CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 93Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Comparative Analysis ResearchQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

Practical considerations in case study research: the relationship between methodology and process

McDonnell, Ann, Jones, Myfanwy Lloyd, Read, Susan·2000·Journal of Advanced Nursing
DOI 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01487.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper explores the extent to which the design of a research study is influenced by pragmatic as well as theoretical considerations by describing the authors' experience of conducting multiple case studies in the context of a policy-orientated research project. The case studies in question formed part of a collaborative project exploring the development of innovative roles in nursing and the professions allied to medicine. The researchers adopted Yin's approach to the conduct of multiple case studies to explore issues relating to the effectiveness of new roles, their resource implications and educational issues surrounding their development. They address the fact that methodological decisions have practical implications and also explore the effects of practical and ethical issues on research design. Three purposively selected acute National Health Service Trust hospitals in England formed the case study sites for the work recorded in this paper. In each Trust, three nursing roles were selected, making nine cases for study. A variety of data collection strategies were used including semi-structured interviews with post-holders and other stakeholders (n = 51), non-participant observation of meetings, collection of audit, financial and statistical data and review of relevant documentation. This paper describes some of the dilemmas which arose during the course of the study, the rationale for methodological decisions taken to resolve these dilemmas and the steps taken to enhance rigour. In particular, the authors discuss the problems associated with obtaining informed consent in the context of qualitative research and with member validation of transcripts in a context where confidentiality was crucial. The decision to present findings thematically rather than as individual cases is justified both in terms of the nature and purpose of the research and in relation to the particular importance of anonymity and confidentiality in this study. Finally, the degree of reciprocity between researcher and researched is discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01487.x

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Case study methods have been seen to be more robust when theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis have been previously developed.

    “Of relevance in the RAPPORT study, and discussed in the following sections, is that case study methods have been seen to be more robust when theoretical propositions to guide data collection and analysis have been previously developed.136”

    From ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation – the RAPPORT study (2015) · cites this paper as [136]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McDonnell, A., Jones, M. L., & Read, S.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
ORCID
McDonnell, Ann
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-08
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
383-390
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
DOI
10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01487.x
OpenAlex
W2154909035
Cited by
93
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
9.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 511 d)
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • SHURA (Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive) (Sheffield Hallam University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
nursing role, research ethics, informed consent, confidentiality, scientific rigor, National Health Service hospitals, policy-oriented research
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Confidentiality, Data Collection, England, Humans, Informed Consent, Job Description, Nursing Staff, Hospital, Organizational Innovation, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Research Personnel, State Medicine, Nursing Research, Organizational Case Studies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review