Case study and grounded theory.pdf

《Case study and grounded theory.pdf》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在学术论文-天天文库。

Casestudyandgroundedtheory:Sharingsomealternativequalitativeresearchmethodologieswithsystemsprofessionals.Dr.KevinLaws&DrRobertMcLeodDr.KevinLawsFacultyofEducationTheUniversityofSydneyNSW2006Telephone0293516396Facsimile0293514765EmailDr.RobertMcLeodPittwaterHouseSchools13ParkesRoadCollaroyNSW2099Telephone0299814400Facsimile0299811627EmailAbstractTensionsinpractitionerresearchareendemicandinescapablebutifthesetensionsareembracedratherthanavoided,theycanoftenprovideaccesstousefulenergyandsensitivity,whichinturncanbeusedtoinformpractice.Systemsresearchprofessionalsadoptawideplatformofresearchmethodologieswhentheyengageinresearchprojects.Theseresearchmethodologiesrangefromtheuseofsystemscomputersimulationmodelstohighlydevelopedquantitativestatisticalmodels.Somesystemsresearcheshaveengagedthefullgamutofqualitativemethodologiesandothershaveadoptedthesoftsystemsapproach.Theaimofthispaperistoreviewtwomethodologiesthatareavailabletosystemsresearchersandpractitionersandtoanalysetheeffectivenessofthesemethodologiesingainingvalidandreliableresearchoutcomes.Thepaperwillfocusontheuseofcasestudyandgroundedtheoryaspossiblemethodologiesforsystemsresearcherstoconsiderforfutureresearchprojects.Bothmethodologieshavebeensuccessfullyusedbytheauthorstogainculturalchangeinorganisationsstrivingtobecomelearningorganisations.IntroductionResearchistheprocessofthoroughlystudyingandanalysingthesituationalfactorssurroundingaprobleminordertoseekoutsolutionstoit(Cavana,DelahayeandSekaran,2001,p.4).Researchmethodologiesselectedforsystemsresearchincluded:hardsystems(managementscience);systemsdynamics(Forrester1961);softsystems(Checkland,1981;Checkland&Scholes,1990;Davies&Ledington,1991);criticalsystemsthinking(Mingers&Gill,1997),andopensystemsthinking(F.Emery1995:M.Emery1997).SoftsystemsmethodologiesstimulatedvigorousdebatebetweenJackson(1987,1991,1997)andCheckland(1981,1991,1995).1 Currentlythereisagrowingacceptanceoftheuseofpluralismandamoremulti-methodologyapproachwhichinoneinstanceresultedinthedevelopmentofa“paradigminterplaymodel”byLedingtonandWatson(1998).HoweverSelskyandBarton(1998)preferredtoremindcurrentresearchersofthevaluesoftheratherdated“opensystemsthinking”modeldevelopedbyF.EmeryandTrist(1973)andmorerecentlyresurrectedbyM.Emery(1997).Ourinterestinthisdebatebeganatthe19984thAnnualAustralianandNewZealandSystemsConferencewherethesemethodologiesandotherissueswerevigorouslydebatedandseveralimportantissueswereboughtintofocus.ThefirstwasmadebykeynotespeakerDr.MarciaSalnerwhosuggestedthatitwastimeforsystemsresearcherstolookwidertowardotherqualitativemethodologiesthatmayprovetobemoreeffectivethanthoseconventionallyemployed.InadditionDr.W.EHutchinsonsomewhatunknowinglysuggestedthatamore“groundedtheory”approachtosystemsresearchinorganisationsshouldbeadopted.ThesecommentsalongwiththedevelopmentofJackson’s(1997)pluralismandmulti-methodologyhavehighlightedtheneedtoreviewthemethodologiesthatsystemsresearchesemploy.QuantitativeversusqualitativeapproachestoresearchArecurringdebateconcerningtheepistemologyofresearchhasdominatedresearchjournalsandcentredonissuesrelatedtoquantitativeversusqualitativeapproachestoresearch.Aftermuchdebateduringthe1980'sresearchersemergedwithamuchdeeperappreciationofthestrengthsofnotjusttheparadigmsthatincluded;objective-quantitative;interpretive-qualitative,butalsothecritical-theoreticalparadigmaswell.Whilethequantitativedesignstrivedtocontrolforbiassothatfactswereunderstoodinanobjectiveway,thequalitativeapproachstrivedtounderstandtheperspectiveoftheprogrammestakeholders,lookingtofirsthandexperiencetoprovidemeaningfuldata.Theaccumulationoffactsandcausesofbehaviourwasaddressedbyquantitativemethodologyasthequalitativemethodologyaddressedconcernswiththechanginganddynamicnatureofreality.Quantitativeresearchdesignsstrivedtoidentifyandisolatespecificvariableswithinthecontext(seekingcorrelation,relationships,causality)ofthestudyasqualitativedesignfocusedonaholisticviewofwhatwasbeingstudied(viadocuments,learninghistories,observationsandinterviews).Quantitativemethodologyexemplifiestheobjectivistapproachtosocialscienceandischaracterisedbyarealistontology,positivistepistemology,deterministicviewofhumannature,andnomotheticmethodology.Thisapproachcanbedifferentiatedfromqualitativemethodologyorthesubjectivistapproach,whichischaracterisedbyanominalisticontology,antipositivistepistemology,voluntaristicviewofhumannature,andideographicmethodology(Alston&Bowles,2003,pp.202-207;Cavana,DelahayeandSekaran,2001,p.p.8-9;Ellis,D.1993.pp.469-470).Zuber-Skerritt(1992,p.127)supportedthesefindingsinidentifytwoclearresearchparadigms.Thenaturalscienceapproachtohumanscienceswascalled"experimental",becausetheresearchersetupanexperiment,intervenedinaprocessandmanipulatedcertainvariables.Theethnographicapproachontheotherhand,wascalled"naturalistic"becausetheresearcherobservedortriedtofindoutwhathappenedinnaturalsettings."Experimental"versus"holistic"hadalsobeendescribedas"reductionist"versus"holistic"foritcouldbearguedthatsocialandhumanphenomena,ifstudiedscientifically,cannotbereducedtoafewisolatedvariables.Theholisticapproachtriedtodescribethecontextandawiderangeofvariables.Whilethe"experimental"approachprescribedandpredictedfutureeventsonthebasisofastudy,the"naturalistic"approachdescribedanaturalsettingasfullyholisticaspossible,withtheaimofbetterunderstandingthepeople/eventsinthatsetting(Zuber-Skerritt1992,p.125).ThesearedisplayedinTable2below.2 ParadigmsofResearchParadigm1Paradigm2NaturalScienceHumanScienceTraditionalAlternativeExperimentalNaturalisticPrescriptiveDescriptiveReductionistHolisticExternalInternalNomotheticIdeographicNormativeInterpretivePositivistNon-positivistTable2Source:Zuber-Skerritt(1992,p.127)"Nomothetic"referredtoasearchforgenerallawsand"ideographic"toastudyofindividuals.Thusin"nomothetic"studiesdatawerecollectedfromanumberofcasesinordertoproduceinformationon"norms"ortrendsinawidepopulation.Ideographicstudieswerecasestudiesfocusingontheoneindividualorasmallgroupofindividuals.Asaresult,"nomothetic"studiestendedtobereductionist(i.e.thenumberofaspectstobestudiedhadtobereduced)andprescriptive,whereas"ideographic"studiestendedtobeholistic,descriptiveandnaturalistic.The"normative"modelwasbasedontheideathathumanbehaviourwasessentiallyrule-governedandthatitshouldbeinvestigatedbythemethodsofnaturalscience.Incontrast,the"interpretive"paradigmwascharacterisedbyaconcernfortheindividual,anddescribedandexplainedhumanbehaviourbymeansofmethodsthatwereappropriateandintheirownwayasrigorousas,theonesusedinnormative(positivist)research(Zuber-Skerritt1992,p.126).Bycombiningmethods,advantagesofeachmethodologycomplementedtheother,andmadeforastrongerresearchdesignandresultedinmorevalidandreliablefindings.Theinadequaciesofindividualmethodswasminimisedandmorethreatsto“internalvalidity”wererealisedandaddressed.Qualitativemethodsofferedaninternalviewwhichaddressedthewhyofanissue,bringinginsighttomorequantitativefindings.Qualitativemethodsofferedwaystoexploreandinvestigateanobscureproblemandtogeneratetestablehypotheses.Quantitativemethodsofferedwaystoverifyfindingsandtotesthypotheses(Cavana,DelahayeandSekaran,2001;Schmuck,2000;Olson,2001;Eastabrooks,2001;Page&Meyer,2000).CASESTUDYPatton(1990,p.66)anchoreddifferenttypesofqualitativeresearchin“thekindsofquestionsaparticularresearcherwillask”.Heidentifiedtentraditionsthatincluded,ethnography,phenomenology,heuristics,ethnomethodology,symbolicinteractionism,ecologicalpsychology,systemstheory,chaostheory,orientationalinquiry,andhermeneutics.Merriam(1998)identifiedfivetypesofqualitativeresearchthatincluded:basicorgenericqualitativestudy;ethnography;phenomenology;groundedtheoryandcasestudy.Theabovefivetypesofresearchweredifferentfromeachother,buttheyallsharedtheessentialcharacteristicsofqualitativeresearchthatincluded“thegoalofelicitingunderstandingandmeaning,theresearcherasprimaryinstrumentofdatacollectionandanalysis,theuseoffieldwork,aninductiveorientationtoanalysis,andfindingsthatarerichlydescriptive”(Merriam,1998,p.11).Merriam(1998,p.20)alsonotedthatthefivetypesofqualitativeresearchcouldbedistinguishedintermsof:disciplinaryorientation(ethnography,phenomenology);function(groundedtheory);3 form(casestudy,basicorgenericqualitativestudy)andalsohighlightedthatthefivetypeswereoftenusedinconjunctionwithoneanother.Ethnographiccasestudyusuallyexaminedthecultureofaspecificgroupwithinacommunity(Cavana,DelahayeandSekaran,2001,p.112).Howevertherewasconfusionwhenethnographywasusedinterchangeablywithfieldwork,casestudy,participantobservation,orqualitativeresearch.Ethnographyhastwodistinctmeanings.Firstlyethnographywasdescribedasasetofmethodsusedtocollectdata,andsecondly,thewrittenrecordthatwastheproductofusingethnographictechniques.Ethnographictechniquescomprisedthestrategiesresearchersusedtocollectdataaboutthesocialorder,setting,orsituationunderinvestigation(e.g.interviews,observation,andexaminationoflifehistories).Anethnographywasasocioculturalinterpretationofthedata.Thus“ethnographiesrecreateforthereaderthesharedbeliefs,practices,artifacts,folkknowledge,andbehavioursofsomegroupofpeople”(LeCompte&Preissle,1993.pp.2-3).Cultureremainsaunifyingconstructofethnographyandinthecaseofthestudyofanorganisation,considerationshouldbegiventothehistoryoftheneighbourhood,socioeconomicfactors,thecommunity’sracialandethnicmakeup,andtheattitudesofthemembersoftheorganisationandthosewhotheyserved(LeCompte&Preissle,1993.pp.13).Thepurposeofacasestudywastogainanin-depthunderstandingofthesituationandmeaningforthoseinvolved.Theinterestwasinprocessratherthanoutcomes,incontextratherthanaspecificvariable,indiscoveryratherthanconfirmation.Thecasestudyapproachtoresearchisawayofconductingmainlyqualitativeinquiry,commonlyusedwhenitisimpossibletocontrolallofthevariablesthatareofinteresttotheresearcher.Merriampointsoutthatthecasestudy’suniquestrengthisitsabilitytodealwithafullvarietyofevidence,includingdocuments,artefacts,interviewsandobservations(1988,p.8).Theuseacasestudyapproachisdeterminedbyfourfactors:thenatureoftheresearchquestions;theamountofcontroltheresearcherhasoverthevariablesunderinvestigation;thedesiredendproduct;andtheidentificationofaboundedsystemasthefocusofinvestigation(Merriam,1988,p.8).“How”and“why”questionsarethemostsuitableforacasestudybecausetheapproachdrawsattentiontowhatcanbespecificallylearnedfromthesinglecase(StakeinDenzin&Lincoln,200?,p.5).Inmanyeducationalsettingsthelackofcontrolthatcanbeexercisedbytheresearchermeansthatitisnecessarytoadoptaholisticapproachtotheissue,onethatisgroundedintherealityofthesituationandonethatilluminatesthemeaningwhatisoccurring.Acasestudyoftenbuildsupontacitknowledgeandprovidesathickdescriptionofthecaseunderinvestigation(Merrian,1988,p.12).Theendproductofresearchusingacasestudyapproachissometimethecaseitself,butoftenthecaseisusedinaninstrumentalwaytoinvestigateabroaderphenomenon(Stake,1995,p.3).Themostessentialelementofacasestudyistheidentificationofthecaseitself.Thisallowsa“boundedsystem”tobeidentifiedwithcertainfeaturesoccurringwithintheboundaryofthecase,andotherfeaturesoutsideit(StakeinDenzin&Lincoln,2002,p.436).Theendresultofacasestudycandrawfromsomeorallofthefollowing:1.Thenatureofthecaseitself.2.Thehistoricalbackgroundofthecase.3.Thephysicalsettinginwhichthecaseisbounded.4.Othercontexts,suchaseconomic,politicalandlegal,thatimpactuponthecase.5.Othercasesthroughwhichthecaseisrecognised.6.Thoseinformantsthroughwhomthecasecanbeknown.(StakeinDenzin&Lincoln,2002,pp.438-9).Merriamdefinesacasestudyas“anexaminationofaspecificphenomenon,suchasaprogram,anevent,aprocess,aninstitution,orasocialgroup”(1988,p.9).However,Stake(inDenzin&4 Lincoln,p.436)indicatesthatacasestudyisbothaprocessofinquiryaboutthecaseandtheproductofthatinquiry.Yin(1984,p.23)offersamoretechnicaldefinitionbyequatingacasestudywithanempiricalenquirythatinvestigatesacontemporaryphenomenonwithinitsreal-lifecontextwhentheboundariesbetweenphenomenonandcontextarenotclearlyevidentandinwhichmultiplesourcesofevidenceareused.TypesofCaseStudiesWhenacasestudyislinkedwithadisciplineorareaofspecificinterest,itcanbenamedtoreflectthatinterestordisciplinee.g.anethnographiccasestudy,ahistoricalcasestudy,apsychologicalcasestudy,orasociologicalcasestudy.Casestudiescanalsobedescribedbythenatureofthefinalreport.Acasestudythatpresentsadetailedaccountofthephenomenonunderstudyisadescriptivecasestudy.Whenthedescriptivedataareusedtodevelopconceptualcategoriesortoillustrate,support,orchallengetheoreticalassumptionsthestudybecomesaninterpretivecasestudy,whereasevaluativecasestudiesinvolvedescription,explanation,andjudgment.Adescriptivecasestudypresentsadetailedaccountofthephenomenonunderstudy.Suchcasestudiesareatheoreticalbuttheyareusefulinpresentinginformationaboutareasofeducationwherelittleresearchhasbeenconducted.Interpretivecasestudiesareusedtodevelopconceptualcategoriesortoillustrate,support,orchallengetheoreticalassumptionsheldpriortodatagathering.Sometimessuchcasestudiesarecalledanalyticalcasestudiesbecauseoftheyinvolveagreateramountofanalysisthandescriptivecasestudies.Anevaluativecasestudyinvolves“thickdescription”,isgrounded,isholisticandlife-like,simplifiesdatatobeconsideredbythereaders,butmostimportantly,weighsuptheinformationtoenableajudgmenttobemade.Casestudiescanalsobedefinedbysomecombinationofthedisciplinaryorientationandtheendproduct.Therecanbecasestudiesthatareethnographicevaluation,programdescription,historicalinterpretations,sociologicalstudies,andsoon.Somecasestudiesarepurelydescriptive;othersareacombinationofdescriptionandinterpretationordescriptionandevaluation(Merriam,1988pp.22-29).Yin(2003,p.5)statesthatatleastsixkindsofcasestudiescanbeidentified,basedona2x3matrix.Inthefirstinstanceresearchcanbebasedonasinglecaseoronmultiplecases.Asinglecasestudyfocusesonasinglecaseonly,butmultiplecasestudiesincludetwoormorecaseswithinthesamestudy.Hethenclassifiescasestudiesasexploratory,descriptive,orexplanatory(causal).Anexploratorycasestudyaimsatdefiningthequestionsandhypothesesofasubsequentstudyoratdeterminingthefeasibilityofthedesiredresearchprocedures.Adescriptivecasestudypresentsacompletedescriptionofaphenomenonwithinitscontext.Anexplanatorycasestudypresentsdatathatexplainshoweventsoccurredandreflectsacauseandeffectrelationship(Yin,2003,p.5).Hisclassificationofcasestudiescanbeillustratedasfollows:SingleCaseStudyMultipleCaseStudiesExploratoryType1Type2DescriptiveType3Type4ExplanatoryType5Type6Casestudiesweredifferentiatedfromothertypesofqualitativeresearchinthattheywereintensivedescriptionsandanalysisofasingleunitorboundedsystem(Smith1978)suchasasingleorganisation,programme,event,group,orcommunity.Casestudiesoftenaccommodateddifferentdisciplinaryperspectivesandattemptedtogetasclosetothesubjectofinterestas5 possible,partlybymeansofdirectobservationinnaturalsettings,andpartlybytheiraccesstosubjectivefactors(thoughtsfeelings,desires),whereasexperimentsoftenusedconvenientderivativedatasuchastestresults.Partoftheconfusionthatsurroundedcasestudieswasthattheprocessofconductingacasestudywasconflatedwithboththeunitofstudy(thecase)andtheproductofthistypeofinvestigation.Yin(1994,p.13),definedcasestudyintermsoftheresearchprocesswhenhestatedacasestudy“isanempiricalinquirythatinvestigatesacontemporaryphenomenonwithinthereal-lifecontext,especiallywhentheboundariesbetweenphenomenonandcontextarenotclearlyevident”.Stake(1994,1995)focusedontryingtopinpointtheunitofstudy-thecase.Wolcott(1992,p.36)sawitasan“end-productoffieldorientedresearch”.HoweverMerriam(1998,p.27)concludedthatthesinglemostimportantcharacteristicofcasestudyresearchwasindelimitingtheobjectofstudy,thecase.Smith’s(1978)notionofthecaseasaboundedsystemwasembellishedbyStake’snotionthatitwasan“integratedsystem”(Stake1995,p.2).MilesandHuberman(1994,p.25)supportedthisnotionwhentheyclaimedacasewasa“phenomenon...occurringinaboundedcontext”andBromley(1986,p.21)alsoconfirmedthatacasestudy“mustbelimitedinscope...theremustbeconceptualboundariesandempiricallimitstoit”.Merriam(1998,p.27)agreedandstatedthat“ifthephenomenon...isnotintrinsicallybounded,itisnotacase”.Onetechniqueforassessingtheboundednessofthetopicwastoaskhowfinitethedatacollectionwas.Wastherealimittothenumberofpeopleinvolved?Iftherewerenolimitsthenthephenomenonwasnotboundedenoughtoqualifyasacase.Adelman,Jenkins,andKemmis(1983,p.3)claimedthatthemoststraightforwardexamplesofboundedsystemswerethoseinwhichtheboundarieshadacommonsenseobviousness,suchasanindividual,orasingleorganisation.CasestudywasdifferentiatedfromotherresearchdesignsbywhatCronbach(1975,p.123)called“interpretationincontext”.Byconcentratingonasinglephenomenonorentity(thecase),theresearcheraimedtouncovertheinteractionofsignificantfactorscharacteristicofthephenomenon.Thecasestudyfocusedonholisticdescriptionandexplanation.AsYin(1994)observed,casestudywasadesignparticularlysuitedtosituationsinwhichitwasimpossibletoseparatethephenomenon’svariablesfromitscontext.Severalauthorsadvanceddefinitionsofthecasestudythatwerecongruentwiththeabovediscussion.Wilson(1979,p.448),forexample,conceptualisedthecasestudyasaprocess“whichtriestodescribeandanalysesomeentityinqualitative,complexandcomprehensiveterms,notinfrequentlyasitunfoldsoveraperiodoftime”.MacDonaldandWalker’s(1977,p.181)definitionofacasestudyas“theexaminationofaninstanceinaction”wascongruentwithGubaandLincoln’s(1981,p.371)statementthatthepurposewasto“revealthepropertiesoftheclasstowhichtheinstancesbeingstudiedbelongs”.FinallyMerriam(1998,p.29)suggestedthatcasestudieswerecharacterisedasbeingparticularistic,descriptiveandheuristic.Particularisticcasestudiesfocusedonaparticularsituation,event,programme,orphenomenon.Descriptivecasestudiesproducedarichthickdescriptionofthephenomenonunderstudy.Heuristiccasestudiesilluminatedthereader’sunderstandingofthephenomenonunderstudyandboughtaboutthediscoveryofnewmeaning,extendedthereader’sexperience,orconfirmedwhatwasknown(Merriam,1998,p.30).Yin(1994,pp.9-11)identifiedthreeprejudicesagainstcasestudystrategybeginningwith,lackofrigourofcasestudyresearch.HereYin(1994)acknowledgedthatcasestudyresearchershadpossiblybeensloppyinthepastandhadallowedbiasedviewstoinfluenceconclusionsbuthealsodefendedthisclaimandsuggestedthatcasestudyresearchwasoftenconfusedwithcasestudyteachingandthatbiaswaspossibly,justasprevalentinexperimentsandquantitativeanalysisaswell.6 SecondlyYin(1994,pp.9-11)claimedthatcasestudiesprovidedlittlebasisforscientificgeneralisation.Howeverthesamequestioncanbeappliedtoasinglecasestudyaswellasasingleexperiment.Infactscientificfactswererarelybasedonsingleexperiments.Theywereusuallybasedonamultiplesetofexperiments.Thesameapproachcouldbeusedwithmultiplecasestudieshowevercasestudieslikeexperimentsweregeneralisabletotheoreticalpropositionsandnottopopulationsoruniverses.Inthissense,thecasestudyliketheexperiment,didnotpresenta“sample,”andtheresearcher’sgoalwastoexpandandgeneralisetheories(analyticgeneralisation)andnottoenumeratefrequencies(statisticalgeneralisation(Yin,1994,p.10).ThirdlyYin(1994)claimedthatcasestudiestooktoolongandresultedinmassivedocumentation.Yinacknowledgedthatthiscomplaintmayhavebeenappropriategiventhewaycasestudieshadbeendoneinthepast(e.g.Feagin,Orum,&Sjoberg,1991)butwithbetterdesign,thiswasnotnecessarilythecaseinthefuture(Yin,1994,p.11).Yin(1994,p.9)suggestedthatfor“how”and“why”questionsthecasestudyhadadistinctadvantageoverotherresearchdesignsandBromley(1986)claimedthatcasestudiesgot:“asclosetothesubjectofinterestaspossible...partlybymeansofdirectobservationinnaturalsettings,partlybytheiraccesstosubjectivefactors(thoughts,feelings,anddesires),whereasexperimentsandsurveysoftenuseconvenientderivativedatae.g.testresults,officialrecords.Alsocasestudiestendedtospreadthenetforevidencewidely,whereasexperimentsandsurveysusuallyhaveanarrowfocus”.Bromley(1986,p.23)Merriam(1998,p.33)recommendthatcasestudywasaparticularlysuitabledesignforananalysisofprocess.Processasafocusforcasestudyresearchwasviewedintwoways.Thefirstmeaningofprocesswasmonitoringandthisinvolveddescribingthecontextandpopulationofthestudy.Thesecondmeaningofprocesswascausalexplanationandthisinvolvedthediscoveryorconfirmationoftheprocessbywhichthetreatmenthadtheeffectthatitdid(Reichardt&Cook,1979,p.21).Insummarising,theimportanceofprocessratherthananoutcomecanbethejustificationforselectingcasestudyandSander’s(1981,P.44)commentedthat,“casestudieshelpustounderstandprocessesofevents,projects,andprogrammesandtodiscovercontextcharacteristicsthatwillshedlightonanissueorobject”.UniquenessofCaseStudyFinallyacasestudymightbeselectedforitsuniqueness.Abramson(1992)underscoredthevalueofuniqueoratypicalcasesandcontendedthat:“sincesuchdataarerare,theycanhelpelucidatetheupperandlowerboundariesofexperience.Second,suchdatacanfacilitate...predictionbydocumentinginfrequentnon-obvious,orcounterintuitiveoccurrencesthatmaybemissedbystandardstatistical(orempirical)approaches.Finally,atypicalcases...areessentialforunderstandingtherangeorvarietyofhumanexperience,whichisessentialforunderstandingandappreciatingthehumancondition”Abramson(1992,p.190).Merriam(1998,p.38-40)suggestedcasestudiescanbedescribedbytheoverallintentofthestudies.Wasthecasestudylargelyintendedtobe‘descriptive’,‘interpretive’,ortobe‘evaluative’?7 A‘descriptive’casestudy(called“atheoretical”byLijphart(1971,p.691),movedinatheoreticalvacuumandwasnotguidedbyestablishedorhypothesisedgeneralisationsnormotivatedbythedesiretoformulategeneralhypothesesbutwerefoundtobeusefulhowever,astheypresentedbasicinformationaboutareasofeducationwherelittleresearchhadbeenconductedandoftenprovidedvaluabledatabasesforfuturecomparisonandtheorybuilding.Forexample,Moore’s(1986)descriptivecasestudiesallowedhimtodeviseaconceptualframeworkaboutlearninginnonschoolsettings.‘Interpretive’casestudieswerealsousedtodevelopconceptualcategories.Thelevelofabstractionandconceptualisationininterpretivecasestudiesrangedfromsuggestingrelationshipsamongvariablestoconstructingtheory.Themodelofanalysiswasinductive.Somesourceslabelledthesecasestudies“analytical”andweredifferentiatedfromdescriptivecasestudiesbytheircomplexity,depth,andtheoreticalorientation(Shaw,1978).‘Evaluative’casestudiesinvolveddescription,explanation,andjudgment(Merriam,1998,p.39).Muchhadbeenwrittenaboutnaturalisticevaluation,responsiveevaluation,andqualitativeevaluation(Guba&Lincoln,1981;Patton,1987,1990,1996;Stake,1981;Greene,1994;LeCompte,Preissle&Tesch,1993).GubaandLincoln(1981)concludedthatcasestudywasthebestreportingformforevaluationsasitprovidedthickdescription.Itwasalsogrounded,andwasholisticandlifelike.Itsimplifieddatatobeconsideredbythereaderandilluminatedmeaningsandcommunicatedtacitknowledge.Aboveallelsethistypeofcasestudyweighed“informationtoproducejudgment.Judgingisthefinalandultimateactofevaluation”GubaandLincoln(1981,p.375).KennyandGrotelueschen(1980)supportedchoosingacasestudydesignwhendoinganevaluationasitenabled“betterunderstandingofthedynamicsoftheprogramme.Whenitisimportanttoberesponsive,toconveyaholisticanddynamicallyrichaccountofaprogramme,casestudyisatailormadeapproach”KennyandGrotelueschen(1980,p.5).TheauthorssuccessfullyusedaCaseStudy(alargeK-12IndependentSchoolinSydney)toresearchtheimpactsoforganisationallearningculturalchangemethodologiesonstaffoveratwelvemonthperiod.Theresultsofthisresearchhavebeenpreviouslyreported(Laws&McLeod,1997,1998,1999;McLeod,2002)GROUNDEDTHEORYIntroductionGroundedtheorywasfirstdevelopedbyGlaserandStrauss(1965,1967)asanapproachtoqualitativeanalysiswhileconductinganobservationalfieldstudyofthewayinwhichhospitalstaffdealtwithdyingpatients.Groundedtheorymaybebestdefinedas:"aqualitativeresearchmethodthatusesasystematisedsetofprocedurestodevelopandinductivelyderivegroundedtheoryaboutaphenomenon"(Strauss&Corbin,(1990)p.24)Hencetheapproachpurportedtobeinductiveratherthandeductive.Theintentwastodevelopanaccountofaphenomenonthatidentifiedthemajorconstructs,orcategoriesingroundedtheoryterms,theirrelationships,andthecontextandprocess,thusprovidingatheoryofthephenomenonthatwasmuchmore,thanadescriptiveaccount(Morse&Richards,2002;Becker,1993).Thepurposeofgroundedtheorywastoorganise"manyideasfromanalysisofthedata"(Strauss,1967,p.23).LaterStraussandCorbin(1990,p24)extendedthisbysayingthatthepurposeofgroundedtheorywastobuildatheory"thatwasfaithfultoandilluminatedtheareaunderstudy".Suchtheoriesdevelopedwerenotnecessarilyintendedtostandalone,butcouldberelatedto8 existingtheorieswithinafield,thusamplifyingandextendingthecurrentunderstandingsofthephenomenainquestion.Strauss(1967,p.22-23)summarisedgroundedtheoryproceduresasthesystematicanalysisofdocuments,interviewnotes,orfieldnotesbycontinuallycodingandcomparingdatathatproduceda"wellconstructedtheory".Thusagroundedtheorywasinductivelyderivedfromresearchers'studiesofthephenomenaitrepresented.Thecollectionofdataanditsanalysisandtheresultingtheoryhadareciprocalrelationship.Thustheresearcher,ratherthancommencingwithatheorywhichheorsheattemptedtoverify,commencedwithanareaofstudyandallowedrelevanttheoreticalconstructstoemergefromthatprocessofstudy,thusallowinganintrinsicrelationshiptodevelopbetweenthedataandthetheory.Theendresultofthistypeofqualitativeresearchwasatheorythatemergedfrom,orwas“grounded”inthedata,hence,groundedtheory.Richdescriptionwasimportantbutwasnottheprimaryfocusofthistypeofstudy.AsStraussandCorbin(1994,p.274)noted,“themajordifferencebetweenthismethodologyandotherapproachestoqualitativeresearchwasitsemphasisupontheorydevelopment”.Theassumptionsofgroundedtheoryheldthatanygroupsharedanunarticulatedbasicsocialproblem.Thisproblemtobediscoveredbytheresearchers,wasresolvedthroughabasicsocial-psychologicalprocess.Researchaimsincludeddiscoveringthebasicsocial-psychologicalproblemandprocess,itsphasesandtheirproperties,anditsstrategiesandconsequences.Ultimately,thegoalwastogenerateasubstantivemiddle-rangetheorythatexplainedtheissueunderstudy(Wilson&Hutchinson,1991,p.268;Alston&Bowles,2003,pp.208-220).Groundedtheorywasusedsuccessfullyinmanyeducationalresearchprojectsthatincluded:informationseekingpatternsofresearchphysicisisandchemists(Ellis,Cox,&Hall,1993);informationseekingpatternsofacademicresearchers(Ellis,1993);theidiosyncraticandreflexivenatureofeffectiveschoolingandschoolimprovement,(Proudford&Baker,1994);resistanceincounsellingbasedonmomenttomomentexperiencesofparticipants,(Rennie,1994);transformationalleadershipinSecondaryhighschoolsinNewSouthWales,(Laws,Bailey,Smith&McLeod,1995).RationaleforGroundedTheoryTheadvantagesforgroundedtheoryincludeitscapacityforadetailedstudyofamicroissueofalargerrealitywithinaparticularsetting(Glaser&Strauss,1967).Inthiswaythestudyhaspotentialtodevelopdetailedinformationaboutaparticularphenomenonandtobeinfluencedbythecontextinwhichthestudyisundertaken.Groundedtheoryplacesconsiderablevalueonthecontextualsetting.Gainingdetailedknoweledgeofthecontextandtheday-to-dayeventsinaparticularcontextareimportantdimensionsinastudyutilisinggroundedtheory.Theprogressivenatureofgroundedtheoryisalsoanimportantbenefitoftheapproach.Thereisanopennessintheprocessinthatparticipantscontributetothecollectedfacts(Dey,1999).Theresearcherandtheparticipantscollaboratetogeneratethedatawhichinturngeneratesthetheory.(Strauss&Corbin,1990)GlaserandStrauss(1965,1967),emphasisedtheimportanceoftheory-building“within”theresearch,andgroundedtheorieswerenotdeducedfromsomegeneraltheorybeforebeginningresearch,butwerediscoveredduringtheresearchprocess“in”thedata(Yin,1991,p.303).Theoretical(codingandanalysis)andempirical(datagathering)activitieswerenotstrictlyseparatedinsuchresearch;theywere,onthecontrary,tightlyinterwoveninordertobenefitfromeachotherand,thus,advancedthegrowthofinsight(Glaser&Strauss,1967,p.43).Consequently,theorywasnotconsideredasperfectedproduct,butratherasprocess,asanever-developingentity(Glaser&Strauss1967,p.32).GroundedTheoryandQualitativeResearch9 Dilthey(2003,p.34)describedHermeneuticsasthemethodologyoftheintretationofwrittenrecords.Babbie(2001)definedhermeneuticsinsocialscienceas,"interpretingsociallifebymentallytakingonthecircumstances,viewsandfeelingsoftheparticipants",whereashedescribedgroundedtheoryasa"termusedinreferencetothecreationoftheorybasedonobservationmorethaneducation".Suchdefinitionsdonotclearlyaddressthefullresearchimplicationsoftheseparadigmsincomparisonwithdeductivemethodsbasedonlogicalpositivism.StraussandCorbin(1990)implicitlyacknowledgedthehermeneuticandphenomenologicalfoundationsofgroundedtheorywhentheystated:"datacollection,analysisandtheorystandinreciprocalrelationshipwithoneanother.Onedoesnotbeginwithatheory,thenproveit.Rather,onebeginswithanareaofstudyandwhatisrelevanttothatareaofstudyisallowedtoemerge".StraussandCorbin(1990,p.23).Groundedtheoryassumptionsandmethodologieswereclosertothoseofhermeneuticsthantologicalpositivism.Table3belowsetsoutthekeydistinctions.Positivist,HermeneuticandGroundedTheoryAssumptionsPositivismHermeneuticsGroundedTheory*definestheworldasobjects*resistsobjectification*accountsforprocessesthatcanchangethecoded“meaning”ofobservedphenomena*objectificationseeks*seeksunderstanding*seeksunderstandingbasedonexplanationinterrelationshipsbetweenconditions,meaningandaction*objectificationseeks*seeksrespectforthewhole*avoidsreductionismbyusingdissectionandreductionconditionalmatricesandtransactionalsystems*“truth”istobefound*“truth”isrevealed*“truth”isapproximatedbythein“agreement”byphenomenologicallyresearcherscreativeengagementwithverificationsystematic,iterativedatacollection,analysisandvalidationprocess*“meaning”istobefound*“meaning”istobefound*“meaning”isfoundthroughincloseddefinitionsthroughinterpretationthatinterpretationthatallowsfutureallowsfuturelayersoflevelsandcategoriesofinterpretatiopninterpretationand”explanation”Table3Source:Parker,L.D.&Roffey,B.(1993)GroundedtheorywassubstantiallywithinthequalitativeresearchtraditionalthoughGlaserandStrauss(1967)recommendedthattheprinciplesalsobeusedinquantitativeresearch.TherewashowevervariationsinepistemologicalstancetowardgroundedtheorymethodologyandCharmaz(1990)arguedthattheoriginalapproachpresentedbyGlaserandStrauss(1967)wasinconsistentinpromotingbothpositivisticandphenomenologicalemphases.Morerecentpresentations(e.g.,Strauss,1987;Strauss&Corbin,1990)retainedpositivisticpremisesbutemphasisedphenomenologymoreheavily.Glaser(1994)hadtakenissuewithsomeofthesepresentations,andconsideredthatthisversionofthemethodhaderodeditsessentialfocusonthedata.Stern(1994)suggestedthatthe10 respectivepositionsoutlinedbyStrauss(1987)andbyGlaser(1994)representedtwofundamentallydifferentapproaches.Charmaz(1990,p.1165),incontrast,tookasocialconstructionistapproachtogroundedtheory,andvieweditasamethodinvolvingdialecticalandactiveprocess,andtheoutcomeofanyresearchusingthismethod"asasocialconstructionofthesocialconstructionsfoundandexplicatedinthedata".InductiveTheoryorDeductiveHypothesis?Glaser&Strauss(1967,p.3)maintainedthatgroundedtheoryprovidedaninitialmethodofdevelopingtheoryfromdatawiththeintentofprovidingtheorythat"willfitandwork".Theyarguedthatonebasisforjudgingtheusefulnessofatheoryinvolvedappreciatinghowitwasactuallygenerated,andthusinductivelydevelopedtheorywaslikelytobemoreusefulthanlogico-deductivetheorising.Hypothesesandconceptsremaingeneratedfromanddirectlyconnectedtotheirsourcedata,ratherthanbecomingreifiedinisolationfromtheirsources.Indeed,itwasarguedthatoftenwhenthemajorhypothesisofapositivistempiricalstudywasfoundnottobesupported,littlemorewasobservedbytheresearcher.Littleattemptwasmadetoofferalternativeexplanationsormodifiedtheoriestoassistininterpretingtheactualdata.Groundedtheory'smethodologicalemphasisencouragedtheactor'sowninterpretationsandmeaningstoemergewithminimalpromptingorpredispositionbytheresearcher.Thereforeanymovesfromthedeductivetotheinductivemethodologyallowedtheresearcherlesscontrolandthosepersonsbeingstudiedmorecontrol(Alston&Bowles,2003,p.206).Sucharelationshiphadprofoundimplicationsforethicalaspectsoftheresearch,forasthecontrolincreasedfortheparticipants(intheirownenvironmentratherthantheresearches),themoralandethicalrisksinvolvedinresearchdecreased.Byitsgenerativemethodologyandinductivenature,groundedtheorycopedwithmorecomplexdatarelatingtoamultiplicityofvariablesthantraditionalpositivistmodels.Forstatistical"feasibility",positivistresearchmethodstraditionallyrestrictedthenumberofvariablescontainedintheirmodels.Otherimportantvariableswereassumedtobeirrelevantorwereignored.Evensomerecentlydevelopedsophisticatedcasualmodellingprogramshadsuchcomplexprerequisiteassumptionsaboutthenatureofthedata,thatonewonderedtowhatextentdatathusanalysed,reflected"reality".Groundedtheorydealtinductivelywithacomplexarrayofvariables,andasaresultofferedatheory,thatprovidedmoreaccuratereflectionsofrelationshipsandinfluencesandforthesereasonswasappliedbytheauthorsduringvariousresearchprojects.HoweffectiveisGroundedTheoryMethodology?Groundedtheoryusuallydeveloped“substantive”ratherthanformalor“grand”theory.Substantivetheoryhadasitsreferentspecific,everyday-worldsituationssuchasthecultureofaK-12school.Asubstantivetheoryhadspecificityandthususefulnesstopracticeoftenlackingintheoriesthatcoveredmoreglobalconcerns.Awell-constructedgroundedtheorycompliedwithfourcentralcriteriaforjudgingtheapplicabilityoftheorytoaphenomenon:fit;understanding;generality;andcontrol(Glaser&Strauss1967pp237-250).Iftheorywasfaithfultotheeverydayrealityofthesubstantiveareaandcarefullyinducedfromdiversedata,thenitwouldhavefittedthatsubstantivearea.Becauseitrepresentedthatreality,itshouldalsohavebeencomprehensibleandmadesensebothtothepersonswhowerestudiedandtothosepractisinginthatarea.Ifthedatauponwhichitwasbasedwerecomprehensiveandtheinterpretationsconceptualandbroad,thenthetheoryshouldhavebeenabstractenoughandincludedsufficientvariationtohavemadeitapplicabletoavarietyofcontextsrelatedtothatphenomenon.11 Finally,groundedtheoryprovidedcontrolwithregardtoactiontowardthephenomenon.Thiswasbecausethehypothesesproposingrelationshipsamongconcepts,weresystematicallyderivedfromactualdatarelatedtothat(andonlythat)phenomenon.Theabovecriteriawastestedbyaskinghadthe:conceptsbeengeneratedfromthedataexamined;conceptsbeenidentifiedandsystematicallyrelated;conceptuallinkagesbeenfoundandwerethecategorieswelldevelopedandwasthereconceptualdensity;variationsfordifferentconditionsbeenbuiltintothetheory;broaderconditions,thatmayhaveaffectedthephenomenonbeingstudied,beenbuiltintoitsexplanation;questionofprocessualchangebeenaccountedfor;theoreticalfindingsbeensignificant?StraussandCorbin(1990,p.257)warnedthatthesecriteriashouldnotbereadascollectedfromthehardandfastevaluationrules,butweresuggestedasguide-linesonly.Theseguidelinesprovedtobeveryvaluablewhenanalysingthedatacollectedfromthecasestudyresearchsite.CautionintheDesignofDataCollectionMethodsPopkewitz(1984,p.183)suggestedcautioninqualitativeresearch,asthelanguagesofsocialaffairswerehumaninventionsand,assuch,containedassumptions,values,andprioritiesthatrespondedtoinstitutionalarrangements,historicaldevelopments,andthecontradictionsofexistingsocialconditions.Notheorywasthereforeneutralorunattachedasknowledgeofinquirywasalwayssociallyandculturallybound.TheabovewarningwasextendedwhenPopkewitz(1988,p.379)arguedthatresearchprogramswerenotconceivedsolelyasthoseofindividualimagination,butinvolvedacomplexrelationamongcommunity,institutions,socialstructure,andindividuals.Shavelson(1988,p.9)supportedPopkewitzwhenhewarnedthatresearchers,policymakersandpractitionershaddifferentmindframesthatrestrictedthepotentialutilityofeducationalresearch.Adler&Adler(1987,p.13)identifiedtworolesfortheresearcher.Firstlytherewasthe“overt”rolewheretheresearcheropenlyadmittedtotheparticipantsthattheywereconductingastudyandthe“covert”rolewheretheresearcherdidnotadmittheresearchdimensionsoftheirparticipation.Intheresearchprojectstheauthorshavebeeninvolvedintheovertstylehasbeenemployedwithallparticipantsbeingawareofthepurposesoftheresearchmethods.Researchersinthefieldwereaffectedbyotherfactorsthatincluded;existinginherentconditionsatthesitethataffected“thegettingin,stayingin,oreasingout”ofthesite;researchersabilities,identities,andtheoreticalorientations;changesinthesettingduringtheresearchitselfandthefactthattheresearchersthemselves“undergochanges,organically,aspeople,asrole-players,orassocialscientists”,andthereforesoughtoutnewrolesforcollectingdatawithinthesetting(Adler&Adler,1987,p.14-15).Inadditiontheyalsowarnofthe"baggage"thateventhemostcommittedresearchercarriedintothefield.Theyarguedthat"itisembedded,withouthavingtocultivateit,expressly,ineachofouruniquebiographiesofmultiplerolesandinnerreflections...thereforewecarryoursocialscienceselvesintoresearchsettingswithus"(Adler&Adler,1987,p.86).ResearchersmustalsoconsidergenderissuesandKrieger(1986,p.118)notedthatgenderconformityanddeviationinagivenculturewereprocessual,dialectical,andreflexive.Theychangedovertimeandwererelatedtooneanotherandaffectednotonlyrelationshipswithrespondents,butalsocategoriesusedininterpretation.“Emic”orthe“Etic”Approach?Thesearchforthe“emic”orinsidersperspectivewasfundamentaltoalmostallqualitativemethods(Fetterman,1991p.1).Thedistinctionbetween“emic”and“etic”perspectiveswasfirst12 mootedbyPike(1967)andlaterelaboratedonbyanthropologistHarris(1968,1979)andbyHeadland,PikeandHarris(1990)andassessedbysocialtheoristsincludingYoungP.D.(1993).Headlandetal.(1990)recommendedthetermsemicandeticbeusedtoreplacetheterms“subjective’and“objective”.Theemicandeticdistinctionwasdesignedtoaddressacriticalcharacteristicofresearchamonghumanbeings,namely,thatasobjectsofresearch,theyhadaconsciousnessoftheirownalongwithideasaboutthecausesandconsequencesoftheirownthoughtsandbehaviour.AsHarrisemphasised,“incarryingoutresearchintheemicmode,theobserverattemptstoacquireaknowledgeofthecategoriesandrulesonemustknowinordertothinkandactasanative”(Harris,1979,p.32).Itthusbecamecriticaltodifferentiatebetweentheresearcher’sviewpointandthatoftheparticipantsbeingstudied(Sandstrom&Sandstrom,1995,pp.161-199).OntheotherhandtheeticperspectivewasthatoftheoutsiderandasHarrisstated,“eticoperationshaveastheirhallmarktheelevationofobserverstothestatusofultimatejudgesofthecategoriesandconceptsusedindescriptionsandanalysis”(Harris,1979,p.32).GoodethnographyrequiredbothemicandeticperspectivesaccordingtoFetterman(1989,p.32).Althoughheconcededthathisresearchwasgroundedinanemicunderstandingofthesituationandgroupwhichrequiredmanyhours,days,months,andyearsofeliciting,recording,andexpressingthisperspectiveitensuredvalidityofthedata.Atthesametimehearguedthatthejobwasnotdoneuntilhetookastepbackandmadesenseofthesituationfromboththeemicandeticperspectives.DATACOLLECTIONMETHODSThenatureofanyresearchproblemrequiresasensitiveandlogicalapproachtoresearchdesignsothatopenaccesstotheresearchsitecanbepermitted.Woods(1986,p.22-32)acknowledgedthataccesscouldinsomecasesbedifficultbutmagnifiedthisproblembysuggestingthattherewereinfactseveralaccessthresholdstobecrossedbeforeeffectiveentryhadbeenestablished.Onceinsidetheresearchsiteproceedingacrossthesethresholds,thatmarkedthewaytotheheartoftheculture,couldbetreacherous.StructuredInterviewsThestructuredin-depthinterviewcapitalisedontherichnessofqualitativeresponses.Itwasnotfreeflowingordeterminedbyrespondent'sinterests;itwasfocusedonaspecificissueorsetofissues,andthequestionsguidedthecourseoftheinterview.Thistypeofresearchinstrumentwasexcellentwhenstandardinformationwasneededfromallrespondents,butthedataweretoocomplextogatherinaclosed-endedmanner.Respondentswerethereforefreetotelltheirstoriesintheirownwords,unfetteredbypre-establishedcategories,buttheirdatawerecodeable(Bauman&Greenberg,1992,pp.10-11).Thesestructuredinterviewsplayedanimportantpartinthedatacollectionprocessatthecasestudyschool.UnstructuredInterviewsIntheseinterviewstheinterviewerexploredmanyfacetsoftheinterviewee’sconcerns,treatingsubjectsastheycameupinconversation,pursuinginterestingleadsandallowingimaginationandingenuityfullreign.Intheseunstructuredinterviewstheconversationroamedinanumberofdirectionsandratherthansearchforreplicableanswers,thepurposewastolettheinterviewee’sofferinterpretationsofreality,withoutpreconceivedideasdevelopedbytheinterviewer(Tierney,1991,p.9).Unstructuredinterviewswerealsousedatthecasestudyschool.SemanticTaxonomyInterviews13 Theseinterviewswerealsousedatthecasestudyschoolandclearlyborrowedtechniquesfromcognitiveanthropology.Thiswasanon-directiveinterviewtechniqueinwhichstructuralandattributequestionswereaskedaboutcategoriesprovidednotbytheresearcherbutbytherespondent(YoungR.E.1981,p.196).FocusedInterviewsInaddition,focusedinterviews,basedonsomestimulusmaterial(eg.LangfordsandOliver’s(1997)CulturalChangeWallModel),wereusedtotriggerdiscussion.Suchresearchinstrumentsaddedrange,depthandspecificitytothemethodology(Alston&Bowles,2003,p.208;Bauman&Greenberg,1992,p.11).Eachoftheaboveinterviewtechniqueswereemployedinthecasestudyresearchschool.IneachinstancetheinterviewswerenotsimultaneouslyrecordedonaudiotapebutextensivenotesweretakensimilartothestudycarriedoutbyHollandandKilpatrick(1991,p.138-144).Attheconclusionoftheinterviewtheinterviewerimmediatelyrecordedonaudiotapeoftheinterviewbasedontheextensivenotestakenduringtheinterview.Thusanaccuraterepresentationofthedialogueoftheinterviewwascreated,andfromtheserecordingstranscriptswerepreparedthencoded.Ellis(1993,p.447)suggestedthatStraussandCorbin's(1990)codingparadigmperhapswasrestrictiveandmayhavestultifiedtheprocessoffullinductivetheorygeneration.ThereforethegroundedtheorycodingproceduressuggestedbyHutchinson(1990,p123-140)wereusedbytheauthorsintheirresearch.Thistechniqueincluded:Level1codingwhichbrokethedataintosmallpieces;Level11codingwhichcreatedcategories;Level111codinginvolvedcreatingtheoreticalconstructsandthatderivedfromacombinationofacademicandclinicalknowledge.Theconstructscontributedtheoreticalmeaningandscopetothetheory(Glaser,1978,p.70).Inadditionthetechniqueofmemoingwasimportant,whichincludedtheresearcherquicklyandspontaneouslyrecordingideasthatcapturedtheinitiallyelusiveandshiftingconnectionswithinthedata.Finallysaturationoccurredwhenalllevelsofcodinghadreachedthepointwhennonewconceptualinformationwasavailablethatindicatednewcodesortheexpansionofexistingones.Whenallthedatafittedintotheestablishedcategories,interactionalandorganisationalpatternswerevisible,behaviouralvariationwasdescribed,andbehaviourcouldbepredicted.Theresearcher,byrepeatedlycheckingandaskingquestionsofthedata,ultimatelyachievedasenseofclosure.Ingeneratinggroundedtheory,creativitywasrequiredthroughtheprocessesthatforcedtheresearchertobreakthroughpriorassumptionsandthuscreatedneworderfromtheold.Creativityoccurredwhentheresearcherwascalledupontonamecategories,toidentifyassociationsbetweencategoriesandtomakecomparisonsthatyieldedfreshinsightsintothedatacollected.SuchsensitivityandcreativitywerereferredtobyGlaserandStrauss(1967)asinvokingof‘insight’asasourceoftheory.Insightsderivedfromthepersonalexperienceoftheparticipants,oftheresearcher,andfromsubsequentsystematictheorising.Indeedinsightswerecultivateduntiltheconclusionoftheresearch,becausetheyhadthecapacitytoemergecontinuallyfromongoingreflectionuponthedatacollected.Indeedreflectionwasencouragedasgroundedtheoryhadsomedistinguishingfeaturesdesignedtomaintainthe"groundedness"oftheapproach.Datacollectionandanalysisweredeliberatelyfused,andinitialdataanalysiswasusedtoshapecontinuingdatacollection.Thiswasintendedtoprovidetheresearcherwithopportunitiesforincreasingthe"density"and"saturation"ofrecurringcategories,aswellasforfollowingupunexpectedfindings.Interweavingdatacollectionandanalysisinthiswaywasheldtoincreaseinsightsandclarifytheparametersoftheemergingtheory.14 AdditionalEthnographicResearchCollectionMethodsInadditiontotheabove,ethnographicworkwascarriedoutthatincluded:participantobservation,corridorinterviews,documentationcollection.Participantobservationwaspartoftheethnographicstudyandplayedanimportantroleinthemethodologyprocess.Corridorandotherinformalinterviewswerevaluableinthattheylettheintervieweeroamandthereforeofferedtheirinterpretationsofrealitywithoutpreconceivedideasdevelopedbytheresearcher(Tierney1991,p.9).AlthoughWalker(1993,p72-91)suggestedthatphotographswereavaluablesourceofdatacollectionandMehan(1993,pp.93-105)extendedthistoincludevideotaping,neithermethodswereutilisedbytheauthorsatthecasestudysite.VALIDITYInternalValidityTheaboveresearchmethodologycanclaimahighlevelofinternalvalidityasrespondentinterviewsformedamajorportionofthedatacollected.Suchdatawerephasedclosetotherespondentsandwerecollectedinthenaturalsettingsthatreflectedtherealityoftheirlifeexperiences,andwerethuspossiblymoreaccuratethanmorecontrivedorlaboratorysettings.Inaddition,theabovemethodologyincorporatedaprocessofresearcherselfmonitoring(disciplinedsubjectivity)thatexposedtheresearchactivitytocontinuedquestioningandre-evaluation.Internalvaliditycouldbeerodedbythereactivityofparticipantobservationorrespondentslying,omittingrelevantdata,ormisrepresentingtheirclaims(Burns,1990,p.247;Morse&Richards,2002).However,independentcorroborationfrommultiplerespondentsandsufficientresidenceinthefieldclearlyimprovedvalidityinthisparticularcasestudysite.AccordingtoMerriam(1998,p.204-205)internalvaliditywasenhancedbytheuseofsixbasicstrategiesthatincluded:triangulation;memberchecksthatrequireddatatobereturnedtothepeoplefromwhomtheywerederivedforchecking;longtermobservationofthesamephenomenon;peerexaminationwherecolleagueswereaskedtocommentonfindings;participativeorcollaborativemodesofresearchthatinvolvedparticipantsinallphasesoftheresearch.Triangulationrequiredtheuseofmultipleinvestigators,multiplesourcesofdata,ormultiplemethodsthatconfirmedtheemergingfindings.Inresearchitcombinedindependentyetcomplementaryresearchmethodsthat:enhancedthedescriptionofaprocessorprocessesunderstudy;identifiedachronologyofevents;providedevidenceforinternalvalidityestimatesandservedasacorroboratingorvalidatingprocessforstudyfindings.Thus,anexpandedunderstandingandcontextualrepresentationofthestudiesphenomenaresulted(Hinds&Young,1987,p.195).Denzin(1970)establishedtheprincipaltypesoftriangulationthatincludedtriangulationin:time,whereconsiderationoffactorsofchangeandprocessbyutilisingcross-sectionalandlongitudinaldesignswasconsidered;space,usingdifferentculturalgroups;combinedlevels,usingdifferentgroupsthatincludedtheindividual,group,andorganisationallevel;theoreticalvarietyusingmultipletheoriesratherthanoneviewpoint;investigators,byusingmorethanone;methodological,byusingthesamemethodondifferentoccasionsordifferentmethodsonthesameoccasion.ThesetypesoftriangulationwereendorsedbyKeevesandSowden(1994,p.1472).McFee(1992b,pp.215-219)disputedthisdescriptionoftriangulationandsuggestedthattheremaybetwotypesthatincludedtriangulationbetweenmethodsbuthereMcFee(1992b)warnedthatresearcherscouldnotbesurethatthedifferentmethodsaddressedoneandthesameissue.Thesecondvarietywastriangulationwithinamethodandherethedatawerebuilt-upfrominputs15 ofvariousperspectives:henceoneissuewasaddressed.Butthisversionfailedtoprovidethesortofmutualsupportintegraltothemetaphoroftriangulation.McFee(1992b)thereforecalledforcautionandclaimsthatElliott(1991)supportedthisnotion.InadditiontoMcFee(1992b),Mathison(1988)alsoexpressedconcernthattriangulationproduceddatathatwereinconsistentorcontradictory.Shesuggestedshiftingthenotionoftriangulationawayfrom“atechnologicalsolutionforensuringvalidity”andinsteadrelyona“holisticunderstanding”ofthesituationthatconstructed“plausibleexplanationsaboutthephenomenabeingstudied”Mathison(1988,p.17).Ondeeperinvestigationmethodologicaltriangulationwasclassifiedassimultaneousorsequential."Simultaneoustriangulation”wastheuseofthequalitativeandquantitativemethodsatthesametime.Inthiscase,therewaslimitedinteractionbetweenthetwodatasetsduringthedatacollection,butthefindingscomplementedoneanotherattheendofthestudy.“Sequentialtriangulation”wasusediftheresultsofonemethodwereessentialforplanningthenextmethod.Thequantitativemethodwascompletedbeforethequalitativemethodwasimplementedorviceversa”(Morse,1991,p.120).Thebenefitsoftriangulationservedtoenrichanddeepentheunderstandingoftheresearchenvironmentwhileseekingconvergence,corroboration,andcorrespondenceofresultsacrossthedifferentmethodtypes.Thisframeworkhighlightedtheintegrativepotentialofthesestrategies,andunderscoredtheirpotentialpowernotonlytoincorporatequalitativeandquantitativeanalyses,butalsoviceversa,and,evenbeyond,tospiraliterativelyaroundthedifferentdatasets,addingdepthofunderstandingwitheachcycle.(Caracelli&Greene,1993).Theresearchmethodologyselectedenabledtriangulationintime(usingcross-sectionaldatacollection),space(usingdatafromdifferentfacultiesintheschool),combinedlevels(useofmorethanonelevelofanalysisfromthethreeprincipalgroups;individuallevel;interactivelevel(groups);andcollectivities(organisational,cultural);methodologicaltriangulation(usingdifferentresearchmethodsonthesamesite).Internalvaliditywasthereforesecuredinthecasestudysite.ExternalValidityExternalvalidityinvolvedtheextenttowhichthefindingsofonecasestudycouldbeappliedtoothersituationsandthereforeansweredthequestionofhowgeneralizableweretheresultsoftheresearchstudy(Guba&Lincoln,1981,p.115;Mason,2002).Thepurposethatasinglecasestudysitewasselectedwaspreciselytounderstandthesiteinparticulardepthandnottodiscoverwhatwasgenerallytrueofthemany.Thestudycouldpossiblyhaveproducedtheoriesthatwereexportabletoothersitesbutthiswasunlikely.Howeveritwashopedthatthestudyprovidedaclearerpictureandthusassistedthedirectionoffutureresearch.Estabrooks,Field,andMorse(1994,p503-511),Aamodt,(1994,pp.40-53),andMorse(1994,pp.24-43),discussedtheaggregationofqualitativedata.InparticularEstabrooksetal.(1994,p.510)suggestedthatthefindingsofindependent,similarresearchresultswhenaggregatedintoacohesivestudy,enhancedthegeneralizabilityoftheoriginalstudiesandthereforeproducedarelativelysolidmid-rangetheory.HoweverErickson(1986)arguedthattheproductionofgeneralizableknowledgewasaninappropriategoalforinterpretativeresearch.Inattendingtotheparticular,concreteuniversalswerediscovered.“Thesearchwasnotforabstractuniversalsarrivedatbystatisticalgeneralisationsfromasampletoapopulation”,hewrote,“butforconcreteuniversalsarrivedatbystudyingaspecificcaseingreatdetailandthencomparingitwithothercasesstudiedinequallydetail”(Erickson,1986,p.130).Thegeneralthereforeliedintheparticularandthuswhatwaslearntinaparticularsituationcouldbetransferredorgeneralisedtosimilarsituations16 subsequentlyencountered(Merriam,1998,p.210).Suchaggregationmaybepossibleinthefuture,whenfurthersimilarstudieswereforthcoming.CONCLUSIONTheresearchmethodologiesoutlinedabove,augmentedthebreakingofnewgroundintheresearchoforganisationallearningmethodologies(Laws&McLeod,1997,1998,1999;McLeod,2002).Thecombined“casestudy/groundedtheory”approach,allowedflexibilitywithintheresearchsite,andproducedarichharvestoffinegrainedresearchdata,thatilluminatedanimportantresearchtopic.Inthecasestudytheanalysisofdatafrominterviews,observation,learninghistoriesandwrittendocumentsfollowedfromtraditionalqualitativedataanalysisprocesses.Aresultoftheanalysisprocesswastodevelopgroundedtheorywheretheemphasiswasontheorybuildingfromwithintheresearchandthustheorywasnotdeducedfromsomegeneraltheorybeforethebeginningtheresearch,butitwasdiscoveredduringtheresearchprocess.Consequentlytheorywasnotconsideredasperfectproduct,butratherasprocessandthusasanever-developingentity.REFERENCESAamodt,A.M.(1991)Ethnographyandepistemology:Generatingnursingknowledge.InJ.M.Morse(Ed.)QualitativeNursingResearch:AContemporarydialogue.NewburyPark,CA:SagePublications.Abramson,P.R.(1992)Acaseforcasestudies.ThousandIslands,CA:SagePublications.Adelman,C.,Jenkins,D.,&Kemmis,S.(1983)Rethinkingcasestudy:NotesfromtheSecondCambridgeConference.Incasestudy:Anoverview.Casestudymethods1(Series).Victoria,Australia:DeakinUniversityPress.Adler,P.A.,&Adler,P.(1987)Membershiprolesinfieldresearch.NewburtPark,CA:Sagepublications.Alston,M.&Bowles,W.(2003)ReseaechforSocialWorkers.AnIntroductiontoMethods.@ndEdition.CrowsNestAustralia.Allen&UnwinBabbie,E.(2001)Thepracticeofsocialresearch(9thEd.)Belmont,CA:Wadsworth.Bauman,L.J.&Greenberg,A.(1992)Theuseofethnographicinterviewingtoinformquestionnaireconstruction.HealthEducationQuarterly.Vol.19.No.1.pp.9-23.Becker,P.H.(1993).Commonpitfallsinpublishedgroundedtheoryresearch.QualitativeHealthResearch.Vol.3pp.254-260.Bromley,D.B.(1986)Thecase-studymethodinpsychologyandrelateddisciplines.NewYork:Wiley.Burns,R.(1990)Introductiontoresearchmethodsineducation.17 Melbourne,Australia:LongmanCheshirePty.Ltd.Burns,R.(1997)(3rdEd.)Introductiontoresearchmethods.Melbourne,Australia:AddisonWesleyLongmanAustraliaPty.Ltd.Caracelli,V.&Greene,J.(1993).Dataanalysisstrategiesformixed-methodevaluationdesigns.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis.Vol.15No.2.p.196.Cavana,R.Y.,Delahaye,B.L.&Sekaran,U(2001)AppliedBusinessResearch:QualitativeandQuantativeMethods.Sydney.JohnWiley&Son.Charmaz,K.(1990)."Discovering"chronicillness:Usinggroundedtheory.SocialScienceandMedicine.Vol.30.pp.1161-1172.Checkland,P.B.(1981)Systemsthinking,systemspractice.Sussex,England:JohnWiley&Sons.Checkland,P.B.(1991)Fromframeworkthroughexperiencetolearning:Theessentialnatureofactionresearch.InH.Nissen,H.K.Klien&R.Hurschheim(Ed’s.)InformationSystemsResearch:ContemporaryApproachesandEmergentTraditions.Amsterdam:Elseveir.Checkland,P.B.(1995)Modelvalidationinsoftsystemspractice.SystemsResearch.Vol.12.No.1.pp.47-54.Checkland,P.B.&Scholes,J.(1990)Softsystemsmethodologyinaction.Sussex,England:JohnWiley&Sons.Cronbach,L.J.(1975)Beyondthetwodisciplinesofscientificpsychology.AmericanPsychologist.Vol.30.pp.116-127.Davies,L.&Ledington,P.(1991)Informationinactionsoftsystemsmethodology.Houndmills:MacmillanEducation.Denzin,N.K.(1970)Theresearchactinsociology:Atheoreticalintroductiontosociologicalmethod.London:TheButterworthGroup.Dilthey,W.(2003)ThyeDevelopmentofHermeneuticsinTheEuropeanTraditioninQualitativeResearchVolume111EditedbyBoudon,R.Cherkaoui,M.&Demeulenaere,P.London,.SagePublications.pp.341-353.Elliott,J.(1991)Actionresearchforeducationalchange.MiltonKeys:OpenUniversityPress.Ellis,D(1993)Modellingtheinformation-seekingpatternsofacademicresearchers:Agroundedtheoryapproach.TheLibraryQuarterly.Vol.63.No.4.pp.469-486.Ellis,D.Cox,D.,&Hall,J.(1993)Acomparisonoftheinformationseekingpatternsofresearchersinthephysicalandsocialsciences.JournalofDocumentation.Vol.49.No.4.pp.356-369.18 Emery,F.(1995)Participativedesign.QualityandParticipation.January.pp.6-9.Emery,F.&Trist,E.(1973)Towardasocialcology.Plenum.Emery,M.(1997)Opensystemsisaliveandwell.PaperpresentedattheAcademyofManagementNationalMeeting.Boston.August.Erickson,F.(1986)Qualitativemethodsinresearchonteaching.InM.C.Whittock(Ed.)Handbookofresearchonteaching(3rd.Ed.).OldTappan,N.J.:Macmillan.Estabrooks,C.A.(2001)ResearchUtilizationandQualitativeResearch.InMorse,J.Swanson,J.andKuzel,A.(Ed’s.)TheNatureofQualitativeEvidence.ThousandOaks,California.SagePublications.Estabrooks,C.A.,Field,P.A.&Morse,J.M.(1994)Pearls,pith,andprovocation.Aggregatingqualitativefindings:Anapproachtotheorydevelopment.QualitativeHealthResearch.Vol.4No.4pp.503-511.Feagin,J.R.,Orum,A.M.,&Sjoberg,G.(Ed's.)(1991)ACaseStudyforthecasestudy.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress.Fetterman,D.M.(1989)Ethnographystepbystep.NewburyPark,CA:SagePublications.Fetterman,D.M.(1991)Editor’snotes.Usingqualitativemethodsininstitutionalresearch.Vol.72.Winter.p.1Forrester,J.W.(1961),Industrialdynamics.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.Forrester,J.W.(1968),Principlesofsystems.Cambridge,MA:WrightAllenPress.Glaser,B.G.(1978).Theoreticalsensitivity.MillValley,CA:SociologyPress.Glaser,B.G.(1994).Basicsofgroundedtheoryanalysis:Emergenceversusforcing.MillValley,CA:SociologyPress.Glaser,B.G.&Strauss,A.(1965)Awarenessofdying.Chicago:Aldine.Glaser,B.G.&Strauss,A.(1967)Thediscoveryofgroundedtheory.Chicago:Aldine.Greene,J.C.(1994)Qualitativeprogramevaluation:Practiceandpromise.InN.K.DenzinandY.S.Lincoln(1994)(Ed's.).Handbookofqualitativeresearch.ThousandOaks,California:SAGEPublications.Guba,E.G.&Lincoln,Y.S.(1981)Effectiveevaluation.SanFrancisco:JosseyBass.19 Harris,M.(1968)Theriseofananthropologicaltheory:Ahistoryoftheoriesofculture.NewYork:ThomasYCrowell.Harris,M.(1979)Culturalmaterialism:Thestruggleforascienceofculture.NewYork:RandomHouse.Headland,T.N.,Pike,L.,&Harris,M.(1990)(Ed’s.)Emicsandetics:Theinsider/outsiderdebate.FrontiersofAnthropology.Vol.7.NewburyParkCA:SagePublications.Hinds,P.&Young,K.(1987).Atriangulationofmethodsandparadigmstostudynurse-givenwellnesscare.NursingResearch.Vol.36No.3p.195.Holland,T.P.&Kilpatrick,A.C.(1991)Ethicalissuesinsocialwork:Towardagroundedtheoryofprofessionalethics.JournalofNationalAssociationofSocialWorkers.Vol.36.No.2.pp.138-144.Hutchinson,S.A.(1990)Educationandgroundedtheory.InSherman,R.&Webb,R.(Ed’s.)Qualitativeresearchineducation.Focusandmethods.NewYork:FalmerPress.Hutchinson,W.E.(1998)Bottomupthinking.Paperdeliveredatthe4thAnnualAustralianandNewZealandSystemsConferenceheldinSydney.pp.130-141.Jackson,M.C.(1982)Thenatureofsoftsystemsthinking:theworkofChurchman,Ackoff,andCheckland.JournalofAppliedSystemsAnalysis.Vol.9.pp.17-28.Jackson,M.C.(1987)Presentpositionsandfutureprospectsinmanagementscience.Omega.Vol.15.pp.455-466.Jackson,M.C.(1991)Systemsmethodologyforthemanagementsciences.NewYork:PlenumPublishing.Jackson,M.C.(1997)Towardscoherentpluralisminmanagementscience.PaperpresentedattheThirdAustraliaandNewZealandSystemsConferenceheldattheUniversityofQueensland(October1-4).Keeves,J.P.(1997)Modelsandmodelbuilding.InJ.P.Keeves(Ed.).Educationalresearch,methodology,andmeasurement:Aninternationalhandbook.Secondedition.Cambridge,UK:Pergamon.Keeves,J.P.,&Sowden,S.(1994)Descriptivedataanalysis.InT.Husen&H.Postlewaite(Ed’s)Internationalencyclopaediaofeducation.Cambridge,UK:Pergamon.Kenny,W.R.&Grotelueschen,A.D.(1980)Makingacaseforcasestudy.Occasionalpaper,OfficefortheStudyofContinuingProfessionalEducation.Urbana-Campaign.CollegeofEducation,UniversityofIllinois.20 Krieger,L.(1986)NegotiatinggenderroleexpectationsinCairo.InT.L.Whitehead&M.E.Conaway(Ed’s.)Self,Sex,andGenderinCross-CulturalFieldwork.pp.117-128.Urbana.UniversityofIllinoisPress.Langford,H.&Oliver,I.(1997)Wipingbloodoffthefloor!Understandingandmanagingtheemotionalchaosofchange.PaperpresentedattheThirdAustraliaandNewZealandSystemsConferenceheldattheUniversityofQueensland(October1-4).Laws,K.,Bailey,M.,Smith,D.,&McLeod,R.J.(1995)Wanttobeleaderforcedtobeboss:Adilemmaforcreativeschoolleaders.PaperpresentedattheACEAInternationalConferenceheldinSydneyJuly.Laws,K.&McLeod,R.J.(1996)Assistingeducationalinstitutionstobecomebetterlearningorganisations:somepreliminaryfindings.PaperpresentedattheSecondAustraliaandNewZealandSystemsConferenceLearningthroughSystemsThinking.MonashUniversityMelbourne.Laws,K.&McLeod,R.J.(1997)AssistingschoolstobecomebetterLearningOrganisations:somesuggestedmethodologies.PaperpresentedattheThirdAustraliaandNewZealandSystemsConferenceheldattheUniversityofQueensland(October1-4).Laws,K.&McLeod,R.J.(1998)Schools,organisationallearningandtheuseof“learninghistories”:Someresearchresults.Paperpresentedatthe4thAnnualAustraliaandNewZealandSystemsConferenceheldattheUniversityofWesternSydney.October7-10.LeCompte,M.D.,Preissle,J.,&Tesch,R.(1993)Ethnographyandqualitativedesignineducationalresearch.(2ndEd.)OrlandoFlorida:AcademicPress.Ledington,P.&Watson,D.(1998)Paradigminterplayandthedevelopmentofsystemsthinking.Paperdeliveredatthe4thAnnualAustralianandNewZealandSystemsConferenceheldinSydney.pp.156-171.Lijphart,A.(1971)Comparativepoliticsandthecomparativemethod.AmericanPoliticalScienceReview.Vol.65.pp.682-694.MacDonald,B.,&Walker,R.(1977)Casestudyandthesocialphilosophyofeducationalresearch.InD.Hamilton(Ed).BeyondtheNumbersgame.London:MacmllanEducation.Mathison,S.(1988)Whytriangulation?EducationalResearcher.Vol.17pp.13-17.Mason,J.(2002)ResearchingYourOwnPractice;TheDisciplineofNoticing.London.Routledge-Falmer21 McFee,G.(1992a)Reflectionsonthenatureofaction-research.CambridgeJournalofEducation.Vol.23.No.2.pp.173-185.McFee,G.(1992b)Triangulationinresearch:twoconfusions.EducationalResearch.Vol.34.No.3.pp.215-219.McLeod,R.(2002)AModelforCulturalChangeinSchools:AnEvaluationofSomeLearningOrganisationMethodologies.Apaperpresentedatthe20thInternationalConferenceoftheSystemsDynamicsSociety,PalermoItaly.Mehan,H.(1993)WhyIliketolook:Ontheuseofvideotapeasaninstrumentineducationalresearch.InM.Schartz(Ed.).QualitativeVoicesinEducationalResearch.pp.92-105.Merriam,S.B.(1998)Qualitativeresearchandcasestudyapplicationsineducation.SanFrancisco:Jossey-BassPublishers.Miles,M.B.&Huberman,A.M.(1994)Qualitativedataanalysis.2ndEd.ThousandOaks,California:SagePublications..Mingers,J.&Gill,A.(1997)(Ed’s.)Multimethodology:Towardsaframeworkforcriticalpluralism.Systemist.Vol.18No.3pp.101-132.Moore,D.T.(1986)Learningatwork:Casestudiesinnon-schooleducation.AnthropologyandEducationQuarterly.Vol.17.No.3.pp.166-184.Morse,J.M.(1991).Approachestoqualitative-quantitativemethodologicaltriangulation.NursingResearch.Vol.40.No.1.p.120.Morse,J.M.(1994)Emergingfromthedata.InJ.M.Morse(Ed.)CriticalIssuesinQualitativeResearchMethods.pp.23-43.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.Morse,J.M.&Richards,L.(2002)ReadmefirstforaUsersGuidetoQualitativeMethods.London.SagePublications.Olson,K.(2001)UsingQualitativeResearchinClinicalPractice.InMorse,J.Swanson,J.andKuzel,A.(Ed’s.)TheNatureofQualitativeEvidence.ThousandOaks,California.SagePublications.Page,C.&Meyer,D.(2000)AppliedResearchDesignforBusinessandManagement.Roseville,NSW.McGraw-HillBookCo.Parker,L.D.&Roffey,B.H.(1993)Backtothedrawingboard:Revisitinggroundedtheoryandtheeverydayaccountant’sreality.TheFlindersUniversityofSouthAustralia.Accounting,Finance,andManagementResearchPaper5/93.Patton,M.Q.(1987)Creativeevaluation.(2ndEd.)ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.Patton,M.Q.(1990)Qualitativeevaluationmethods.(2ndEd.)22 ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.Patton,M.Q.(1996)Utilization-focusedevaluation.(3rdEd.)ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.Pike,K.L.(1967)LanguageinRelationtotheunifiedtheoryofthestructureofhumanbehaviour.(2ndEd.)TheHague:Mouton.(1stEditionin3Vols.Glendale,California.SummerInstituteofLinguistics,1954,1955,1960.)Popkewitz,T.S.(1984)Paradigmandideologyineducationalresearch.Sussex:TheFalmerPress.Popkewitz,T.S.(1988)What’sinaresearchproject:Somethoughtsontheintersectionofhistory,socialstructure,andbiography.CurriculumInquiry.Vol.18.No.4.pp.379-400.Proudford,C.&Baker,R.(1994)Lookingatschoolimprovementfromacontextualperspective.SchoolOrganisation.Vol.14.No.1.pp.21-35.Reichardt,C.S.&Cook,T.D.(1979)Beyondqualitativeversusquantitativemethods.InT.D.CookandC.S.Reichardt(Ed’s).Qualitativeandquantitativemethodsinevaluationresearch.ThousandIslands,CA:SagePublications.Rennie,D.L.(1994)Clients’accountsofresistancetocounselling:Aqualitativeanalysis.CanadianJournalofCounselling.Vol.28No.1pp.43-57.Salner,M.(1998)Changesrequiredtobecomeasystemicpractitioner.Unpublishedpaperdeliveredatthe4thAnnualAustralianandNewZealandSystemsConferenceheldinSydney.Sanders,J.R.(1981)Casestudymethodology:Acritique.InW.W.Welsh(Ed.).Casestudymethodologyineducationalresearch.Proceedingsofthe1981MinnesotaEvaluationConference.Minnesota.MinnesotaResearchandEvaluationCentre.Sandstrom,A.R.&Sandstrom,P.E.(1995)Theuseandmisuseofanthropologicalmethodsinlibraryandinformationscienceresearch.TheLibraryQuarterly.Vol.65.No.2.pp.161-199.Schmuck,R.(Ed.)(2000)PracticalActionResearch:ACollectionofArticles.FrenchsForestNSW.HawkerBrownlowEducationSelsky,J.W.&Barton,J.(1998)Theopensystemsthinking(OST)school:Anexploratorycomparativeanalysis.Unpublishedpaperdeliveredatthe4thAnnualAustralianandNewZealandSystemsConferenceheldinSydney.Shavelson,R.J.(1988)Contributionsofeducationalresearchtopolicyandpractice:Constructing,challenging,changingcognition.EducationalResearcher.Vol.17.No.7.pp.4-11.Shaw,K.E.(1978)Understandingthecurriculum:Theapproach23 throughcasestudies.JournalofCurriculumStudies.Vol.10.No.1.pp.1-17Smith,L.M.(1978)Anevolvinglogicofparticipantobservation,educationalethnographyandothercasestudies.InL.Shulman(Ed.).Reviewofresearchineducation.Itasca,IL:Peacock.Stake,R.E.(1981)Casestudymethodology:Anepistemologyadvocacy.InW.W.Welsh(Ed.).Casestudymethodologyineducationalevaluation.Proceedingsofthe1981MinnesotaEvaluationConference.Minneapolis.MinnesotaResearchandEvaluationCentre.Stake,R.E.(1994)Casestudies.InN.K.Denzin&Y.S.Lincoln(Ed’s).Handbookofqualitativeresearch.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.Stake,R.E.(1995)Theartofcasestudyresearch.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.Stern,P.N.(1994)Erodinggroundedtheory.InJ.M.Morse(Ed.),Criticalissuesinqualitativeresearchmethods.pp.212-223.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.Strauss,A.(1967)Thediscoveryofgroundedtheory:Strategiesforqualitativeresearch.NewYork:AldinePublishing.Strauss,A.(1987)Qualitativeanalysisforsocialscientists.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.Strauss,A.L.&Corbin,J.(1990)Basicsofqualitativeresearch:Groundedtheoryproceduresandtechniques.ThousandOaks,CA:SagePublications.Strauss,A.L.&Corbin,J.(1994)Groundedtheorymethodology:Anoverview.InN.K.DenzinandY.S.Lincoln(Ed’s.).Handbookofqualitativeresearch.ThousandOaks.CA:SagePublications.Tierney,W.G.(1991)Utilisingethnographicinterviewstoenhanceacademicdecisionmaking.Newdirectionsforinstitutionalresearch.No.72WinterSpecialIssueEditedbyD.M.Fetterman.pp.7-21.Walker,R.(1993)Computeranalysisofqualitativedata:Acomparisonofthreepackages.QualitativeHealthResearch.Vol.3.No.1.pp.91-111.Wilson,S.(1979)Explorationsoftheusefulnessofcasestudyevaluations.EvaluationQuarterly.Vol.3.pp.446-459.Wilson,H.S.&Hutchinson,S.A.(1991)Pearls,pithandprovocation.Triangulationofqualitativemethods:Heideggerianhermenueticsandgroundedtheory.QualitativeHealthResearch.Vol.1.No.2.pp.263-276.Wolcott,H.F.(1992)Posturinginqualitativeinquiry.InM.D.24 LeCompte,W.Millroy,&J.Prissle(Ed’s)Thehandbookofqualitativeresearchineducation.ThousandIslandsCalifornia:SagePublications.Woods,P.(1986)Insideschools.NewYork:Routledge&KeganPaul.Woods,P.(1993)Respondingtotheconsumer:Parentalchoiceandschooleffectiveness.SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement.Vol.4.No.3.pp.205-229.Yin,R.K.(1991)Advancingrigorousmethodologies:Areviewof“towardsrigourinreviewsofmultivocalliteratures”.ReviewofEducationalResearch.Vol.61.No.3.pp.299-305.Yin,R.K.(1994)Casestudyresearch:Designandmethods.2ndEd.ThousandOaks,California:SagePublications.Young,P.D.(1993)Facetsofethnography:Practice,theoryandfiction.ReviewsinAnthropology.Vol.22.pp.115-125.Young,R.E.(1981)Astudyofteacherepistemologies.TheAustralianJournalofEducation.Vol.25.No.2.pp.299-305.Young,R.E.(1984)Ideologycritique:Necessarycomplementtoempiricalmeta-analysis.Discourse.Vol.4.No.2.25pp.52-58.Zuber-Skerritt,O.(1992)ProfessionalDevelopmentinHigherEducation.London.KoganPage.25