Uses of the case study:
· Tool for internal documentation (education)
· Tool for external use to help others learn from one institution’s experience
· Tool for external review/audit (evaluator)
· To identify areas of successes and document what people have done
· To tell a story
Issues and considerations discussed when thinking about
case studies:
· Want to make certain that they meet various people’s needs (i.e. ULSF, faculty researchers, practitioners, etc.)
· Must consider the applicability of case studies to various cultures and geographical areas
· If criteria are created, they must be adaptable to various situations
· Language should be considered in document (i.e. does the term “case story” have different connotations than the term “case study”)
· How can we ensure that all voices of the university/college are heard in the case?
· Must develop trust of the reader
· Must develop the trust of those we are asking to perform the case study
· How can tools such as ULSF’s SAQ be incorporated into the case study?
· Many different types of case studies (educative, political, economic, technical, etc.)
· Is it possible to give step-by-step instructions to someone on how to complete a case study?
Caveats of the process:
· Problems with subjectivity and objectivity
· Often can’t report the “dirt” and the personal battles of the process because of politics
· Institutions who write up their own cases tend to focus on the best practices and leave any negative aspects out of the report
Elements of the Case Study/Story:
· There is a perceived need for a framework for telling the story
· There is also a need for critical analysis; thus the outcome could be some combination of case study and case story
· Emphasis should be on the process rather than the outcome
· Elements would include the following:
a) How did the process start?
b) Who initiated the process?
c) A discussion of the heuristic approach
d) What resources (time, human, money, etc.) were made available? From whom?
e) How has the initiative been received?
f) Who participated? Who did not?
g) Is the story known in the university/college community?
h) How has it been validated (formal and informal processes, i.e. change in mission statement, in catalogue, committees, coffee talks, etc.)?
i) Analysis of validation (perhaps apply the 7 SAQ criteria/facets)
j) Challenges: What roadblocks were encountered along the way? How were they overcome? What worked? What didn’t work?
k) Analysis of why the initiative succeeded and/or failed
Another topic of discussion:
Rationale and capacity for an “action research” methodology for sustainability in higher education.
Need: Stakeholder inquiry
Working group recommendations:
· Issue should be examined further and a more developed profile of a case study should be created
· A better understanding of how Action Research fits into the development of case studies is necessary
· A better understanding of the rationale for a case study should be created
Participants:
Peter Blaze Corcoran
John Glyphis
Tarah Wright
Dieter Hessel
Kim Walker
Prepared by Tarah Wright
Edited by Wynn Calder