

deliberately selected samples. While single-case studies are able to identify issues
which illustrate discrepancies and system failures - and to illuminate or draw
attention to ‘different’ situations - positive inferences are less easy to make without
a small sample of participants. In multiple-participant research, the strength of
inference which can be made increases rapidly once factors start to recur with more
than one participant. In this respect it is important to distinguish between statistical
and qualitative validity: phenomenological research can be robust in indicating the
presence of factors and their effects in individual cases, but must be tentative in
suggesting their extent in relation to the population from which the participants or
cases were drawn.

A variety of methods can be used in phenomenologically-based research, including

interviews, conversations, participant observation, action research, focus meetings
and analysis of personal texts. If there is a general principle involved it is that of
minimum structure and maximum depth, in practice constrained by time and
opportunities to strike a balance between keeping a focus on the research issues and
avoiding undue influence by the researcher. The establishment of a good level of
rapport and empathy is critical to gaining depth of information, particularly where
investigating issues where the participant has a strong personal stake.

Analysis
The ‘problem’ for many researchers with phenomenological research is that it
generates a large quantity of interview notes, tape recordings, jottings or other records
all of which have to be analysed. Analysis is also necessarily messy, as data doesn’t
tend to fall into neat categories and there can be many ways of linking between
different parts of discussions or observations.

Where the data is fairly disorganised - interview transcripts, unstructured notes or

personal texts-the first stage is to read through and get a feel for what is being said,
identifying key themes and issues in each text. These points - from all the texts for a
small-scale project, or a sample of different ones where there are more than 15-20 -
can then be aggregated and organised with the aid of a mind-map or set of ‘post-it’
notes. The resulting list is used as a set of points to interrogate the texts and structure
and summarise them (“what is this participant saying about”).

Strengths

The phenomenological approach provides a rich and complete description of human

experiences and meanings. Findings are allowed to emerge, rather than being
imposed by an investigator. Careful techniques are used to keep descriptions as
faithful as possible to the experiential raw data; this is accomplished by extreme care
in moving step by step and in being ever mindful not to delete from, add to, change,
or distort anything originally present in the initial “meaning units” of the participant
transcripts. The investigator attempts to “bracket” presuppositions and biases to hold
them in consciousness through all phases of the research and minimise their influence
on the findings.

Weaknesses

The method depends on the articulate skills of the participants who provide the
information; logistical and generalisation issues are connected with this. The
language and terms employed in existential-phenomenological philosophy and
phenomenological inquiry are usually obtuse or difficult. Conclusions depend on the
particular participants chosen for the study. In its orientation toward a particular time
frame or moment, the method may miss information about broader periods or about
the development (time course) of an experience. In focusing on a rich description of
an experience, the method may miss information about what led up to that
experience, what its outcomes or consequences might be, and what the concomitants
and other factors associated with the experience are. There is little interest in
conceptualising the experience or in “explaining” it.
 ETHNOGRAPHY

Ethnography is an in-depth study of naturally occurring behavior within a culture or social

group. Social scientists sometimes call ethnography field research because it is conducted in
a natural setting or “field.” The researcher observes group behavior as it occurs naturally in
the setting, without any simulation or imposed structure. Ethnography requires a variety of
data-gathering procedures, such as prolonged observation of the setting, interviewing
members of the culture, and studying documents and artifacts. Researchers interpret the data
in the context of the situation in which they gathered the data.

Ethnography is rooted in anthropology. Educational researchers use ethnography, for

example, to learn how the educational experience in suburban schools differs from that in
inner-city schools.
What are the culture and perspectives of this group of people in its natural setting?

Ethnographic methodology comprises two research strategies: non-participant observation

and participant observation. In the former case the researcher observes the subjects ‘from a
distance’ without interacting with them. Those who use this strategy are uninterested in
investigating the symbolic sphere, and they make sure not to interfere with the subjects’
actions so as not to influence their behavior. Of course there are several intermediate
situations between the two extremes of participant and non-participant observation.

Participant observation has the following characteristics:

1. the researcher establishes a direct relationship with the social actors

2. staying in their natural environment
3. with the purpose of observing and describing their behavior
4. by interacting with them and participating in their everyday ceremonials and rituals,
and
5. learning their code (or at least parts of it) in order to understand the meaning of their
actions.

Value of ethnography

Ethnographic methodology gives priority to observation as its primary source of

information. This purpose is also served, in secondary and ancillary manner, by other
sources of information used by the ethnographer in the field: informal conversations,
individual or group interviews, and documentary materials (diaries, letters, class essays,
organizational documents, newspapers, photographs, and audiovisual aids). However, the
overriding concern is always to observe actions as they are performed in concrete settings.

 CASE STUDIES

A case study is a type of ethnographic research study that focuses on a single unit, such as
one individual, one group, one organization, or one program. The goal is to arrive at a
detailed description and understanding of the entity (the “case”). In addition, a case study
can result in data from which generalizations to theory are possible. Freud, for example,
used the case study extensively in building his theory of personality. Case studies use
multiple methods, such as interviews, observation, and archives, to gather data. Education
and psychology researchers have used the case study widely. For example, you might
conduct a case study of an inner-city school in which the students have achieved at a high
level on standardized tests.

Classifications

In a case study, one or more cases can be investigated. When examining one case, we refer
to a singular case study, and a multiple or plural case study is used to describe a study
examining several cases. In multiple case studies, each case is studied as if it is a singular
study and is then compared to other cases.

– Retrospective case studies: The simplest type of study; it involves the collection of data
relating to a past phenomenon of any kind. The researcher is looking back on a
phenomenon, situation, person, or event and studying it in its historical integrity.

– Snapshot studies: The case is being examined in one particular period of time, such as a
current event, a day in the life of a person, a diary, etc. Whether a month, a week, a day, or
even a period as short as an hour, the analysis is aided by the position of events. As the
snapshot develops, the picture presents itself as a Gestalt over a tight timeframe.

– Diachronic studies: Change over time and are similar to longitudinal studies. 




• – Disciplined configurative case studies: Use established theories to explain the case. 


• – Heuristic case studies: Identify new, unexpected paths; for such studies, marginal,
deviant, or outlier cases may be particularly useful. 




The case (subject), research field (object), and case selection

A case study is usually a study of a single case or a small number of cases. The use of the
term “unit” can cause confusion. Some authors believe that it relates to the case or research
subject, while others use it to describe the object with the understanding that the unit
(object) and the case influence each other mutually (Van Wynsberghe and Khan in Thomas
2011, p. 513). In this article, the term unit is associated with the case (subject). Mesec
suggests selecting such case for a research unit (an individual, family or other group,
organization, or community) where a practical problem that we are interested in exists. We
may also examine several individual cases that are selected in such a way that their analysis
provides us with the most diverse information that we are able collect. We should select
interesting cases (e.g., contrasting, extreme, exceptional cases) instead of typical, average
cases (Mesec 1998, p. 55). The subject (the case) is not selected based upon a representative
sample, but rather is selected because it is interesting, unusual, striking, and may cause
changes in the characteristics and specificities of the object (Thomas 2011, p. 514). Similar
to Mesec, Thomas also suggests choosing an atypical case, where the subject and object
interact in a dynamic relationship.

Case selection has also targeted by some case study critics. Their criticism mainly focuses
on possible subjective case selection, the so-called selection bias (i.e., the impact of a
researcher’s prior knowledge about the case and his possible favouritism toward certain
hypotheses) that can impact the case selection (George and Bennett 2005, p. 24). However,
the selection of a case based on prior knowledge leads to a better research plan. Cases
selected on the basis of prior knowledge are most likely crucial for enabling the
development of a strong theoretical base for the research, which makes the procedure of
theory testing more rigorous. In addition, there are several methodological provisions to
protect a study from the influence of researcher bias, such as diligence and consistency in
the tracking process . This includes an accurate and comprehensive description of the data
collection procedures and documentation of every piece of information in order to achieve
reliability of a case study.

Case study advantages

Case studies are generally strong precisely where quantitative studies are weaker . There are
advantages of case studies in comparison to quantitative methods: Their potential to achieve
high conceptual validity, strong procedures for fostering new hypotheses, usefulness for
closely examining the hypothesized role of causal mechanisms in the context of individual
cases, and their capacity for addressing causal complexity.

Conceptual validity

Conceptual validity refers to the identification and measurement of the indicators that best
present the theoretical concepts that a researcher wants to measure. Many of the variables
that social scientists are interested in, such as democracy, power, etc., are difficult to
measure, so the researcher has to carry out a “contextualized comparison,” which
automatically searches for analytically equivalent phenomena even if they are expressed in
different terms and contexts. This requires a detailed consideration of contextual factors,
which is extremely difficult to do in quantitative research but is very common in case
studies. Whereas quantitative research runs the risk of “conceptual stretching” by throwing
together dissimilar cases to get a larger sample, case studies allow for conceptual refine-
ments with a higher validity level over fewer number of cases .

Deriving new hypotheses

Case studies are very suitable for serving the heuristic purpose of inductively identifying
additional variables and new hypotheses. Quantitative studies lack procedures for
inductively generating new hypotheses. Moreover, case studies can analyse qualitatively
complex events and take into account numerous variables precisely because they do not
require many cases or a limited number of variables. Case study researchers are not limited
to readily quantified variables or pre-existing, well-defined datasets.

Quantitative research can be used to identify deviant cases that may lead to new hypotheses
but, in and of themselves, lack any clear means of actually identifying new hypotheses.
Without additional examination, such as open-ended interviews, it is not possible to find
inductive means of identifying omitted variables.

Exploring causal mechanisms

Case studies examine the operation of causal mechanisms in individual cases in detail.
Within a single case, they look at a large number of intervening variables and inductively
observe any unexpected aspect of the operation of a particular causal mechanism or help
identify what conditions are present in a case that activate the causal mechanism, while
quantitative studies in their correlations lack such causality. However, one must keep in
mind that it is not entirely true that quantitative research does not include any causality. We
are referring to quantitative research’s inability to take into account contextual factors other
than those that are codified within the variables being measured; in this situation, many
additional variables that might also be contextually important are missed.

Modelling and assessing complex causal relations

Case studies are able to accommodate complex causal relations, such as equifinality,
complex interaction effects, and path dependency.This advantage is relative rather than
absolute. Case studies can allow for equifinality by producing generalizations that are
narrower and more contingent. Notwithstanding this advantage (more about generalization
in continuation), others who prefer quantitative methods appreciate theories that are more
general even if this means that they are more vague and more prone to counterexamples.

The use of case studies has some additional advantages as well. The connectedness to
everyday life and case studies’ abundance of individual elements and details are important
for researchers from two viewpoints. First, a case study is important for developing different
views of reality, including the awareness that human behaviour cannot be understood merely
as an act that is driven by a rule or a theory. Second, case studies can contribute to the
professional development of a researcher, as case studies can provide concrete, context-
dependent experience that increases their research skills.

Criticisms
I. It is impossible to generalize on the basis of an individual case; therefore, the case study
cannot contribute to scientific development.
II. The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses (that is, in the first stage of a
total research process), whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing
and theory building.
III. Case studies contain a bias toward verification; that is, a tendency to confirm the
researcher’s preconceived notions.
IV. It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories on the
basis of specific case studies.

References and further reading

Gorden, R L (1969) Interviewing: Strategy, Techniques and Tactics Homewood Ill,

Dorsey Press

Hycner, R H (1985) "Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview

data," Human Studies 8, 279-303

Measor, L (1985) "Interviewing: a Strategy in Qualitative Research" in R Burgess (ed)

Strategies of Educational Research: Qualitative Methods. Lewes, Falmer Press.

Plummer, K (1983) Documents of Life: an introduction to the problems and literature of a

humanistic method London, Unwin Hyman

Sacks, H., (1984) Notes on methodology. In: Atkinson, J.M., J. Heritage, eds. (1984)
Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

George, A. L. and Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social
Science. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? The American Political
Science Review, 98, Issue 2, pp. 341–354.

Aronoff, Myron J. (2006). Forty years as a political ethnographer. Ab Imperio, 4, pp. 1-15.