When we Should Use Field Cases

We can use field cases to investigate “when (1) a large variety of factors and relationships are included, (2) no basic laws exist to determine which factors and relationships are important, and (3) when the factors and relationships can be directly observed” (Fidel, 1984, p. 273).

Both business and sports are often good areas to use case research, as all three of those characteristics - multiple factors, unknown factorial importance and observation potential - tend to be present.

As a teacher of leadership, there are some unique characteristics about sport leadership that makes the use of cases particularly useful. For example, a key aspect of sports leadership is cohesion, which is dependent upon player and coach relationships... tick each of multiple factors, unknown factorial importance and observation potential (Carron & Chelladurai, 1981). Further, a common theme of effective leadership is the “positive impact that individuals can have on group dynamics relative to a team objective” (Loehr, 2005, p.155), repeating the same three factors as Fidel mentioned (1984). Player and coach interpersonal dynamics are complex; managers may inadvertently create problems due to not understanding the player perspective, and be unable to communicate effectively (Bloom et al., 1998; Martens, 1990). The same three factors - complexity, lack of rules, and direct observation (Fidel, 1984) - remain present.

Explaining these variables - and showing the complex relationships between them - becomes much easier when we use a field case to tell the story (Fidel, 1984). We can later strip field cases down to descriptive cases, and use them to teach the principles to others. However, the use of field cases is not only relevant to sport: business management and leadership in any field are equally suited to exploration using this narrative technique.

Nothing like recycling :-)

Sam

References:

Bloom, G. A., Schinke, R. J., & Salmela, J. H. (1998). Assessing the development of perceived communication skills by elite basketball coaches and athletes. Coaching and Sport Science Journal, 2(3), 3-10.

Carron, A. V., & Chelladurai, P. (1981). Cohesiveness as a Factor in Sport Performance. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 16(2), 21-43.

Chelladurai, P. (2006). Human Resource Management in Sport and Recreation (2nd ed.). Human Kinetics.

Crust, L., & Lawrence, I. (2006). A Review of Leadership in Sport: Implications for Football Management. Athletic Insight, 8(4), 28-48.

Fidel, R. (1984). The case study method: a case study. Library and Information Science Research (LISR), 6, 273-288.

Loehr, J. (2005). Leadership: Full engagement for success. In S. M. Murphy (Ed.), The Sports Psych Handbook (pp. 155-170). Human Kinetics.

Martens, R. (1990). Successful Coaching. Leisure Press.

read more "When we Should Use Field Cases"

Construction of Field Cases

You need to have some idea of what theories you will use to explore the world of your case study as you start to write it up. The theories that you use to underpin your case will provide a ‘lens’ to analyse your case with, benchmarks for you to see where the case fits what is known, and where it doesn’t (De Vaus, 2001).

For writing up research reports and articles, the case portion of your work replaces the findings or results section of your research. Your literature review is completed as normal, and your discussion is also approached as normal, tying together your case (aka findings) and your literature review, exploring the meaning in what you have found.

When it comes to constructing field cases, using some simple structures to help the reader make sense of your narrative will benefit your storytelling. Those structures are:

• Introduction: short introductory paragraph outlining the context of the case itself
  
• Body: the story you are telling, broken down into logical chunks which build on each other to form a complete and compelling story. Use sub-headings to guide the reader, models, tables and images to help the reader understand the situation and the players. Tell the story simply, with strong, clear language. Tell your story with ‘flavour’. Hansen suggests that the central characters in our cases should be seen as people, with personalities, tone and feel consistent with the words and images we portray in the case. Use the voices of your protagonists (ie, quotes from your interviews or from what others have said about them), so we 'hear' them speaking. She provides an example (Barnes, Hansen, & Christensen, 1994, p. 268): 

• “Professor Sylvia Mangrove was an unconventional, creative person who claimed to welcome spontaneity in the classroom but actually feared it”
  
  OR

  “Professor Sylvia Mangrove disentangled her orange cape from her ‘Down with Authority' button and turned in the direction of the cheerful whistle that had rent the stillness of her Economics 243 classroom, but her anticipatory smile froze when she read the crudely lettered political slogan Lawrence Wingford waved. She had warned her students not to depart from the syllabus. The rest of the class began to cough with embarrassment.”

• Conclusion: summarise what you have related in the body, re-emphasising the key takeaways for the reader. Tie off loose ends.

Re-read your case and check that all salient points are present. Ensure that your story flows. Have others read it so you know that your writing is engaging.

Polish, refine, remove redundant words and duplication (such as "Collectively, together we..."). This editing process is time-consuming, but it is worth it: the result will be tighter, clearer and have more punch. As Blaise Pascal once wrote, "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time" (1656).

Take the time :-)


Sam

References:

• De Vaus, D. A. (2001). Research Design in Social Design. USA: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Pascal, Blaise (1656). Provincial Letters: Letter XVI: I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time. Retreived 17 July 2015 from https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Blaise_Pascal  
• Vega, P. G. (2012). How important is a teaching note? What should be in a teaching note? USA: Bertolon School of Business, Salem State University & Case Centre (formerly ECCH). Retrieved 1 November 2012 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL-oqpACENU&feature=player_embedded.

read more "Construction of Field Cases"

Field Case Research Approaches

(Young, 2015, p. 16)

I found that there were four key research approaches to undertake field case research. They are: 

1. Descriptive: “narrative accounts […with] careful analysis”, no judgement, but simply describing what exists (Bassey, 1999, p. 58). This type of case just tells a story with no other construction: no explanation, no theory, no judgement.
2. Explanatory: “explanations […of] causal or structural patterns” Stenhouse (1985, p. 50, as cited by Bassey, 1999, pp. 27-28) called this ‘ethnographic’. I prefer the simpler title of explanatory research. This type of case tells the story and explains what has happened and why.
3. Theory-oriented: “particular studies of general issues” leading to “fuzzy generalizations” (Bassey, 1999, p. 58). This is the pool which grounded theory or action research springs from. This type of case tells a story, explains what has happened and why, and then comes up with a theory.
4. Evaluative: a case or cases explored to provide a value judgement on the soundness of the participants’ or evaluators’ processes, resourcing or organisations, judging “the merit and worth” (Stenhouse, 1985, p. 50, as cited by Bassey, 1999, p. 28). This type of case tells a story, explains what has happened and why, and makes a judgement as to how effective the outcomes were.

You need to think clearly about what your outcome needs to be before you start. If you think you will end up with a theory, then you need to undertake theory-oriented case research; if you want to evaluate something, then go for evaluative case research.

Being clear about your starting point and your research approach – your research philosophy, effectively – will make all your research choices and writing up much easier.
Although you will not be creating a teaching case, you can see by the diagram above that certain research approaches and teaching cases fit easily together to achieve the researcher’s desired outcome.

Be consistent and match your research approach to the outcome you are aiming for.


Sam

References:

• Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. UK: Open University Press.
• Young, S. J. (2014). Making Cases Impactful: a comparison of teaching methods. New Zealand: University of Auckland Master Thesis. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/A49CV

read more "Field Case Research Approaches"

Teaching Cases as Academic Writing

So what is a case study? The definition I have compiled (if anyone wants my sources and argument for this, drop me an email) is they are stories with discrete and definable boundaries, are set in fact and contextualised. They are future-focused tools created to guide, teach, anchor theory and illuminate decisions. They are created from scholarly, triangulated, generalisable, logically-structured research which reflects society’s changing mores and the time they were written in.

That defines both teaching and field cases. Field (aka 'Research') cases are viewed as academic research. However, teaching case often are not.

In my view, developing and writing teaching cases should treated as academic writing by lecturers, and tackled in the same rigourous, planned, balanced, systematic and underpinned by theory way that we tackle any research. They must include a bibliography of sources so users can establish how you have established generalisability, reliability and validity; and how you have minimised bias. If your institution recognises researching and writing teaching cases as an academic output in addition, then that is a bonus.

As some of you will know, I am currently doing some research into case writing and teaching. Field cases and teaching cases are quite closely related, but their structure and typology depends on 'where we think from'. As a researcher in the field, we think about our research method; as a teacher of cases we think about both our research method and our teaching method; as a student of cases we think about our learning outcomes. In other words, we seek the 'what's in it for me' (WIIFM) from each starting point; when wearing our respective hats.

Interestingly, I have found that surprisingly few 'how to' writers of teaching case methods in the literature have written about learning outcomes. I try to always put the customer first: how can I be sure my learner will learn best? What else can I do to help convey the message clearly?

I think that if we writers of teaching cases think clearly about our research method, then our teaching method, then our desired learning outcomes, we will not only tell a better story, we will create a much more robust teaching case.

And learners will learn better ;-D


References:

• The Case Centre (2011). Research vs. Teaching – achieving synergies with cases. Retrieved 14 October 2013 from http://www.thecasecentre.org/educators/casemethod/resources/features/rvt
• Goldsmith, Hayley (8 September 2011). Research vs. Teaching – achieving synergies with cases. Retrieved 14 October 2013 from http://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=&gid=102523&type=member&item=69706520&commentID=5795230766619185152&goback=.gmr_102523&report.success=8ULbKyXO6NDvmoK7o030UNOYGZKrvdhBhypZ_w8EpQrrQI-BBjkmxwkEOwBjLE28YyDIxcyEO7_TA_giuRN#commentID_5795230766619185152

Sam

read more "Teaching Cases as Academic Writing"