Another argument comes from Thomas, who emphasises how the different data
sources add an extra layer of explanatory power. He argues against what he calls a reductionist point of view, wherein a phenomenon is seen as nothing more than the sum of its parts. “The starting point taken in the case study, by contrast, is that certain phenomena are more than the sum of their parts, and have to be understood as a whole, rather than as a set of interrelating variables” (Thomas, 2011, p. 46). A case study can be very illustrative, making a topic more real to the reader. It can have the quality of “making a major difference understandable”
(Thomas, 2011, p. 118). Thomas uses the example of a cat and a dog, which when described in detail could sound very similar. Fur, pointy ears, eyes, etc. are all details that can be used to describe both dog and cat, but when looking at a picture of the two, we as humans see and understand the difference instantane-ously. The illustrative case study potentially has the same power, as it can convey this complete idea of something in a way that a description of individual parts of something cannot (Thomas, 2011, p. 118). This ideal has been an aim of the analysis in this thesis: to give an overall picture of something that adds up to more than the sum of its parts; to try to find some answers to the question of what the nature of volunteering might be between the lines of the data.
Characteristic 5: Case studies seek to illustrate how a phenomenon can be more than the sum of its parts.
#6: Case studies are about the particular, not the general
Gary Thomas refers to the case study as not a specific method in itself, but rather as a focus. When doing a case study, the researcher focuses on something specific (a case) and studies it in depth and from many different angles (2011, p. 9). In a case study, the uniqueness of the thing being studied is the main interest of the researcher. In other words, a case study is about the particular rather than the general (Thomas, 2011).
Finding potential explanations based on depth of understand-ing
I could try to find answers to my research interest in a number of ways. A quan-titatively based study could point me in the direction of what generally seems to be the case, and it could give me valuable insights into the general picture of a certain population in terms of, for example, whether people conduct similar or different types of tasks in their paid and volunteer work. I could have taken a more psychological and quantitative point of view and looked at whether there is consistency between self-reported motivations for doing the two types of work, and what other types of survey questions might reveal about the attitudes or motivations of this selected group. But while these types of quantitative
stud-ies seeking generalisation can tell me what generally seems to be the case, and thereby give me an indication of what could happen, the case study can show me what actually does happen; it can help get closer to a detailed potential explanation (Maaløe, 1996).
Thomas argues, “potential explanations based on depth of understanding are what a case study does best relative to other kinds of research,” and he refers to case studies as “the most powerful engine of potential explanations.” He goes on to say, “Remember that, in a case study, you are trading breadth of coverage for depth of understanding, and potential explanations based on depth of un-derstanding are what a case study does best relative to other kinds of research”
(Thomas, 2011, p. 101).
Following Thomas’ idea of case studies being a powerful engine of potential explanations, I argue that the case-study approach is the most suitable approach for this thesis. My aim is to gain deeper insight into how we as individuals differ-entiate between doing paid and volunteer work, and to place this within and as part of sectorial and organisational circumstances or contexts. In other words, I am seeking potential explanations and connections between different parts of a chosen case that are best found by going out and taking a detailed look at the practices of the people doing these types of work, as they do this work, in its real-life context.
Bent Flyvbjerg discusses the positions of case studies and large quantitative stud-ies in an article describing what he calls five misunderstandings about case-study research. I will let his words conclude this part:
Let me reiterate, however, that the revision of the five misunderstandings about case-study research described above should not be interpreted as a rejection of research that focuses on large random samples or entire populations, for example, questionnaire surveys with related quantitative analysis. This type of research is also essential for the development of social science, for example, in understanding the degree to which certain phenomena are present in a given group or how they vary across cases.
The advantage of large samples is breadth, whereas their problem is one of depth. For the case study, the situation is the reverse. Both approaches are necessary for a sound development of social science. (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 241)
Characteristic 6: Case studies allow me to find detailed and specific po-tential explanations as opposed to quantitative studies’ findings of what generally seems to be the case.
7: Case studies use triangulation
So far we have heard how several data sources, theories, and vantage points offer a more detailed and more complete understanding of a phenomenon than one perspective is able to. Thomas offers another argument for this multiplicity with the term triangulation. Triangulation is a way of looking critically at the conclu-sions you have arrived at by trying to find arguments that point towards other conclusions and interpretations. First of all, as Brinkman (2007) argues, any re-searcher should take a critical look at his/her analysis and conclusions. In analys-ing an interview I could challenge my own analysis by lookanalys-ing at what points in direction A, but also what points in direction B, K, or U. This could (and should) also be done as part of the interview itself and in other types of inquiry. In a case study, both these approaches can be used, but here they are supplemented by a third, which is asking different people, different data sources and perhaps different levels of context.
In these one can easily look for competing conclusions and signs of other expla-nations than the one reached in the first place. But Thomas refers to triangulation as also a way of achieving the same critical look on one’s own work. He describes how the term originated from geometry and surveying, but is used as a metaphor in case studies. He writes:
What the term means here is that viewing from several points is better than viewing from one. Given the critical awareness that should be the trademark of good social science researchers, another viewpoint or an-other analytical method may make us decide to reject initial explanations (Thomas, 2011, p. 68).
Bøllingtoft argues that triangulation is a way to get closer to the actual reality the researcher seeks to understand:
Triangulation plays a major role when dealing with observation studies from the perspective of critical realism. Empirical observation within crit-ical realism is part of the transitive object of science (that is, our created knowledge of science), as the observation contains an interpretive ele-ment (Danermark et al. 2002).15 Thus, empirical observation can never be the same as an actual reality, which is independent of the cognitive subject/individual (Danermark et al. 2002). However, it is possible to get closer to the actual reality by triangulating different perceptions (Healy and Perry 2000). ‘Stripped to its basics, triangulation is supposed to sup-port a finding by showing that independent measures of it agree with it or,
at least, do not contradict it’ (Miles and Huberman 1994). Triangulation is not a tool or a strategy of validation, but an alternative to validation (Denzin and Lincoln 1994). The combination of, for example, multiple methods and observers in a single study is best understood, then, as a strategy that in general adds rigour, breadth and depth to any investiga-tion. (Bøllingtoft, 2007, pp. 426–427)
Characteristic 7: Case studies uses triangulation to achieve a critical look at the initial conclusions and interpretations taken from one point of view and to support findings by showing them from several different vantage points.
#8: Case studies produce context-dependent knowledge
Bent Flyvbjerg opens his often-cited article: ‘Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research’ with the following anecdote:
When I first became interested in in-depth case-study research, I was try-ing to understand how power and rationality shape each other and form the urban environments in which we live (Flyvbjerg, 1998). It was clear to me that to understand a complex issue such as this, in-depth case-study research was necessary. It was equally clear, however, that my teachers and colleagues kept dissuading me from employing this particular research methodology.
“You cannot generalise from a single case,” some would say, “and social science is about generalising.” Others would argue that the case study may be well suited for pilot studies but not for full-fledged research schemes.
Others again would comment that the case study is subjective, giving too much scope for the researcher’s own interpretations. Thus, the validity of case studies would be wanting, they argued. (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 219)
Although generalisation is not seen as a classic virtue of the humanities in the same way, I would still like to address this potential critique briefly. Gary Thomas introduces the idea of anecdotal evidence in his discussion about the non-gen-eralisability of case studies: “You may, after all, have heard people being snooty about ‘anecdotal evidence’ (…) Social science is about getting beyond what is merely anecdotal, some would say” (Thomas, 2011, p. 4).
If someone were to be snooty in regards to this thesis, they could ask how two seemingly random cases of paid work and two equally random cases of volunteer work could be anything more than an anecdote?
You can’t generalise from case studies, but you can learn
Flyvbjerg argues that case studies make an important contribution because they produce context-dependent knowledge. He contrasts this type of knowledge with con-text-independent knowledge, which he argues is how beginners learn. Knowledge not put in relation to a context are e.g. basic overall rules (of thumb), which can form the basis of textbooks. These rules can be helpful at the beginner’s level, but will not take the learner beyond the beginner’s stage of a learning process. Flyvbjerg writes:
Phenomenological studies of human learning indicate that for adults, there exists a qualitative leap in their learning process from the rule-gov-erned use of analytical rationality in beginners to the fluid performance of tacit skills in what Pierre Bourdieu (1977) called virtuosos and Hubert Dreyfus and Stuart Dreyfus (1986) called true human experts. (…) Com-mon to all experts, however, is that they operate on the basis of intimate knowledge of several thousand concrete cases in their areas of expertise.
Context-dependent knowledge and experience are at the very heart of expert activity. Such knowledge and expertise also lie at the center of the case study as a research and teaching method, or to put it more generally still, as a method of learning. (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 222)
He continues by offering a shorter and perhaps more poignant description of the virtue of case studies by quoting Hans Eysenck: “Sometimes we simply have to keep our eyes open and look carefully at individual cases – not in the hope of proving anything, but rather in the hope of learning something!” (Eysenck, 1976 p. 9 in Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 224) Flyvbjerg also argues that the context-dependent type of knowledge case studies can potentially offer is best presented to the read-er in relatively open descriptions of a case:
“If we return briefly to the phenomenology for human learning, we may understand why summarising case studies is not always useful and may sometimes be counterproductive. Knowledge at the beginner’s level con-sists precisely in the reduced formulas that characterise theories, whereas true expertise is based on intimate experience with thousands of individu-al cases and on the ability to discriminate between situations, with individu-all their nuances of difference, without distilling them into formulas or standard cases.” (Flyvbjerg, 2006, p. 239)
Inspired by this, I have sought to find a balance between somewhat open descrip-tions on the one hand and a sense of direction, interpretadescrip-tions that add
some-thing to the data, and a focus on my research question, on the other.
Characteristic 8: Case studies produce context-dependent knowledge about individual cases, which is needed for humans to move beyond rule-based knowledge.