CHAPTER
3
CASE STUDY
Sheila Stark
Education and Social Research Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
Harry Torrance
Education and Social Research Institute, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK
Key concepts
Harry Torrance
Case study is not easily summarized as a single,
coherent form of research. Rather it is an ‘approach’
to research which has been fed by many different
theoretical tributaries, some, deriving from social
science, stressing social interaction and the social
construction of meaning in situ; others, deriving from
medical or even criminological models, giving far
more emphasis to the ‘objective’ observer, studying
‘the case’. What is common to all approaches is the
emphasis on study-in-depth; but what is not agreed is
the extent to which the researcher can produce a
definitive account of ‘the case’, from the outside, so
to speak, rather than a series of possible readings of
‘the case’, from the inside. In this chapter we shall be
discussing the claims and problems of case study
from the point of view of a broadly sociological
perspective rather than a medical perspective. Thus
while case study can involve studying the pathologies
of individual patients, pupils, etc. we focus much
more on the social construction of the case, the site
of the social/educational encounter and the nature of
the case as realized in social action. Our discussion of
cases assumes a policy focus – a ‘case’ of curriculum
development, a ‘case’ of innovative training, and so
on – combined with a physical location, i.e. teaching
or training carried out in a particular site. Where we
include reference to the study of individuals in our
definition, we do so from the position of asking what
does ‘the case’ look like for this teacher or this
student, i.e. from this participant’s point of view?
Thus case study seeks to engage with and report
the complexity of social activity in order to represent
the meanings that individual social actors bring to
those settings and manufacture in them. Case study
assumes that ‘social reality’ is created through social
interaction, albeit situated in particular contexts and
histories, and seeks to identify and describe before
trying to analyse and theorize. It assumes that things
may not be as they seem and privileges in-depth
inquiry over coverage: understanding ‘the case’ rather
than generalizing to a population at large. As such
case study is aligned with and derives much of its
rationale and methods from ethnography and its
constituent theoretical discourses – symbolic interactionism,
phenomenology and ethnomethodology (cf.
Atkinson et al., 2001). It is very much within the
‘social constructivist’ perspective of social science.
The strength of case study is that it can take an
example of an activity – ‘an instance in action’
(Walker, 1974) – and use multiple methods and data
sources to explore it and interrogate it. Thus it can
achieve a ‘rich description’ (Geertz, 1973) of a
phenomenon in order to represent it from the
participants’ perspective. Case studies can be produced
of new institutions (currently, for example,
‘Charter Schools’ in the USA), new social programmes
(e.g. new welfare-to-work or urban education
programmes) or new policies (using testing to
drive the reform of schooling), which aspire to
tell-it-like-it-is from the participants’ point of view, as
well as hold policy to account in terms of the complex
realities of implementation and the unintended consequences
of policy in action. Case study thus is
particular, descriptive, inductive and ultimately heuristic
– it seeks to ‘illuminate’ the readers’ understanding
of an issue (Parlett and Hamilton, 1972).
The weakness of case study is that it is not possible
to generalize statistically from one or a small number
of cases to the population as a whole, even though
33
many case study reports imply that their findings are
generalizable; we are asked to give them credence
precisely because they are not idiosyncratic accounts,
but because they illuminate more general issues.
Clearly this is a matter for judgement and the quality
of the evidence presented. Some have argued that
good case studies appeal to the capacity of the reader
for ‘naturalistic generalization’ (Stake, 1994, 1995). It
is argued that readers recognize aspects of their own
experience in the case and intuitively generalize from
the case, rather than the sample (of one) being
statistically representative of the population as a
whole. We find this argument convincing, but others
may not.
The other major epistemological issue to be addressed
by case study is where to draw the boundaries
– what to include and what to exclude and, thus, what
is the claim to knowledge that is being made – what
is it a case of? Too often the boundaries of a case
have been assumed to be coterminous with the
physical location of the school or the factory or
whatever the focus of interest was. But of course
schooling involves parents and, perhaps, local employers;
manufacturing involves suppliers, customers,
etc. Drawing boundaries around a phenomenon
under study is not so easy. Also, institutions have
histories and memories manifested through the
understandings and actions of individuals. Likewise
policies impinge on practice, teachers do not just
‘choose’ what to teach and how to teach it. Similarly
our understandings of what schools or other institutions
are for are generated in particular social and
historical circumstances, as are our understandings of
the nature of professionalism and the proper role for
nurses, doctors, teachers, etc. So case studies need to
pay attention to the social and historical context of
action, as well as the action itself (Ragin and Becker,
1992).
Thus drawing the boundaries of a case is not
straightforward and involves crucial decisions. These
are informed in different ways by different disciplinary
assumptions and are currently practised differently
in different professional contexts.
The anthropological/sociological tradition emphasizes
long-term participant observation of, usually, a
single setting and is exemplified in the ‘Chicago
School’ of sociology, for example Whyte’s study of a
Chicago street gang (Street Corner Society, 1956) or
Becker et al.’s study of medical training (Boys in White,
1961). UK education examples would include Hargreaves
(1967: a case study of a secondary modern
school), Lacey (1970: a case study of a grammar
school) and Ball (1981: a case study of a comprehensive
school). The emphasis in the fieldwork is very
much on coming to know the ‘insider’ perspective by
observing participants going about their ‘ordinary’
business in their ‘natural’ setting – that is to say by
long-term immersion in ‘the field’. Some interviewing
and informal conversations will also be used to help
interpret the observations. The underpinning idea is
that of accessing the participants’ perspective – the
meaning that action has for them – but reporting is
oriented towards theoretical explanations of the action
and contributing to social theory.
The applied research and evaluation tradition arose
later, in the late 1960s in the USA and the early 1970s
in the UK, largely as a reaction to quasi-experimental
curriculum evaluation designs which revealed too little
useful information, especially about how innovations
were implemented in action (Parlett and Hamilton,
1972). While the basic orientation and methods of
ethnography were borrowed – that is interview and
observation – the balance between them had to be
radically altered because evaluative case studies had to
be completed in weeks rather than months (or years),
and because the researchers had a substantive interest
in the particular professional dilemmas and problems
of participants. Thus interviewing became widely used
to gather data rather than observation, and the validity
of the findings were based on comparing and contrasting
across multiple cases and respondent validation
of draft reports, rather than just the researcher’s
long-term observations and interpretations. Key features
of such an approach are intensive, interviewbased,
‘condensed fieldwork’ (Walker, 1974) and
‘multi-site case study’ (Stenhouse, 1982). Respondent
validation, initially a methodological tool, also developed
into a defining ethical and political aspiration of
the approach, whereby representing the participants’
perspectives was elevated to reporting the participants’
views in their own (interview-derived) words.
Ultimately this returns us to crucial epistemological
issues about who defines what ‘the case’ is a case of
– the researcher or the researched? Key theoretical
articulations of the approach can be found in Lincoln
and Guba (1985), Stake (1995) and House and Howe
(1999), while further engagement with the issue of
whether or not researchers can ever really represent
‘the other’ can be found in Stronach and MacLure
(1997). UK examples of such work include MacDonald
and Walker (1976) and Simons (1987). The
underpinning idea is to identify and describe the
PART II LISTENING, EXPLORING THE CASE AND THEORIZING
34
impact of a programme or innovation-in-action, with
the report being oriented towards improving decisionmaking
and practice, not social theory, responding
rather:
to program activities than to intents . . . to audience
requirements for information, and [to] . . . different
value perspectives . . . (Stake, 1983: 292).
Currently both of these approaches to case study can
be found in practice and discussed in the literature,
though often the divergence and genealogy of different
approaches is either largely ignored (Bassey, 1999)
or treated as irrelevant for present investigative
purposes (Schostak, 2002). Certainly there is no point
in inventing typologies of case study just for the sake
of them, yet how case studies are accomplished and,
even more important for novice researchers, how they
are judged still largely depends on the ‘tradition’ in
which they are conducted. Moving beyond origins,
current practice can probably be said to include
ethnographic case studies (as above), policy ethnographies
(related to ethnographic case studies, as
above, but treating policy as the case, e.g. Gewirtz et
al., 1995), evaluative case studies (as above), educational
or professional case studies (as above but with
more of an emphasis on professional improvement
rather than evaluative decision-making) and action
research case studies (related to evaluative case
studies, as above, but with the emphasis on planned
development in situ; cf. Brown and Jones, 2001; Carr
and Kemmis, 1986; Elliott, 1991).
Implications for research design
Decisions have to be taken about which case or cases
to select for study, how and where boundaries are to
be drawn, how much time can be spent in each
fieldwork site and what methods of investigation to
employ. A key issue concerns depth versus coverage,
and within the logic of a case study approach, the
recommended choice is always depth. However,
where resources allow it is always helpful to compare
and contrast across cases if possible and investigate
the range of possible experience within a programme,
for example studying a ‘good’ apparently successful
example of a new social programme, and a ‘bad’
apparently unsuccessful example. How have such
intuitive judgements come to be made by key informants?
Are there substantive differences between the
cases? If so, why? If only one case study is being
conducted an element of comparison can also be
brought in by reference to other studies reported in
the literature (e.g. Ball, 1981; built on the earlier work
of Hargreaves, 1967, and Lacey, 1970). Another way
to address the breadth versus depth issue is to visit a
range of potential fieldwork sites and conduct interviews
with key personnel, then engage in ‘progressive
focusing’ (Parlett and Hamilton, 1972) whereby the
particular sites selected for detailed study emerge
from an initial ‘trawl’ and analysis of key issues.
The most commonly employed research methods
are interviews, documentary analysis and observation,
with the balance between them being largely determined
by the resources available and the disciplinary
and professional tradition in which the case study is
being conducted (see above). It can be particularly
helpful to ask respondents to identify and reflect on
a ‘critical incident’ in their work or situation – a key
example for them of what are the important issues in
the case. An important criticism is that reliance on
such methods, and especially on interviewing alone,
can result in an overly empiricist analysis – locked into
the ‘here-and-now’ of participants’ perceptions. This
can be addressed by attention to relevant literature
and by the methods employed, as long as they are
used self-consciously to look beyond the immediate.
Thus interviews offer an insight into respondents’
memories and explanations of why things have come
to be what they are, as well as descriptions of current
problems and aspirations. Documents can be examined
for immediate content, changing content over
time and the values that such changing content
manifests. Observations can offer an insight into the
sedimented, enduring verities of doctor-patient relationships
or police procedure or schooling – rows of
desks, percentage of teacher talk as against pupil talk,
etc. – which are often at variance with new policies
and/or the espoused preferences of participants.
Additionally, data can be derived from well beyond
the physical location of the case, and the case
becomes not just one example of a policy in situ, in
action, but the policy itself. Thus a vertical ‘core’ can
be taken through ‘the system’ from central policymaker,
to local authority interpretation of policy, to
local implementation and mediation, asking questions
at each level of the system of where this policy has
come from as well as where it is going (‘antecedents,
transactions and outcomes’: Stake, 1967).
3 CASE STUDY
35
Stories from the Field
Sheila Stark
This example draws upon data collected during a
two-year national study undertaken for the English
National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health
Visiting (ENB) (Stark et al., 2000). The study evaluated
the effectiveness of multi-professional teamworking
in a range of mental health settings, examining
both educational preparation and clinical practice.The
research team (comprising six members) used a mixed
methodological approach, incorporating data collected
via five aspects. In order to advise the ENB of the
implications of the mental health context for educational
provision for multi-professional teamwork, the
research team needed to gain deep insights and
understandings in different work and team situations.
Case study was a major feature of the methodology
because it afforded both depth and breadth to assess
such knowledge. It served to illuminate a number of
conflicts and contradictions in the policy, the educational
and practice arenas of mental health nursing
and, further, illustrated how the resulting ‘turbulence’
gave rise to disjunctions and tensions in and between
discourses, theories and practices.We used case studies
in two different ways. First, we selected eight case
study sites that were geographically diverse in order to
provide a level of national representation. Second, we
developed ‘nested’ case studies within these case study
sites for educational purposes. The use of the latter
was not predetermined, at the outset, as part of the
research design, but developed as a consequence of
responding flexibly to how best to use the data. Part
of our remit was to advise the ENB of the implications
of our findings for educational provision and to
link this with the notion of evidence-based practice.
Developing and illustrating how case studies could be
used as educational tools, therefore, facilitated the
achievement of this aim.
The case study sites
In order to represent regional and national diversity in
mental health contexts eight regional case study sites
were selected. Selection was based on detailed criteria
that we developed, simplified here as:
( representation of the eight National Health Service
(NHS) regions;
( geographical/demographical factors within these
regions;
( higher education provision for pre- and postregistration
nursing;
( mental health service provision (including representation
of primary, secondary and tertiary
levels);
( access to service user groups.
The team, however, found making the final selection
of sites tricky for the following reasons:
( we each prioritized the variables within the
selection criteria differently, depending on our
research interests;
( the number of potentially ‘interesting’ sites outweighed
our resources (in particular time);
( the response from potential participants who we
approached for information/documents to inform
our decision1
was sluggish and sometimes
non-existent.
Ultimately, our selection was based on the following:
1 Which sites provided us with documents needed
for analysis?
2 Given the response to (1) did we still have the
desired geographical/demographical mix and professional
criteria? If so . . .
3 . . . we then had the luxury of selecting sites based
on (i) what was our research interest/s? and (ii)
more pragmatically, did we have family/friends
who lived in the area (who might be able to put
us up for a night!)?
Timetable
The case studies were undertaken over a nine-month
period. All six team members undertook at least one
case study with the full-time research assistant working
across all eight in order to: (i) ensure one team
member had a general overview of all sites; (ii) bring
a level of internal consistency to the data collection;
and (iii) enable cross-checking between team members
where joint visits were undertaken. Visits to each
site ranged from one day to a week at any one time,
and revisits until an average of 12 days were completed
in each site (the range was 10–15 days). In total
101 days were spent gathering data in the field. The
number of days allocated was constrained by the
amount of external funding received. (Case study
research often involves a compromise in relation to
time spent in the field, since negotiating access then
PART II LISTENING, EXPLORING THE CASE AND THEORIZING
36
writing up field notes, transcribing tapes and subsequently
analysing this data can result in several
additional days’ work. A ratio of around one day in
the field to three days in the office is not uncommon.
Advice to novice researchers is often to stay in the
field until a ‘saturation point’ is reached and few new
findings are being collected. In reality, however, other
constraining factors, e.g. time, money, gatekeepers’
consent, etc., may affect the decision.)
Within each site we visited at least one educational
institution, a range of different practice settings, and
a range of service user groups and voluntary agencies.
During a ‘typical’ day in the field the researcher
generally visited 2–3 locations and undertook several
observations and interviews. The team met every two
weeks to discuss the fieldwork and to maximize
opportunities for progressive focusing of the data
collection. It also enabled theorizing to be a continuous
feature of the inquiry.
Ethical issues
We sought ethical clearance in all the regions. We
found that organizations and groups approached this
task differently, some being strict about ethical
committees approving our protocol, while others were
more relaxed, especially where patients were not
involved.2
All ‘gatekeepers’ appreciated the abstract
we had developed outlining the research, together
with consent letters that were constructed to empower
the participants (as opposed to placing the emphasis on
protecting the researchers).We protected the anonymity
of the case study regions, even to the funding
body. Pseudonyms were given to participants.3
Data collection methods
The case studies combined on-site documentary analysis
(operational policies, clinical protocols, service specifications,
audit outcomes and so on) with individual
interviews of key players, group interviews, observations and
critical incident analysis.
The results from a preliminary aspect (a large-scale
national survey) were used to decide who to interview,
what areas needed to be observed and which documents
would be helpful to collect while in the field.
(Researchers using case study without the aid of
survey data to help focus their fieldwork are advised
to do preliminary work before entering the field,
especially where time is limited. This may involve a
preliminary literature/document review, informal
conversations with people linked with the area and so
on. Sitting in/walking around a communal area on
site to get a ‘feel’ for the place can be an extremely
fruitful exercise for this type of preliminary assess-
ment.)
We visited educationalists, service professionals
and service users in order that our data could be
triangulated. The group interviews incorporated features
of focus group interviewing, that is to say the latter
parts of the interview encouraged participants, as a
group, to envisage ways forward for the role, organization,
as well as relevant policy and practice contexts.
The group interviewer role combined aspects of
ethnographic interviewing and facilitation (Wilson, 1997).
The critical incident deconstruction encouraged participants
to be reflective about practical incidents in order to
deepen their understanding of significant issues. Several
observational sessions, in different care settings and
educational environments, provided us with rich
descriptive data of the general milieu in which
teamworking was positioned.
Interview and observation schedules were developed
in order to ensure comparable data was collected
from each site. However, an initial analysis of the
data, together with the survey findings, led us to
believe that there was no significant regional difference
in the respondents’ responses. As a result, as well
as pursuing common areas of inquiry we also decided
to include more specific areas for closer scrutiny.
Each team member focused on particular features
that were interesting and accessible in each site. For
example, one of us had excellent access to interesting
service user groups while another was more interested
in the post-registration provision; another looked at
pre-registration and others selected different care
settings for investigation. This approach resulted in a
shift in our research design and the development of
‘nested’ case studies, as outlined in the introduction
and expanded upon below.
Data analysis
Data was descriptive in the form of transcribed taped
interviews and extensive field notes. Team members analysed
their own data, or worked jointly where joint
visits had occurred. Analytic memos were used to share
interpretations amongst team members. Many of our
insights involved the deconstruction of multi-professional
relationships, practitioner ‘baggage’, group
pressure and individual influence.
Once the team accepted the evidence that regional
difference between sites was not significant, a
3 CASE STUDY
37
methodological decision was made that the case study
boundaries were permeable and thus what we wrote
in the report showed no allegiance to case boundaries.
A version of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss,
1967) was used enabling us to theorize from our
interpretations that emerged from the data. As a
result, the final report contained the following chapters:
(1) Service users experience; (2) Policy; (3)
Practice; and (4) Education. Within these chapters up
to eight significant themes were discussed using data
(in the form of extensive quotes) from all the case
study sites. Treated cumulatively, confidence in the
robustness of recurring patterns increased thus enabling
us to make tentative cross-site generalizations
without exaggerating these claims.4
Contextual variations,
however, within each setting were not overlooked
when significant.
As previously mentioned, in addition to the themed
chapters, six specific case studies using the data collected
from the geographical areas were written up (i.e. case
studies ‘nested’ within case studies sites). These case
studies, using rich and thickly described instances,
were offered to the reader as ‘surrogate experiences’
(Stake, 1988). Further, we use these cases in an
educational way (see below).
‘Nested’ case studies
Case studies can be a way to offer learners (and
others) a research-based ‘working theory’ with which
to analyse situations: a theory of, for and about
practice. To this end, we developed a series of case
studies that were used as learning tools. The case
studies did not ‘represent’ each site, but neither was
their selection arbitrary. They were written in the first
person and provided personal accounts, or ‘readings’,
of our experience and interpretation of individual and
group working patterns and relationships. For
example, the case study entitled ‘Being or Doing’
represented the users’ views of their care; ‘A Victorian
Façade’ illustrated the complexities of multi-professional
teamworking in acute care; ‘The (dys)functional
Team’ also illustrated teamworking, but emphasized
the power of stereotypes and professional rivalry.
What we felt was often missing in the use of case
studies for educational purposes was the learners’
ability to read the situation. We believed this involved
learning to give a layered reading. (In the ENB report
we highlighted this layered approach by working
through an example (see Stark et al., 2000).) The
purpose of each case study was stated at the beginning.
The case study itself was followed by a series of
‘learning points’ that aimed to engage the learner in a
critical identification of the complexities and dilemmas
of policy and practical contexts. In doing so
they would build their own evidence-base located in
the ‘everyday’ context and not built on the ‘ideal’
(optimal). From here, it was a short step to developing
and applying theory from their previous layers of
observation and analysis that helped to explain team
discourses and practices.
Summary
Our use of case studies in this national evaluation did
not offer definitive judgements on the role of the mental
health nurse (MHN) within multi-professional teams
and the educational provision for these roles. We
offered formative and timely feedback to the ENB, as
well as a contextualized summative judgement on the
current situation, and in doing so contributed to the
development of evidence-based professional knowledge.
In this respect our case study approach was firmly
within the ‘applied research and evaluation’ tradition.
Further, since we believed teamworking needed to
be understood in contextual terms, we used nested
case studies to help learners to understand the
conflictual pressures of professional performance in
contemporary conditions of continuous change. Such
an understanding might help learners and managers
avoid the sorts of ‘ideal versus real’ schisms that can
lead to cynicism as individuals fail to achieve the
utopian dream.
1. At the time, there was a plethora of research
being carried out in mental health practice areas.
We met much resistance from some individuals
who questioned why they should get involved in
‘yet another piece of research’. Promising to
provide feedback to participants (and then actively
doing so) was generally all they desired, since
they felt their voice often fell into ‘a black hole’,
so what was the point of giving their time?
2. Since this evaluation took place there have been
tighter controls introduced in relation to research
in the health profession in the UK. For example,
in 2001 the Department of Health published the
Research Governance Framework for Health and Social
Care (DoH, 2001); a proliferation in the number
of Local Research Ethics Committees and Multicentre
Research Ethics Committees has taken
place and a review of other ethical legislation and
PART II LISTENING, EXPLORING THE CASE AND THEORIZING
38
3 CASE STUDY
39
regulation is ongoing (see, for example, http://
www.doh.gov.uk/research/rd3/nhsrandd/researchgover
nance/ethics/ethics.htm).
3. In our more recent experience of using case
studies we are finding that participants are often
choosing not to be anonymized. An issue arises,
however, when not everyone associated with the
case study agrees to this.
4. In order to strengthen the robustness of our
generalizations we developed a hybrid instrument
(a report-and-respond survey) giving interim
feedback to participants based on the case study
data (reporting) and designed to provoke further
comment (responding) (see Stark et al., 2000).
Annotated bibliography
Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. (eds) (2001) Handbook of Ethnography. London:
Sage (especially editorial introduction and Part 1: ‘Mapping ethnographic diversity’).
This is an excellent collection of articles summarizing the theoretical foundations and current state of practice
of ethnography.
Brown, T. and Jones, L. (2001) Action Research and Postmodernism. Buckingham: Open University Press.
A very well-informed review grounded in empirical data and a series of excellent examples of the extent to
which case study researchers, especially those conducting action research, can or should impose their own
meanings and interpretations on the actions of others.
House, E. and Howe, K. (1999) Values in Evaluation and Social Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
A review and summary of case study approaches within the ‘applied research and evaluation’ tradition,
particularly focusing on the design of qualitative evaluations of social programmes, the need to seek out and
represent the view of ‘stakeholders’, and the need to recognize the role of values and value judgements in
social research.
Murphy, R. and Torrance, H. (eds) (1987) Evaluating Education: Issues and Methods. London: Paul Chapman
Publishing.
A ‘course reader’ for the Open University which contains a number of key methodological papers including
Parlett, M.R. and Hamilton, D. (1972) ‘Evaluation as illumination: a new approach to the study of innovatory
programs’; Stenhouse, L. (1980) ‘The study of samples and the study of cases’; and Stenhouse, L. (1982) ‘The
conduct, analysis and reporting of case study in educational research and evaluation’.
Ragin, C. and Becker, H. (eds) (1992) What Is a Case? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collection of papers exploring and representing the ‘anthropological/sociological’ participant observation
tradition in case study.
Schostak, J. (2002) Understanding, Designing and Conducting Qualitative Research in Education. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
A theoretically very well-informed guide to designing and conducting qualitative research, especially through
case study approaches; includes a great deal of experienced, practical advice and how to ‘frame the project’.
Stake, R. (1995) The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Excellent treatment of different approaches to case study but particularly focusing on the role and sensitivity
of the researcher in teasing out the nuances of a case.
Walker R. (1974) ‘The Conduct of Educational Case Studies: Ethics, Theory and Procedures’, reprinted in M.
Hammersley (ed.) (1993) Controversies in Classroom Research, 2nd edn. Buckingham: Open University Press.
The first full articulation of the ‘applied research and evaluation’ approach emphasizing the changing
circumstances of research activity and purpose and the need for ‘condensed fieldwork’.
Yin, R. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
A rather ‘technical’ how-to-do-it book which perhaps glosses over some of the more problematic philosophical
issues in the nature of qualitative knowledge production but nevertheless contains a good deal of helpful advice.
Further references
Ball, S.J. (1981) Beachside Comprehensive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bassey, M. (1999) Case Study in Educational Settings. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Becker, H., Geer, B., Hughes, E. and Strauss, A. (1961) Boys in White. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Carr, W. and Kemmis, S. (1986) Becoming Critical. London: Falmer Press.
Department of Health (2001) Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care. London: Department
of Health Publications.
Elliott, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation of Culture. New York: Basic Books.
Gewirtz, S., Ball, S. and Bowe, R. (1995) Markets Choice and Equity in Education. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies for Qualitative Research. New
York: Aldine.
Hargreaves, D.H. (1967) Social Relations in a Secondary School. London: Routledge.
Lacey, C. (1970) Hightown Grammar. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MacDonald, B. and Walker, R. (1976) Changing the Curriculum. London: Open Books.
Parlett, M.R. and Hamilton, D. (1972) ‘Evaluation and illumination’, reprinted in R. Murphy and H. Torrance (eds)
(1988) Evaluating Education: Issues and Methods. London: Paul Chapman Publishing, pp. 57–73.
Simons, H. (1987) Getting to Know Schools in a Democracy. London: Falmer Press.
Stake, R.E. (1967) ‘The Countenance of Educational Evaluation’, Teachers College Record, 68: 7.
Stake, R.E. (1983) ‘Program evaluation, particularly responsive evaluation’, in G. Madaus, M. Scriven and D.L.
Stufflebeam (eds), Evaluation Models: Viewpoints on Educational and Human Services Evaluation. Boston:
Kluwer.
Stake, R.E. (1988) ‘Seeking sweet water – case study methods in educational research’, in R. Jaeger (ed.),
Complementary Methods for Research in Education. Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association, pp. 253–300.
Stake, R.E. (1994) ‘Case studies’, in N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 236–47.
Stark, S., Stronach, I., Warne, T., Skidmore, D., Cotton, A. and Montgomery, M. (2000) Teamworking in Mental
Health: Zones of Comfort and Challenge. ENB Research Report Series, ‘Researching Professional Education’.
London: ENB.
Stenhouse L. (1982) ‘The conduct, analysis and reporting of case study in educational research and evaluation’,
reprinted in R. Murphy and H. Torrance (eds) (1987) Evaluating Education: Issues and Methods. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing, pp. 74–80.
Stronach, I. and MacLure, M. (1997) Educational Research Undone: The Postmodern Embrace. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Whyte, W.F. (1956) Street Corner Society, 1st edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (3rd edn, 1981).
Wilson, V. (1997) ‘Focus groups: a useful method for educational research?’, British Educational Research
Journal, 23(2): 209–24.
PART II LISTENING, EXPLORING THE CASE AND THEORIZING
40