The researcher, in selecting a methodology, must choose one appropriate to the issue under investigation, and which should also be congruent with the philosophical and theoretical frameworks within which they are operating. The case study accommodates a range of research paradigms, disciplines and philosophical perspectives (Merriam 1988), although few definitive procedures and protocols exist for undertaking them. A variety of data collection and analytic techniques, not necessarily confined to qualitative research, may be selected according to the relevance the researcher sees them as having to the study (Powers & Knapp 1990). This does not imply that one can simply group together any collection of data gathering and analytic techniques and claim to have a rigorous case study, but the methods must be carefully considered in light of all aspects of the study. This chapter discusses the choice of the case study approach, indicating its appropriateness for this case.
The case study approach has major advantages for research into nursing, and on new phenomena, by allowing retention of "the holistic meaningful characteristics of real-life events" (Yin 1989:14). This view is supported by Hutchinson (1990), Treece & Treece (1986), and Robson (1993), while Merriam (1988) and Stake (1994) discuss the interlinking of variables and their context-specificity in such research. Mason (1991:111) describes it as "unashamedly particularistic and descriptive...aiming to present the experience of the individual's world". Knowledge gained from case study research is deemed different from other research knowledge in four fundamental ways:
While numerous definitions of the case study are available (Merriam 1988, Robson 1993, Treece & Treece 1986), the most complete is that offered by Yin (1989:23), describing it as:
- grounded in real-life experience, it is concrete and sensory, rather than abstract
- it is more contextual
- it is dependent on reader interpretation for its development
- the reader, rather than the researcher, determines the extent of generalisation (Stake 1981).
an empirical inquiry that: - investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when - the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which - multiple sources of evidence are used.There are no widely accepted designs for studying CMC discourse, except that many previous analyses of CMC have examined artificial, experimental situations, rather than a vital community of interacting individuals (Sullivan 1993, Walther 1992).While searching the literature on CMC, it became apparent that Robin Mason's (1989) PhD thesis, investigating the use of computer conferencing within the Open University, provided a useful model. Within a paradigm of "interpretative, naturalistic philosophy", Mason (1989:89) used both qualitative materials (interview data, observation of interactions and conference content) and quantitative data (user-generated statistics, surveys and the course database) to provide a detailed analysis of a phenomenon that had not previously been studied using such a combination of methods, or within such an explicitly stated philosophical framework. In similar manner, this study uses an essentially interpretive approach, concerned with emic rather than etic approaches to experience and interpretation (Powers & Knapp 1990).
Within the constraints of this study, it is neither feasible nor appropriate to replicate Mason's (1989) method completely. Essentially qualitative analytic methods are used to discuss the data, but with some illustrative use made of statistics on numbers of subscribers/users, geographic spread, messages per day etc. The overall philosophical and methodological approaches are congruent with the interpretive or naturalistic paradigm (Lincoln & Guba 1985). This incorporates an ontological assumption that multiple, holistic realities are socially constructed within discourse, wherein epistemologically the researcher and researched are necessarily inseparable and interactive (Cresswell 1994). Idiographic (time and context-bound) as opposed to nomothetic research questions are appropriate, and the inquiry is of necessity value-laden. Analysis is interwoven with all other aspects of the process in qualitative research (Bryman & Burgess 1994).
The study is an examination of a "contemporary phenomenon in its real-life
context" (Waggoner 1991:142). Within Stake's (1994) categorisation, it
would be termed "intrinsic", and it is undertaken not to represent other
cases or to illuminate generalisations, but because of its specificity
and interest as an entity in its own right (Stake 1994).
The case can be defined in many ways, depending on the focus and approach adopted by the researcher (Stake 1994). Merriam (1988:46) asserts that the "focus of research in a case study is on one unit of analysis. There may be numerous events, participants, or phases of a process subsumed under the unit." Here, therefore, the case (unit of analysis) is the Nursenet list, but within it, both subscribers and messages (events etc.) will be investigated (Sullivan 1993).
Even within a case as well-defined as the Nursenet list, which can be precisely determined in terms of who the subscribers are and the total message archives, it is impossible to examine the whole. A particular corpus of messages was selected, together with information about the list and data from interviews with a small number of subscribers. No claim is made that the findings from this case can be extrapolated to other nursing lists or to non-nursing lists, nor that the corpus is necessarily representative of the whole archive of the list. As Derrida (1978/1988:118) states:
a] what uses do nurses make of CMC
b] can discourse analysis be effectively used to investigate that use, and
c] what can a discourse analysis of CMC tell us about the current theory and practice of nursing, as seen by the nurses using CMC?
It became apparent, while investigating the resources available to nurses using CMC and the Internet and the existing literature, that the questions would need to be modified, and some new questions might be more appropriate. One new issue was that of undertaking interviews via e-mail. It also became apparent that the nurses using the Internet would probably not be typical of nurses in general, and it would be necessary to narrow the focus of the inquiry to the use of a particular aspect of the Internet, i.e. a nursing listserver, and to investigating the actual interactions of a group of nurses via this medium. The following series of research questions was adopted:
1. what types of nurses do actually use the list?
2. is e-mail a viable means of interviewing within a qualitative research study?
3. can an analysis using Fairclough's social theory of discourse be applied to nursing list messages?
4. do different genres exist within nursing CMC?
5. what insights into nursing can be gained from a study of this form of communication?
In order to answer questions 1 and 2, and in part number 5, information from the list itself was obtained, supplemented by interviews conducted with a number of subscribers, using a semi-structured interview technique. These are discussed in Chapters 6.2 and 6.3.
Question 3 and 4, and in part number 5, were addressed using a DA of
two days' messages from the list, but prior and subsequent messages also
had to be consulted as part of understanding the particular messages analysed
and their context. These data are chosen to be "illustrative rather than
representative" (Silverman 1993:121), and are discussed in Chapters
6.4 and 6.5.
Discourse analysis (DA) has developed from within several disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, psychology and literary and critical theories (Potter & Wetherell 1994, Schiffrin 1994). In light of this diversity, various approaches and methods have developed, each owing allegiance in greater part to their originating disciplines and philosophical frameworks. There is no "single unitary entity" (Burman & Parker 1993:3) of either discourse or DA, and it may be approached in a variety of ways depending on the specific project undertaken (Fairclough 1992).
The approaches to discourse and DA adopted by Burman & Parker (1993), and by Fairclough (1989, 1992), are congruent with the poststructuralist frameworks within which they are based, involving "attention to the ways in which language...does more than reflect what it represents, with the corresponding implication that meanings are multiple and shifting, rather than unitary and fixed" (Burman & Parker 1993:3).
The particular method used within this study is Fairclough's (1992), based on his 'social theory of discourse', and drawing heavily on the work of the French philosopher Michel Foucault (1972, 1979, 1981). Fairclough (1992) sees discursive practices as being inseparable from the social practices within which they exist, thus it is necessary to examine not simply the text of the discourse, but also the social practice. This general approach, recognising the importance of considering both linguistic and extralinguistic elements, is gaining increasing acceptance (Todorov 1983).
Fairclough sees discourse as constructing, not merely reflecting, the social world. His "three-dimensional conception of discourse" (Fairclough 1992:72), brings together three indispensable aspects, i.e. textual and conversational analysis, 'macro' level sociological analysis of the broad social practice, and a 'micro' level sociological perspective, based on an interpretivist analysis of discursive practice (Figure 5.1). His approach to both DA, and discourse generally, integrate "aspects of a Foucaultian view of discourse and a Bakhtinian emphasis on intertextuality: the former includes the vital emphasis upon the socially constructive properties of discourse, the latter emphasises the 'texture'...of texts and their composition from snatches of other texts".
What this means in practical terms for the analysis is outlined below, in relation to the text, the discursive practice, and the social practice, but will be examined in more detail in Chapter 6, where examples of the corpus are analysed. Fairclough (1992) emphasises that, whether the analyst starts from examination of the text and then proceeds to consider the social practice, or vice versa, depends upon the particular study and its purposes and focus.
Figure 5.1 Fairclough's three-dimensional conception of discourse (adapted
from Fairclough (1992:73)).
|
-----------
|SOCIAL |
------------------------
PRACTICE |
------------------------ | ------------------------ | --------------
| |
| | | ------------------------
| DISCURSIVE |
------------------------
PRACTICE |
------------------------
| |
| |
| |
| | |
------------------------
| TEXT | ------------------------ |
|
| | |
||
| | (production, | distribution, | consumption) | | ||
| |------------------------ | ------------------------- | -----------------------| |
In examining the discourse practice, issues that might be addressed include interdiscursivity, intertextual chains and manifest intertextuality, coherence, and the conditions of the discourse practice. Interdiscursivity examines the types of discourse or genres present in the corpus, while intertextuality addresses such issues as the constitution of the analysed text from other sources (Fairclough 1992). Coherence considers whether texts make sense and how they are interpreted by readers, while investigation of the conditions of discourse practice must address the production and consumption of the text.
Close examination of the text is the second necessary part of the analysis. Within the wide variety of approaches subsumed under the category of "linguistic", Fairclough's (1992) method is not so much concerned with grammatical structure as with ethnomethodological analyses of text structure. It is more important to consider the organisation of interactions, including turn-taking rules, levels of co-operation in formulating the interactions, and issues of symmetry or asymmetry of power in the construction of utterances. The cohesion and structure of the text may be considered, addressing aspects such as ellipsis and lexicality, and politeness strategies may be examined. A number of grammatical aspects, such as modality, may also be analysed, and the text examined for use of metaphor or irony.
Analysis of the social practice seeks to address the wider social world of which the discursive practice is a part. It may therefore address issues of the political and ideological effects of the discourse, including social relations, social identity and knowledge or belief systems, as well as the questions of whether the discourse is conventional or radical, and whether it supports or transforms the structures of which it is a part.
It is not possible here to provide a detailed analysis of the corpus from every perspective suggested by Fairclough. Arising from my experience of participating in CMC, and following an initial examination of the corpus, I decided to focus on a selection of issues that seemed important given the nature of this corpus. Had a different corpus been selected, other issues might have had greater importance.
I chose to illustrate the discourse practice by addressing the identification
of genres within the corpus, the presence and form of intertextual chains,
and a variety of 'discourse practice conditions'. In close analysis of
the text I felt it would be most beneficial to consider politeness strategies
(including face-saving and repair), interactional control, and modality
within the messages. The social practice is addressed mainly in respect
of power and ideology, taking into account the dual nature of the social
practice, i.e. nursing and CMC. In order to avoid extensive repetition
of material, explanation of how each of these aspects of the analysis is
undertaken is given in detail in the appropriate section of Chapter 6.5
(analysis of the corpus).
One can question whether the term 'analysis' is appropriate for qualitative research generally, and discourse analysis in particular, given its association with a distinct set of procedures deriving from the discourse on quantitative methods (Bryman & Burgess 1994). Many schooled within the positivist research tradition are unable or unwilling to acknowledge the variety of research paradigms, each with their unique contributions to the development of knowledge, and see issues of rigour, validity and generalisability as problematic within qualitative, interpretivist approaches to research (Denzin & Lincoln 1994, Merriam 1993). They see the positivist paradigm as having primacy, and assert that all other approaches must be measured by the same criteria. It is now, however, suggested that the transference of these concepts from quantitative research is theoretically and methodologically flawed (Janesick 1994), not least because it is incongruent to suggest that, within an approach to research that questions the notion of any single, 'correct' interpretation, validity can have the same meaning as in positivistic research. It is also important to note that recent developments in the philosophy of science, for example the contributions of Kuhn (1970), Laudan (1977) and Feyerabend (1978), question the true objectivity of positivist approaches to the development of scientific knowledge.
The stance adopted in this study is that suggested by Janesick (1994), Mason (1989), and Merriam (1993), who believe that validity in qualitative research is concerned with whether the work presents a recognisable description or credible explanation of phenomena. The reader of the work must then assess the transferability of the findings. Generalisability, as viewed within the positivist paradigm, is an inadequate concept within a research approach that values the particular, unique aspects of individuals' life experiences examined in case studies (Cresswell 1994), thus "reliability in the traditional sense of replicability is pointless" (Janesick 1994:217). Cresswell (1994) asserts that, by providing clear statements about the researcher's central assumptions, biases and values, as I have within this study, and information on the selection of the data interpreted, the possibilities for replication in similar contexts are enhanced.
This does not mean that qualitative approaches lack rigour (Janesick
1994), but that this concept also is viewed differently. While positivist
research sees rigour as related to objectivity, a postmodern approach to
qualitative research values subjectivity, equating rigour with believability
and trustworthiness (Zyzanski et al 1992), dependability and confirmability
(Denzin & Lincoln 1994). Rigour is concerned with "fidelity to the
spirit of qualitative work" (Sandelowski 1993:2), rather than mechanistic
adherence to a set of rules or criteria; determination of a researcher's
accuracy of interpretation becomes more a moral and theoretical consideration.
Ownership of communicative output is one of several issues that are continually evolving as the use and nature of CMC change. These problems are particularly compounded by the fact that much of the communication is across national boundaries, each of which may have their own peculiarities of copyright and other legislation (Krol 1993). As technological change and CMC continue to evolve faster than laws (Cavazos & Morin 1994), lawyers currently "will throw up their hands" (Krol 1993:34) when asked whose permission is needed to copy or use an e-mail message.
Ethical questions around research into CMC are fraught with similar unresolved questions. The current general opinion is that "it is common practice to consider anything posted to any list or newsgroup as public information, although one should be cautious that no-one is harmed" (Norris 1994). Similar views were expressed by interviewees whom I contacted to seek their opinions on, and permission for, citing of materials.
Howard (1993) has discussed the guidelines used in quoting 'public' e-mail messages in his research, justifying his approach by stating that completing the study and then going back to seek permission to quote was both labour-intensive and inefficient. To overcome the problems, he decided not to seek authors' specific permission, but to:
a] never use real names or e-mail addresses,In this study, I have adopted the current convention of treating messages to the list as within the public domain, and use Howard's guidelines as above (unless specifically otherwise indicated), but took the additional precaution of posting a message to the list indicating my intentions and inviting anyone who did not wish to be quoted to state such. No messages were received denying permission.
b] either quote a series of messages to allow the reader to establish the context, or to provide a narrative context for messages,
c] not quote messages exploring work in progress,
d] delete references to any events whereby the author's identity could be established.
Copyright: Peter J. Murray 1996, 1997, 2000
Click here to return to différance, Peter Murray's Home page
Created and maintained by: Peter Murray
E-mail: peter@nursing-informatics.net
Last updated 23 June 2000 (contact email address changed; previous address
on longer valid; previous job affiliation deleted)
Previous update: 21 June 1997 (design only changed; substantive text unaltered)