Within the broader qualitative research methodology, the researcher used a case study approach and focused on a single case—Makerere University. Case study research, Simons (2009) observes, can be broadly defined as a “process of conducting systematic, critical inquiry into a phenomenon of choice and generating understanding to contribute to cumulative public knowledge of the topic” (p. 18). The basic idea is, as Punch (2005) observes, that one case—for example, a particular situation, event, programme, or phenomenon (or perhaps a small number of cases)—will be studied in detail, using whatever methods are deemed appropriate, with the general objective of developing as full an understanding of that case or those cases as possible. Accordingly, case studies are not uniform; they can be differentiated based on the purpose or focus of each study. Stake (1995), for instance, categorises case studies into three types: intrinsic, instrumental and collective case studies.
In intrinsic case studies, researchers choose cases because they want to learn about those particular cases, not the other cases or some general problem. In an instrumental case study, a researcher chooses a case to explore a research question, to gain insight, or to develop a general understanding based on ground(s) other than the case itself. In a collective case study, a researcher studies several cases to understand an issue or a question (Stake, 1995). Merriam (1988) also categorises case studies into three types: descriptive, interpretive and evaluative. Descriptive case studies are entirely descriptive—they present
detailed accounts of the phenomena being studied and move in a theoretical vacuum.
They emphasise description over theory building or hypothesising. Such studies are useful in providing information about areas in which minimal research has been conducted.
Interpretive case studies also emphasise the description of data but use the data to develop conceptual categories or to illustrate, support and/or challenge theoretical assumptions held prior to the study. Evaluative case studies involve description, explanation and judgment (Merriam, 1988, pp. 27–28). These categories are not mutually exclusive; a case study can be instrumental and interpretive at the same time.
Case study research, then, is a research-based and evidence-led approach that encompasses different research methods with the aim of generating an “in-depth understanding of a specific topic (as in a thesis), programme, policy, institution or system to generate knowledge and/or inform policy development, professional practice and civil or community action” (Simons, 2009, p. 21). Qualitative case studies, then, can be described as follows:
1. Particularistic – they focus on a particular situation, event, program, or phenomenon.
The case itself is important for what it reveals about the phenomenon and for what it might represent;
2. Descriptive – the end product of case study research is rich, “thick” description [that is], the complete, literal description of the incident or entity being investigated;
3. Heuristic – case studies illuminate the reader’s understanding of the phenomenon under study. They can bring about the discovery of new meaning, extend the reader’s experience, or confirm what is known. (Merriam, 1988, pp. 11–13.)
The purpose of using a qualitative case study approach, then, is to explore and understand the complexity of the case(s), which, for the most part is/are appealing for its/their particularity/
uniqueness or its/their commonality (Simons, 2009; Stake, 1995). Nonetheless, references are often made to other cases.
3.2.1 Case selection
Within every study, including this one, “there probably exist numerous sites that could be visited, events or activities that could be observed, people who could be interviewed, documents that could be read” (Merriam, 1998, p. 60); hence, researchers must consider where to observe, and in this case, which institution to focus on. For this study, being an instrumental case study focusing on a single case, the selection of the case was based on a single criterion, explicit institutional acknowledgement of the TM as a core function of the university. The selection of the case, then, was performed using a purposive sampling technique (Patton, 2002; Ritchie, Lewis, & Elam, 2003) or criterion sampling (Patton, 2002)—that is, “the selection was done in a deliberate way, with some purpose or focus [the criterion mentioned above] in mind” (Punch 2005, p. 187).
3.2.2 Appropriateness of the qualitative case study approach
By virtue of its characteristics (discussed in Section 3.2), the case study, just like other research approaches, is appropriate for some, but not all, studies. For this reason, it is imperative to examine the appropriateness of the case study approach for this study. One of the strengths of case studies, particularly those using qualitative research methods, is that they enable researchers to study in detail the experience and complexity of programmes and policies and to interpret the precise socio-political contexts in which the policies and programmes are enacted (Simons, 2009). In addition, they enable researchers to document multiple perspectives, to explore contested viewpoints and to demonstrate the influence of key actors and interactions between them in telling a story of the programme or policy in action.
Thus, through the careful description, documentation and interpretation of events as they emerge, case studies uncover huge data sets that are crucial to exploring, understanding, implementing and evaluating programmes and policies. Importantly, the case study is also a flexible approach; it allows for shifts in focus and unanticipated changes in the study and permits researchers to use a wide range of research methods (e.g., interviewing, document reviews), as is the case herein. Nonetheless, there are concerns about the appropriateness of the case study approach.
The first concern is that case studies often contain substantial masses of data that may be difficult or impossible to summarise into scientific formulae, general propositions and theories (Flyvbjerg, 2004); reports that are too long and detailed to read; and narratives that over-persuade (Simons, 2009). However, as Flyvbjerg (2004) observes, “thick and hard-to-summarise narrative is not a problem; rather, it is often a sign that the study has uncovered a particularly rich problematic” (p. 430). In addition, by using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS)—for example, the use of NVivo 10 herein—a case study researcher can manage all the data sets, including their sources and contexts, and consequently theorise without necessarily summarising the data.
The question, then, is whether summarising and generalising, which the critics of the case study regard as ideal practices, are always desirable (Flyvbjerg, 2004). The second criticism relates to the personal involvement and/or subjectivity of the researcher—that the approach is biased towards verification of researchers’ preconceived notions (Flyvbjerg, 2004; Simons, 2009). Although the above claim is erroneous, it reminds qualitative case researchers that they should always be meticulous—that is, report how decisions are made, use multiple methods and communicate the research process clearly so that their subjectivity can be monitored. The third concern is that the case study approach cannot contribute to scientific development—that is, researchers cannot generalise and draw inferences from individual cases. However, Flyvbjerg (2004) stresses that formal generalisation, based on either large samples or single cases, is considerably overrated as the main source of scientific progress,
That knowledge cannot be formally generalized does not mean that it cannot enter into the collective process of knowledge accumulation in a given field or in a society. A purely descriptive, phenomenological case study without any attempt to generalize can certainly be of value in this process and has often helped cut a path towards scientific innovation. (Flyvbjerg, 2004, p. 424.)
In addition, in many situations in which the case study approach is used, formal generalisation is not the aim; the aim is “particularization—to present a rich portrayal of a single setting to inform practice, establish the value of the case and/or add knowledge of a specific topic” (Simons, 2009, p. 24). Besides, although one cannot generalise from single cases or very small samples, one can learn a great deal from them and possibly make inferences that are applicable to other contexts (Patton, 2002) even though such inferences cannot be stated as generalisations as in random sample surveys (Simons, 2009).
Although the above-mentioned concerns are not necessarily limitations of the qualitative case study approach, discussing them helps qualitative case study researchers to understand what case study research embraces, examine the appropriateness of the approach to their studies and avoid compromising the quality of their studies. Thus, based on the fact that this study focuses on insight, discovery and interpretation—rather than hypothesis testing and measurement—the qualitative case study was deemed the most appropriate approach largely because of its flexibility and support for details.