ethnographic study vs case study

Case Study vs. Ethnography

What's the difference.

Case study and ethnography are both research methods used in social sciences to gain a deeper understanding of a particular phenomenon or group of people. However, they differ in their approach and focus. A case study typically involves an in-depth examination of a single individual, group, or event, aiming to provide a detailed analysis of a specific situation. On the other hand, ethnography involves immersing oneself in a particular culture or community over an extended period, observing and interacting with its members to understand their beliefs, behaviors, and social dynamics. While case studies provide detailed insights into specific cases, ethnography offers a broader understanding of the cultural context and social interactions within a community.

Further Detail

Introduction.

Case study and ethnography are two research methods commonly used in social sciences and other fields to gain a deeper understanding of a particular phenomenon or group of people. While both methods aim to provide rich and detailed insights, they differ in their approach, scope, and data collection techniques. In this article, we will explore the attributes of case study and ethnography, highlighting their similarities and differences.

Definition and Purpose

Case study is a research method that involves an in-depth examination of a specific individual, group, or event. It aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of a particular case, often focusing on a unique or rare occurrence. On the other hand, ethnography is a qualitative research method that involves immersing the researcher in the natural environment of a group or community to observe and understand their culture, behaviors, and social interactions.

Scope and Generalizability

One key difference between case study and ethnography lies in their scope and generalizability. Case studies are typically more focused and specific, aiming to provide detailed insights into a particular case or situation. The findings of a case study may not be easily generalized to a larger population due to the uniqueness of the case being studied.

On the other hand, ethnography aims to capture the broader cultural and social dynamics of a group or community. By immersing themselves in the natural setting, ethnographers can observe and document the behaviors, beliefs, and practices of the group. Ethnographic research often seeks to uncover patterns and themes that may be applicable to similar groups or communities, allowing for a higher level of generalizability.

Data Collection

Another important aspect to consider when comparing case study and ethnography is their data collection techniques. In case studies, researchers often rely on multiple sources of data, including interviews, surveys, observations, and document analysis. These various data sources help provide a comprehensive understanding of the case being studied.

On the other hand, ethnography primarily relies on participant observation, where the researcher actively engages with the group being studied, often for an extended period. This immersive approach allows the researcher to gain firsthand experience and insights into the culture, norms, and practices of the group. Ethnographers may also conduct interviews and collect artifacts or documents to supplement their observations.

Time and Resources

Case studies and ethnography also differ in terms of the time and resources required to conduct the research. Case studies are often more time-efficient, as they focus on a specific case or event. Researchers can collect data relatively quickly and analyze it in a shorter timeframe. However, the depth of analysis and the level of detail may vary depending on the complexity of the case.

On the other hand, ethnography is a time-consuming process that requires a significant investment of time and resources. Researchers need to spend an extended period in the field, building rapport with the community, and gaining their trust. The immersive nature of ethnography allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the group, but it also demands a longer-term commitment from the researcher.

Analysis and Interpretation

Both case study and ethnography involve a detailed analysis and interpretation of the collected data. In case studies, researchers often employ various analytical frameworks or theories to make sense of the data and draw conclusions. The analysis may involve identifying patterns, themes, or causal relationships within the case being studied.

Similarly, ethnographic research involves a rigorous analysis of the collected data. Ethnographers often engage in a process called coding, where they categorize and organize the observations, interviews, and other data sources. This coding process helps identify recurring themes, cultural practices, and social dynamics within the group. Ethnographers may also use theoretical frameworks to interpret their findings and provide a deeper understanding of the observed phenomena.

Applications

Both case study and ethnography have diverse applications across various disciplines. Case studies are commonly used in psychology, business, medicine, and law to examine individual cases, diagnose specific conditions, or understand unique situations. They provide valuable insights into complex phenomena that cannot be easily replicated or studied through other research methods.

On the other hand, ethnography finds its applications in anthropology, sociology, cultural studies, and other social sciences. Ethnographic research allows for a holistic understanding of different cultures, communities, and social groups. It helps uncover the underlying meanings, values, and practices that shape the lives of individuals within a specific cultural context.

In conclusion, case study and ethnography are two distinct research methods that offer valuable insights into specific cases or cultural contexts. While case studies provide a detailed analysis of a particular case, ethnography allows for a broader understanding of social and cultural dynamics. Both methods have their strengths and limitations, and the choice between them depends on the research objectives, scope, and available resources. By employing these research methods appropriately, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities of human behavior, culture, and society.

Comparisons may contain inaccurate information about people, places, or facts. Please report any issues.

Home » Education » Difference Between Case Study and Ethnography

Difference Between Case Study and Ethnography

Main difference – case study vs ethnography.

Case studies and ethnographies are two popular detailed, qualitative studies used in the field of social science . Although there are certain similarities between these two methods such as their holistic nature, and the extended time period, there are also some differences between the two. The main difference between case study and ethnography is their focus; ethnography aims to explore cultural phenomenon whereas case studies aim to describe the nature of phenomena through a detailed investigation of individual cases.

What is a Case Study

A case study is a detailed investigation of a single event, situation or an individual in order to explore and unearth complex issues. Yin (1984) defines case study as “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.” Although case studies are always associated with qualitative research, they can also be quantitative in nature. They are often used to explore community-based issued such as poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, prostitution, and drug addiction.

A successful case study is context-sensitive, holistic, systematic, layered and comprehensive. The process of a case study involves,

• Identifying and defining the research questions
• Selecting the cases and deciding techniques for data collection and analysis
• Collecting data in the field
• Evaluating and analysing the data
• Preparing the report

Data collection methods in a case study may involve interviews, observations, questionnaires, checklists, analysis of recorded data and opinionnaires. Case studies can also be divided into different categories. Exploratory, descriptive and explanatory case studies are three such categories.

Case studies are preferred by many researchers in the field of social sciences since they offer detailed and in-depth information about a particular phenomenon. However, it is difficult to use the data obtained from a case study to form generalisation since it only focuses on a single event or phenomenon.

Figure 1: Questionnaires are one method of data collection in a case study.

What is an Ethnography

Ethnography is a detailed and in-depth study of everyday life and practice. In other words, it is the systematic study of people and cultures. A researcher who is engaged in ethnography is known as an ethnographer . Ethnographers explore and study culture from an insider’s point of view (emic perspective).

Ethnography traditionally involved focusing on a bounded and a definable race, ethnicity or group of people; for example, study of a particular African tribe. However, modern ethnography also focus on different aspects of the contemporary social life.

Ethnographic research mainly involves field observations, i.e., observations of behaviour in a natural setting. The researchers have to spend a considerable amount of time inside a community in order to make such observations. Information about particular socio-cultural phenomena in a community is typically obtained from the members of that particular community. Participant observation and interviews are two of the main data collection methods in this type of studies. Ethnographic studies take a longer period of time than other types of research since it takes long-term involvement and observation to understand the attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours of a community.

Figure 2: Observation and participant interviews are main data collection methods in ethnography.

Definition 

Case Study: A case study is a detailed investigation of a single event, situation or an individual in order to explore and unearth complex issues.

Ethnography: An ethnography is the detailed and systematic study of people and cultures.

Case Study: Case studies focus on a single event, incident or individual.

Ethnography: Ethnography observes cultural phenomenon.

Case study: Case study intends to uncover the tacit knowledge of culture participants.

Ethnography: Ethnography aims to describe the nature of phenomena through detailed investigations of individual cases.

Data Collection Methods

Case Study: Case studies may use interviews, observations, questionnaires, checklists, analysis of recorded data and opinionnaires.

Ethnography: Ethnographic studies use participant observations and interviews.

Special Requirements

Case Study: The researcher does not have to live in a particular community.

Ethnography: The researcher has to spend a considerable amount time inside that particular community.

Conclusion 

Case study and ethnography may have some similarities; however, there is a considerable difference between case study and ethnography as explained above. The main difference between case study and ethnography lies in their intent and focus; case studies intend to uncover the tacit knowledge of culture participants whereas ethnographic studies intend to describe the nature of phenomena through detailed investigations of individual cases. There are also differences between them in terms of data collection and analyis. 

• Cohen, Arie. “Ethnography and case study: a comparative analysis.”  Academic Exchange Quarterly  7.3 (2003): 283-288.
• Yin, Robert. “Case study research. Beverly Hills.” (1984).

Image Courtesy:

• “plings_005” by  Plings   (CC BY 2.0)  via Flickr
• “Bronisław Malinowski among Trobriand tribe 3”  By Unknown (maybe Stanisław Ignacy Witkiewicz, 1885-1939) (Public Domain) via Commons Wikimedia

About the Author: Hasa

Hasanthi is a seasoned content writer and editor with over 8 years of experience. Armed with a BA degree in English and a knack for digital marketing, she explores her passions for literature, history, culture, and food through her engaging and informative writing.

​You May Also Like These

Leave a reply cancel reply.

Case Study vs. Ethnography: What's the Difference?

Key Differences

Comparison chart, data collection, generalization, case study and ethnography definitions, ethnography, are case studies generalizable, how is ethnography conducted, can a case study be quantitative, what is a case study, how long does a case study take, what is the main purpose of ethnography, what makes ethnography unique in research, what skills are needed for ethnography, can case studies be used for hypothesis testing, are case studies suitable for all fields of study, what is a limitation of a case study, can ethnography be done remotely, how does a case study differ from a survey, what role does language play in ethnography, what ethical considerations are involved in ethnography, can multiple cases be included in a case study, how does ethnography benefit sociology, how does technology impact ethnography, is ethnography considered a scientific method, what types of subjects are suitable for case studies.

Trending Comparisons

Popular Comparisons

New Comparisons

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Research Guides

Ethnographic Case Studies

Jeannette Armstrong; Laura Boyle; Lindsay Herron; Brandon Locke; and Leslie Smith

Description

This research guide discusses ethnographic case study. While there is much debate over what, precisely, delimits a case study , the general consensus seems to be that ethnographic case studies differ from other types of case studies primarily in their focus, methodology, and duration. In essence, ethnographic case studies are case studies “employing ethnographic methods and focused on building arguments about cultural, group, or community formation or examining other sociocultural phenomena” (Schwandt & Gates, 2018, p. 344), typically with a long duration, per the demands of ethnographic work. In essence, ethnographic case studies are case studies “employing ethnographic methods and focused on building arguments about cultural, group, or community formation or examining other sociocultural phenomena” (Schwandt & Gates, 2018, p. 344), typically with a long duration, per the demands of ethnographic work. Indeed, in its very situatedness, ethnography has a “case study character” and is “intimately related” to case studies (Ó Rian, 2009, p. 291); though there is currently a move to extract ethnographic work from overly situated contexts and use extended case methods, “[e]thnographic research has long been synonymous with case studies, typically conceived of as grounded in the local and situated in specific, well-defined and self-contained social contexts” (Ó Rian, 2009, p. 290). Because ethnography, in practice, is often a kind of case study, it’s useful to consider ethnography and case studies each in their own right for a fuller picture of what ethnographic case study entails.

Ethnographic research is one approach under the larger umbrella of qualitative research. Methodologically, it is, “a theoretical, ethical, political, and at times moral orientation to research, which guides the decisions one makes, including choices about research methods” (Harrison, 2014, p. 225), that is at its crux “based upon sharing the time and space of those who one is studying” (Ó Rian, 2009, p. 291)–a situated, nuanced exploration seeking a thick description and drawing on methods such as observation and field notes. According to …an ethnography focuses on an entire culture-sharing group and attempts to develop a complex, complete description of the culture of the group. Creswell and Poth (2018), an ethnography focuses on an entire culture-sharing group and attempts to develop a complex, complete description of the culture of the group. In doing so, ethnographers look for patterns of behavior such as rituals or social behaviors, as well as how their ideas and beliefs are expressed through language, material activities, and actions (Creswell & Poth, 2018). Yin (2016)  suggests that ethnographies seek “to promote embedded research that fuses close-up observation, rigorous theory, and social critique. [Ethnographies foster] work that pays equal attention to the minutiae of experience, the cultural texture of social relations, and to the remote structural forces and power vectors that bear on them” (p. 69).

Case study research, meanwhile, is characterized as an approach “that facilitates exploration of a phenomenon within its context using a variety of data sources” (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 544). The aim of case studies is precise description of reconstruction of cases (Flick, 2015). The philosophical background is a qualitative, constructivist paradigm based on the claim that reality is socially constructed and can best be understood by exploring the tacit, i.e., experience-based, knowledge of individuals. There is some debate about how to define a The philosophical background is a qualitative, constructivist paradigm based on the claim that reality is socially constructed and can best be understood by exploring the tacit, i.e., experience-based, knowledge of individuals. “case” (e.g., Ó Rian, 2009), however. As Schwandt and Gates (2018) write, “[A] case is an instance, incident, or unit of something and can be anything–a person, an organization, an event, a decision, an action, a location”; it can be at the micro, meso, or macro level; it can be an empirical unit or a theoretical construct, specific or general; and in fact, “what the research or case object is a case of may not be known until most of the empirical research is completed” (p. 341). The two authors conclude that given the multifarious interpretations of what case study is, “[b]eyond positing that case study methodology has something to do with ‘in-depth’ investigation of a phenomenon . . . , it is a fool’s errand to pursue what is (or should be) truly called ‘case study’” (p. 343, 344).

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13 (4), 544-559.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Flick, U. (2015). Introducing research methodology . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Rian, S. (2009). Extending the ethnographic case study. In D. Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of case-based methods (pp. 289–306). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Schwandt, T. A., & Gates, E. F. (2018). Case study methodology. In N. K. Dezin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.; pp. 341-358). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Key Research Books and Articles on Ethnographic Case Study Methodology

Fusch, G. E., & Ness, L. R. (2017). How to conduct a mini-ethnographic case study: A guide for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report , 22 (3), 923-941.  Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol22/iss3/16

In this how-to article, the authors present an argument for the use of a blended research design, namely the Ethnographic Case Study, for student researchers. To establish their point of view, the authors reiterate recognized research protocols, such as choosing a design that suits the research question to ensure data saturation. Additionally, they remind their reader that one must also consider the feasibility of the project in terms of time, energy, and financial constraints.

Before outlining the benefits and components of the Ethnographic Case Study approach, the authors provide detailed narratives of ethnographic, mini-ethnographic (sometimes referred to as a focused ethnography ), and case study research designs to orient the reader. Next, we are introduced to the term mini-ethnographic case-study design, which is defined as a blended design that is bound in time and space and uses qualitative ethnographic and case study collection methods. The benefits of such an approach permit simultaneous generation of theory and the study of that theory in practice, as it allows for the exploration of causality.

Ethnographic Case Study research shares many characteristics with its parent approaches.  For example, subjectivity and bias are present and must be addressed. Next, data triangulation is necessary to ensure the collected qualitative data and subsequent findings are valid and reliable. Data collection methods include direct observation, fieldwork, reflective journaling, informal or unstructured interviews, and focus groups. Finally, the authors discuss three limitations to the ethnographic case study. First, this design requires the researcher to be embedded, yet the duration of time may not be for as long when compared to full-scale ethnographic studies.  Second, since there are fewer participants, there should be a larger focus on rich data as opposed to thick data, or said differently, quality is valued over quantity. Third, the researcher must be aware that the end-goal is not transferability, but rather the objective is to gain a greater understanding of the culture of a particular group that is bound by space and time.

Gregory, E. & Ruby, M. (2010) The ‘insider/outsider’ dilemma of ethnography: Working with young children and their families in cross-cultural contexts. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 9 (2), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X10387899

This article focuses on the dilemma of insider and outsider roles in ethnographic work. It challenges the notion that a researcher can be both an insider and an outsider at the same time. There is no insider/outsider status; it is one or the other–not both.

It is easy to make assumptions about one’s status as an insider. It is not uncommon for a researcher to assume that because one is working amongst his/her “own” people sharing a similar background, culture, or faith that she/he is an insider. Likewise, a researcher may assume that it will be easy to build rapport with a community with which he/she has commonalities; however, it is important to keep in mind that the person may be an insider but the researcher may not have this same status. When the person enters into the protective space of family or community as a researcher, it is similar to being an outsider. Being a researcher makes one different, regardless of the commonalities that are shared. It is not the researcher’s presumed status of “insider” or “outsider” that makes the difference; rather, researcher status is determined by the participants or community that is being studied. It is wise for researchers to understand that they are distinctively one of “them” as opposed to one of “us”. This is not to say that researchers cannot become an “insider” to some degree. But to assume insider status, regardless of the rationale, is wrong. Assuming common beliefs across cultures or insider status can lead to difficulties that could impact the scope or nature of the study.

In conclusion, regardless of the ethnographic design (e.g., realist ethnography, ethnographic case study, critical ethnography), it is important for the researcher to approach the study as an “outsider”. Although the outsider status may change over time, it essential to understand that when one enters a community as a researcher or becomes a researcher within a community, insider status must be earned and awarded according to the participants in the community.

Ó Rian, S. (2009). Extending the ethnographic case study. In D. Byrne & C. C. Ragin (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of case-based methods (pp. 289–306). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

In this chapter, Ó Rian valorizes the problems and potential hiding within the vagaries of ethnographic “case” boundaries, arguing that “whereas the fluid and multi-faceted aspects of the ethnographic case pose dilemmas for ethnographers, they can also become resources for ethnographers in exploring theoretical and empirical questions” (p. 292). Indeed, he views the idea of firm case boundaries as a weakness, as “definitions of the case will rule in and out certain social processes,” and suggests ethnography’s flexibility can deal with this problem well because it permits researchers to “question the boundaries of the case as the study proceeds,” leading to a “de- and re-construction of the case that . . . places ethnography at the centre of a resurgent contextualist paradigm of social inquiry . . . that is increasingly self-consciously exploring its own theoretical and methodological foundations” (p. 304). Most of the chapter delves into these possibilities for exploration, offering an insightful (if occasionally difficult to follow) perspective on how they have been proceeding.

The chapter offers considerations that might be particularly helpful to researchers undertaking ethnographic case studies who are struggling to connect their cases, so firmly rooted in a particular context and their own personal experiences and observations, to a bigger picture. Ó Rian elucidates the reflexive strategies various ethnographers have adopted as they’ve sought “[t]o achieve a link between context-specific data and meso- or macro-level generalizations,” categorizing these strategies into three “interlocking extensions of case study research” (p. 292): personal extensions (related to “the shaping of the boundaries of the case by the ethnographer’s location within the field and . . . how ethnographers can convey their personalized experiences and tacit learning to readers” [p. 292]), theoretical extensions (which bridge the gap between the situated worlds being explored and “the larger structures and processes that produced and shaped them” [p. 292]), and empirical extensions (“creative efforts to experiment with the empirical boundaries of the ethnographic case” [p. 292] by bringing in, for example, historical context, social networks, etc.). The crux of his argument is that ethnographic researchers have a prime opportunity to push against the boundaries of their context and “extend their cases across space, time and institutional structures and practices” so that the ethnographer is “multiply, if perhaps a bit uncomfortably, situated” (p. 304), and also to include an “emphasis on the ongoing process of theoretical sampling within the process of the ethnographic study, with close attention to be paid to the paths chosen and rejected, and the reasons for these decisions” (p. 304). These kinds of extensions offer an opportunity for theories to “be refined or reconstructed” as the researcher attempts to locate their personal experience within a broader framework, allowing “[t]he case study . . . to challenge and reconstruct the preferred theory” while also connecting the case to a larger body of work, particularly because theory “carries the accumulated knowledge of previous studies” (p. 296).

Ó Rian’s in-depth descriptions of how other researchers have varyingly handled these personal, theoretical, and empirical extensions might be a bit overwhelming to novice researchers but overall can offer a way to “locate their cases within broader social processes and not solely within their own personal trajectories” (p. 294)–while also helping to situate their reflections and extensions within a larger body of literature replete with researchers struggling with similar questions and concerns.

This chapter offers an  in-depth, generally accessible (but occasionally overwhelming) overview of case studies of all sorts and integrates an extensive review of relevant literature. The authors provide an informed perspective on various considerations and debates in the case study field (e.g., varying definitions of what a “case” is construed to be; interpretive vs. critical realist orientations; the relative benefits of and techniques involved in different types of approaches), helping novice researchers locate and better describe their own approach within the context of the field. The information is quite detailed and delves into a wide variety of case study types, suggesting this chapter might best be first skimmed as an initial introduction, followed by more careful readings of relevant sections and perusal of the key texts cited in the chapter. The breadth of this chapter makes it a helpful resource for anyone interested in case-study methodology.

The authors do not specifically explore ethnographic case studies as a separate type of case study. They do, however, briefly touch on this idea, locating ethnography within the interpretive orientation (comprising constructivist approaches offering “phenomenological attention to lived experience” [p. 344]). The authors also cite researchers who distinguish it due to its “[employing] ethnographic methods and focus on building arguments about cultural, group, or community formation or examining other sociocultural phenomena” (p. 344). Ethnographic case study is placed in contrast to case studies that use non-ethnographic methods (e.g., studies “relying perhaps on survey data and document analysis”) or that “are focused on ‘writing culture’” (p. 344).

Two aspects of this chapter are particularly useful for novice researchers. First, it is worth highlighting the authors’ discussion of varying definitions of what a “case” is, as it can provide an interesting reconceptualization of the purpose of the research and the reason for conducting it. The second noteworthy aspect is the authors’ detailed descriptions of the four main case study uses/designs ( descriptive, hypothesis generation or theory development, hypothesis and theory testing , and contributing to normative theory ), which the authors beautifully align with the respective purposes and methods of each type while also offering insight into relevant conversations in the field.

Further Readings

Moss, P. A., & Haertel, E. H. (2016). Engaging methodological pluralism. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 127–247). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Simons, H. (2014). Case study research: In-depth understanding in context. In P. Leavy (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of qualitative research (pp. 455–470). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Recent Dissertations Using Ethnographic Case Study Methodology

Cozzolino, M. (2014). Global education, accountability, and 21st century skills: A case of curriculum innovation . Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order Number 3648007)

This dissertation is self-described as an ethnographic case study of a small, public, suburban high school in Pennsylvania. In this study, the researcher investigates the school’s process of integrating global education into its curriculum by implementing a school-wide initiative (Global Studies Initiative or GSI) as well as a program of study (Global Studies Credential or GSC). Cozzolino asserts that her framework has been shaped by both social constructivism and critical/Freirean pedagogy. From the constructivist view, she views knowledge as constructed through social interaction, and thus she sought to understand the world in which the research participants work, learn, and experience large parts of their lives. It is here that she situates the first three research questions that entail looking at the the GSI and the GSC in terms of their features, rationales, and implementations. The fourth question involves understanding the students’ views and perceptions of the GSC and here the author takes up a critical and Freirean pedagogy to honor and hear the voices of the students themselves.

The study design is therefore an embedded single-case study in that it is bound by the place (Olympus High School) and by its population. Furthermore, it is also a case within a case, as it seeks to understand the students’ perspectives of the global programming. The case study is ethnographically rooted through the multiple ethnographic data sources such as participant-observations and a prolonged engagement at the research site. Cozzolino embedded herself in the research site over a five-year period and became an active and invested member of the school community, thereby establishing a sound rationale for an ethnographic case-study approach.

The author concludes that there were some competing priorities about the overall initiative from stakeholders inside and outside the school district. This resulted in a less than ideal implementation of the program of study across the curriculum. Nonetheless, the students who were enrolled in these courses reported it to be a worthwhile experience. While Cozzolino presents specific recommendations for the improvements at Olympus High, she also offers implications for several other groups. First, she provides advice for implementation to other educational institutions that aim to integrate a global focus into their curriculum. Next, she gives recommendations for local, state, and national policy changes. Finally, she gives suggestions for engaging all parties in fruitful discourse to achieve their ultimate goal of implementing a meaningful and valuable global education curriculum.

Hamman, L. (2018). Reframing the language separation debate: Language, identity, and  ideology in two-way immersion . Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (Order Number 2089463322)

This study explored the issues of surrounding language separation in two-way immersion (TWI) classrooms. The author looked at how classroom language practices and teacher ideologies influenced the student experience and how the students’ understanding of what it means to be bilingual is influenced in a classroom that purports to be equitable in terms of language use.

The study is theoretically grounded in sociocultural, critical, and postcultural theories and adapted Lemke’s ecosocial system to conceptualize TWI classroom. Hamman also drew upon translanguaging theory and dynamic bilingualism to provide a framework for a more modern and nuanced perspective of bilingualism, bilingual learning, and bilingual students.

The author combined a single-case study approach with ethnographic methods to “engage in close analysis of classroom language use and the discursive negotiation of identities and ideologies, while situating these analyses within a rich understanding of the sociolinguistic context of this TWI classroom” (p. 78-79). She employed various ethnographic methods such as taking fieldnotes, conducting participant observations, interviewing, and memoing. The study is “bound” in that it takes place in one 2nd-grade classroom with one teacher and 18 students over the course of one year.

Hamman concludes that student perspectives on language separation should be considered, since this forced separation of language influenced how they thought of their developing bilingualism and identity as bilinguals. Furthermore, the study envisages a linguistic “middle ground” to strict separation that allows for appropriate and meaningful spaces for linguistic negotiation. Finally, this dissertation asserts that the strict separation of languages codifies a monoglossic ideology mindset and limits learners’ possibilities for learning and making connections across languages.

Kim, S. (2015). Korean migrant youth identity work in the transnational social field: A link between identity, transnationalism, and new media literacy . Retrieved from University of Missouri-St. Louis Institutional Repository Library. https://irl.umsl.edu/dissertation/158/

This doctoral dissertation takes an ethnographic case study approach to explore the identity formation of transnational Korean youth. The researcher, herself a Korean immigrant to the U.S. navigating complex identity processes, focuses on these research questions: “1) what are the contexts in which migrant youth negotiate their identities? 2) how do youth understand and negotiate their sense of belonging? 3) how do youth’s [sic] cultural and literacy practices inform and shape their identities? 3i) how do youth make use of transnational new media for their identity work? 3ii) how do literacy practices potentially shape their identities?” (p. 7).

Drawing on Leander and McKim (2013), the author conceptualizes her study as a “connective ethnography” (p. 36) encompassing multiple spaces, both digital and physical, in which “space” comprises a variety of relationships, instead of a more traditional ethnography bounded by physical space. The “case study” aspect, meanwhile, refers to the four specific participants in which she chose to focus. She chose Korean immigrants in St. Louis, in general, due to their mobility between the U.S. and Korea, their high use of digital communication and information technology, and their limited access to the cultural resources of Korea in a Midwestern city. From an initial 32 possible participants purposively selected, the researcher chose four focal participants based on their Korean ethnicity, biliteracy in Korean and English, age (between 11 and 19 years old), residence in the U.S. (for at least 2 years), and their use of digital communication technologies. Data sources included an initial screening survey, an identity map each participant created, informal recorded conversations, recorded interviews in either English or Korean, field notes from the researcher’s interactions with the youth in various settings (home, school, community centers), and “literacy documents” (evidence of literacy practices from participants’ school and home, emails to the researcher, or activities in digital spaces). She used social semiotic multimodal discourse analysis and what she describes as “grounded theory thematic analysis” to analyze the data.

This is a reflective, thoughtful, and interesting dissertation. The author carefully notes the relationship between the data sources and her research questions, specifically addresses steps she took to ensure the validity of the data (e.g., triangulation via multiple data sources and theoretical frameworks, member checks, and feedback from her professors and other researchers), and discloses her own positionalities and biases. Her discussion includes not only a clear thematic exploration of her findings but also offers specific practical suggestions for how her findings can be applied and extended in the classroom.

Internet Resources

Abalos-Gerard Gonzalez , L. (2011). Ethnographic research . Retrieved from https://www.slideshare.net/lanceabalos/ethnographic-research-2?from_action=save

Created by Lance Gerard G. Abalos, teacher at the Department of Education-Philippines, this SlideShare, Ethnographic Research , explains that, regardless of specific design, ethnographic research should be undertaken “without any priori hypothesis to avoid predetermining what is observed or that information is elicited from informants . . .hypotheses evolve out of the fieldwork itself” (slide 4). It is also suggested that researchers refer to individuals from whom information is gathered as ‘informants’ is preferred over the term ‘participants’ (slide 4).

According to Abalos, “It is not the data collection techniques that determine whether the study is ethnographic, but rather the ‘socio-cultural interpretation’ that sets it apart from other forms of qualitative inquiry” (slide 6). A social situation always has three components: a place, actors, and activities (slide 8) and it is the socio-cultural interpretation of the interactions of these three that is the focus of the ethnographic research.

Ethnographic questions should guide what the researcher sees, hears, and collects as data (slide 9). When writing the ethnography, it is essential to ‘bring the culture or group to life’ through the words and descriptions used to describe the place, actors, and activities.

Abalos describes three types of ethnographic designs:

• Realist Ethnographies : an objective account of the situation, written dispassionately from third-person point of view, reporting objectively on information learned from informants, containing closely edited quotations (slide 11-12).
• Ethnographic Case Studies : researchers focus on a program, event, or activity involving individuals rather than a group, looking for shared patterns that develop as a group as a result of the program, event, or activity (slide 13).
• Critical Ethnographies: incorporating a ‘critical’ approach that includes an advocacy perspective, researchers are interested in advocating against inequality and domination (slide 14).

As ethnographic data is analyzed, in any design (e.g., realist, case study, critical), there is a shift away from reporting the facts to making an interpretation of people and activities, determining how things work, and identifying the essential features in themes of the cultural setting (slide 22). “The ethnographer must present the description, themes, and interpretation within the context or setting of the culture-sharing group (slide 23).

Brehm, W. (2016, July 21). FreshEd #13 – Jane Kenway . Retrieved from http://www.freshedpodcast.com/tag/ethnography/ (EDXSymposium: New Frontiers in Comparative Education).

Jane Kenway is with the Australian Research Council and is an emeritus professor at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. In this podcast, she explains “traditional’ forms of ethnography and multi-sited global ethnography, which are her area of specialization. She considers “traditional” ethnography to have three components: space, time, and mobility.

Insider/outsider stance is explained within the context of spatiality, community, and culture of space specific to ‘traditional” ethnography. Researchers are outsiders who are attempting to enter a space and become insiders, then leave the space once the research is completed. Research is conducted over an extended period of time in one place/space. As a result, researchers will get to know in an extremely intimate manner the ways of life of the community or group. “Work is supposed to be a temporality of slowness. In other words, you don’t rush around like a mad thing in a field, you just quietly and slowly immerse yourself in the field over this extended period of time and get to understand it, get to appreciate it bit by bit.” (minute 7:56).

“Traditional” ethnographers are not necessarily interested in mobility over time or exploring who enters and exits the site. Most ethnographers are only interested in the movement that occurs in the space that is being studied during the time that they are in the field. It is about looking at the roots of the space, not necessarily about looking at the movements into and out of the space.

Multi-sited global ethnography tries to look at the way bounded sites can be studied as unbounded and on the move, as opposed to staying still. It considers how certain things (e.g., things, ideas, people) are  followed as they move. The researcher moves between sites, studying change that is encountered in different sites. From this perspective, the interested lies in the connections between sites. Multiple sites with commonalities can also be studied at the onset, without the need to physically follow.

Paulus, T. M., Lester, J. N., & Dempster, P. G. (2014). Digital Tools for Qualitative Research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

While this text is not solely about ethnographic case studies, it is rich with countless ideas for utilizing digital tools to aid in the multiple facets of qualitative research. In Chapter 5 of their text, entitled Generating Data, the authors dedicate a section to exploring Internet archives and multimedia data. They state that, “in addition to online communities, the Internet is rich with multimedia data such as professionally curated archives, ameteur-created YouTube and Vimeo videos and photo-sharing sites” (p. 81). They provide three specific examples, each explained below: The Internet Archive, CADENSA, and Britain’s BBC Archives.

The Internet Archive ( https://archive.org ) is a non-profit library of millions of free books, movies, software, music, websites, and more. The site also contains a variety of cultural artifacts that are easily available and downloadable. CADENSA ( http://cadensa.bl.uk ) is an online archive of the British Library Sound and Moving Image Catalogue. And finally, the BBC Archives ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/ ) is a particularly useful site for researchers interested in reviewing documentary film and political speeches.

Wang, T. (2016, September). Tricia Wang: The human insights missing from big data. [Video file]. Retrieved from  https://www.ted.com/talks/tricia_wang_the_human_insights_missing_from_big_data

In this TED Talk, Tricia Wang discusses her ethnographic work with technology and advocates for the need to save a place for thick data as opposed to relying only on big data. She argues that while companies invest millions of dollars in generating big data because they assume it will efficiently provide all the answers, it routinely does not provide a good return on investment. Instead, companies are left without answers to the questions about consumer preferences and behaviors, which leaves them unprepared for market changes.

In turn, Wang coins the term thick data, which is described as “precious data from humans, like stories, emotions, and interactions that cannot be quantified” (Minute 11:50). Wang suggests that this thick data may only come from a small group of individuals, but it is an essential component that can provide insights that are different and valuable. As an example, while working for Nokia, her ethnographic experiences in China provided her with new understandings on the future demand for smartphones. However, her employer did not take her findings seriously, and as a result, they lost their foothold in the technology market. She posits that a blended approach to collecting and analyzing data (i.e. combining or integrating thick data analysis with big data analysis) allows for a better grasp on the whole picture and making informed decisions.

Her conclusions for a blended approach to data collection also have implications for blending ethnographic and case-study approaches. While Wang took more of an ethnographic approach to her research, one could envision what her work might have looked like if she had used an Ethnographic Case Study approach. Wang could have clearly defined the time and space boundaries of her various ethnographic experiences (e.g. as a street vendor, living in the slums, hanging out in internet cafés). This would have allowed her to infer causality through the generation of thick data with a small sample size for each location and bound by each group.

Ethnographic Case Studies Copyright © 2019 by Jeannette Armstrong; Laura Boyle; Lindsay Herron; Brandon Locke; and Leslie Smith is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Difference between case study & ethnography

Introduction

In the social sciences, case study and ethnography are two popular research methodologies. While there are similarities between the two, there are also differences in data collection and the overall purpose of the study. This article aims to clarify these differences.

A case study is an in-depth study of a particular instance, event, individual, or group. It can be explanatory or descriptive in nature, but its focus is on understanding the why’s and implications of the subject of study. Case studies draw conclusions based on prior research and systematic analysis of data.

Ethnography

Ethnography is the art and science of describing a group or culture. It is an investigative approach that requires the ethnographer to behave like a neutral observer, without imposing personal viewpoints or making subjective judgments. Participant observation is often used as a method of data collection in ethnography, where the ethnographer becomes a part of the group being studied and records observations without analysis.

Differences

– Ethnography focuses on describing a group or culture, while a case study focuses on a particular instance, event, individual, or group. – Ethnography requires participant observation as a data collection method, while it is not necessary for a case study. – A case study is more outward looking, focusing on the why’s and implications, whereas ethnography is more inward looking. – Ethnography takes a longer time to conduct than a case study.

In summary, a case study is an in-depth analysis of a specific subject, while ethnography is an in-depth study of a group or culture. The methods of data collection and the perspectives of analysis differ between the two methodologies.

Key Takeaways

1. The difference between a case study and ethnography is that ethnography is a study of a culture or ethnic group, while a case study investigates a particular instance, event, or individual. 2. Ethnography requires participant observation as a data collection method, while it is not necessary in a case study. 3. A case study is more outward-looking, focusing on the why’s and implications of an event, while ethnography is more inward-looking and focused on describing a group or culture.

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related Articles

Difference between power & authority, distinguishing could of & could have, distinguishing pixie & bob haircuts, distinguishing between debate & discussion, distinguishing between dialogue & conversation, distinguishing between a present & a gift, distinguishing between will & can, distinguishing between up & upon.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Atherton H, Brant H, Ziebland S, et al. The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2018 Jun. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 6.20.)

The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study.

Chapter 4 focused ethnographic case studies, methodology and description of sites.

• Rationale for the methodological approach

Focused ethnography approach

This study used team-focused ethnographic methods. In a focused ethnography, rather than embedding a single researcher in a social setting for a lengthy period, more targeted data collection is used to explore the study topics. Using existing information from the literature and from what is known in clinical practice helps to determine the research question and, subsequently, to generate findings that are relevant and useful. 139

This project is a team-based ethnography as it involved three ethnographers working across a total of eight general practice sites in three regions (Scotland, Oxford and Bristol). Team-based ethnographies have become increasingly popular across disciplines. 140 – 142 This trend has been linked to funding bodies that encourage multidisciplinary team-based research, because of the wider range of expertise that will be brought to a project. 140 , 142 The use of a team-focused ethnography for this study has been explored further by Bikker et al. 143

Although ethnographic methods have been used in primary care for several notable studies, 144 – 146 they have usually required an intensive period of immersion (often by a sole researcher) in the study setting. The focused ethnographic approach lends itself well to health services research, because it is an efficient way to obtain an insightful understanding of concepts and processes within the fast-moving context of health-care policy development. This method was particularly suited to this study’s research questions as it allowed data to be collected on a predefined topic guided by the conceptual review work, while emphasising the importance of the context and the cultural landscape of the practices within a limited time frame.

• Focused ethnographic team

Composition

The case study team consisted of three researchers with experience of ethnographic research who were employed to conduct the focused ethnographic fieldwork. Although having three researchers collecting data was time efficient, to minimise the costs, two of the researchers were employed solely for the duration of the data collection (12 months). The third researcher was employed for the duration of the project (27 months) and also took on the role of project manager. The ethnographic researchers were based in two universities in England and one in Scotland. They had different backgrounds, which included medical and social anthropology, nursing and mixed-methods research methodologies. The three ethnographers were managed by two co-applicants: Helen Atherton on a day-to-day basis with input from Sue Ziebland (see Table 1 , Chapter 1 ). This subteam of five researchers made up the ‘focused ethnographic team’. The wider study team was also involved in providing a ‘check’ on the data the ethnographic team were collecting.

Communication

Steps were taken to ensure that the focused ethnographic team worked cohesively on the data collection and analysis. Over the period of the fieldwork and analysis, this involved:

• the focused ethnographic team setting out a strategy for teamworking during their initial meeting
• the three ethnographers having a weekly telephone meeting
• the three ethnographers and the day-to-day focused ethnographic team lead (HA) having a fortnightly telephone meeting
• the three ethnographers contacting the day-to-day lead (HA) via e-mail or telephone, when necessary
• the day-to-day lead meeting regularly with the senior focused ethnographic team lead (SZ)
• the entire focused ethnographic team attending three data collection and analysis workshops over the course of the project: two in Oxford and one in Edinburgh
• the ethnographers attending the project meetings (both face-to-face and telephone meetings) during the 12 months of fieldwork, allowing for updates to be made to the wider study team, and for the ethnographers to hear about the progress of all elements of the project.
• Patient and public involvement

We recruited three PPI representatives who reviewed the information sheet and consent forms, leading us to make to a number of improvements. These included:

• rewording the titles
• removing all abbreviations
• an expansion of the information provided about observing consultations between the doctor and the patient/carer
• simplification of the information provided to patients and carers invited to participate in an interview.

The three PPI representatives were recruited through a request for involvement circulated via the newsletter of ‘People in Health West of England’. Support was provided by the PPI lead, Andy Gibson. Andy Gibson explained the aims of the project and the purpose of involvement activities to potential participants. Feedback was given to participants on the amendments made to the ethics application as a result of their contribution.

• Case study recruitment

Selection of sites

We recruited eight practices as planned. Two were in Scotland, three were in Oxfordshire and three were in Bristol. The scoping survey (see Chapter 3 ) was used to identify potential practices. Based on our survey data, we constructed a matrix of practices detailing various practice characteristics. Characteristics included experience of implementing different types of alternatives to face-to-face consultations; the size of population the practices serve; and location, in terms of whether it is urban or rural and deprived or affluent (based on deprivation scores). We then selected practices to approach, ensuring that we covered a range of demographic characteristics and applications of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation, for example ‘currently using’, ‘tried and rejected’ or ‘substantially modified their plans to use’ alternatives.

We sent invitation letters to practices, followed by telephone calls to the practice manager and/or GP to ensure that the invitation had been received. When practices were interested, a researcher visited to provide more information and discuss the implications of participation. Practices that declined to participate stated excessive workload and/or staff shortages as the reason.

• Data collection and management

The remit of the focused ethnography was guided by the findings from the conceptual review, which helped to shape the case study guide and the staff and patient topic guides (see Chapter 2 for a fuller explanation and see Appendix 4 for the case study guide).

One ethnographer was based at each practice. Data were gathered through non-participant observation, informal conversations and semistructured interviews with practice administration staff, GPs and patients. Practice documents and protocols on alternatives to the face-to-face consultations were reviewed. Anonymised data about consultations were collected and these contributed to a quantitative analysis (see Chapter 6 ).

Consent and observational work

The ethnographers observed practice staff in all areas of the practice, such as clinical areas, reception desks and administrative offices. Observations included consultations, both face to face and alternatives to face-to-face consultations.

In the first instance, the practice manager agreed to the practice participating in the research and informed all staff that the ethnographers would be situated in the practice for a number of weeks.

On commencing the research within the practice, informed consent for observation was sought by the ethnographer from all members of the practice. This involved providing all staff members with an information sheet about the study and providing a consent form. The information sheet outlined that the ethnographers may observe them at work, engage in informal conversation and take notes. They were given up to 1 week to read the sheet and complete the consent form before a further enquiry was made. Some staff members were not based in the practice and declined to consent, on the basis that we would not be observing them. A small number of staff members declined to consent. We ensured not to engage them in informal conversation or directly observe their work. We did not take notes on any work they were engaged in. In addition, those consenting were informed that, at any point during the research period, they could decline observation or conversation. Staff members engaging in interviews were given an additional information sheet and completed an additional consent form for participation in the interview.

Observations of consultations were at the discretion of the GP. Patients were invited to consent to their face-to-face consultation being observed, given an information sheet and asked to consent to the observation. For observation of telephone and e-mail consultations, the ethnographers were not party to patient-identifiable data and so consent was not required; however, the clinician was able to decline the observation if they felt that it was not appropriate. If the ethnographer observed the GP within their consulting room but outside a consultation, they took notes but did not make notes relating to a patient or their condition, being focused only on how the GP worked (e.g. when they responded to e-mail consultations or when they scheduled their telephone consultations). Data were collected using field notes in all cases, and these did not include patient-identifiable data.

Summary profile

In each practice, the ethnographers completed a summary profile for that practice. This was designed to capture the detail obtained by the ethnographers in the field in their own words. It included, among other details, the types of alternative consultations that are (or were) provided, how these are/were provided (e.g. timing, volume, staffing) and any parameters for the types of patients who are/were allowed or encouraged to use alternatives to face-to-face consultations, including variations between practitioners. Over the course of the data collection, the ethnographers added any new observations about the practice to the summary profile template for each of the eight sites. This allowed individual field notes to be transformed into a common format. As a result, comparing the observations between practices became more straightforward, even though the personal styles of completing field notes differed between the ethnographers. At the start of the data collection, the discussion about the research topics among the focused ethnographic team was more general, reflecting the exploratory nature of the study and the process of familiarisation with the field. However, as the data collection progressed, the format of the summary profile template evolved and became more focused on alternatives to the face-to-face consultation.

The ethnographers recorded their own field notes during observations. In more formal settings, such as practice meetings, minimal notes were made by ethnographers in real time, followed by more detailed field notes retrospectively.

Document collection

In each of the case study practices, we sought to review notes and minutes from practice meetings over the preceding 6-month period. Some practices were reluctant to give our researchers full access to these notes and minutes, and so the practice managers in each practice reviewed the minutes, identifying and extracting any relevant information.

In each practice, researchers requested that they be invited to observe practice meetings during which alternatives to the face-to-face consultation would be discussed. In the end, this was the case for only one meeting in one practice, where the researcher attended the meeting and kept notes.

Semistructured interviews

Each interview participant provided informed consent. Interviews were digitally recorded, using an encrypted recorder. The files were transcribed verbatim by a professional transcription service.

Staff interviews were usually conducted in the general practice (one GP was interviewed at home). Additional interviews relating to video consultation at non-case study sites were conducted over the telephone. Information was collected on sex, age, ethnicity, role in the practice, length of time in the role, length of time since qualifying and the type of alternative to the face-to-face consultation used.

Patient and carer interviews were conducted at a location of their choosing, usually their home (or the general practice). Information was collected on sex, age, ethnicity, whether or not they were a carer, whether or not they had a long-term condition or disability, level of education and occupation.

The initial design of the topic guides was based on the findings of the conceptual review and templates used by focused ethnographic team members in previous studies. The topic guides were then revised iteratively among the ethnographic team once the ethnographers were working in the field, and a final topic guide was agreed on for both staff and patient interviews. The staff topic guide differed slightly according to the staff member being interviewed; for example, GPs were asked specifically about how the alternative to the face-to-face consultation affected their relationship with patients (see Appendix 5 for the topic guide).

• Interview participant recruitment

Case study site staff

Once they had been conducting observations in the practice for a few weeks, the ethnographers identified relevant staff members to participate in the interviews. The ethnographers had made contact with potential interviewees during non-participant observation, and provided them with the information sheet relating to the interview. If they were willing to participate, an interview was arranged at a time that was convenient for the staff member.

In each practice, administrative staff (including receptionists), GPs and nurses were recruited to be interviewed. When relevant, other members of the practice team were also interviewed, for example, a rural health worker in one practice, a patient manager and an IT manager in another. The team of ethnographers remained in close contact throughout the process, to ensure that the range of staff members being interviewed was suitably varied in regard to factors such as role in the practice, knowledge or involvement in alternatives to the face-to-face consultation.

At the protocol stage, we intended to interview allied health professionals working in general practice, such as phlebotomists and community-based pharmacists. However, it became apparent during observations that, where allied health professionals were working in the practices, they had little to no involvement in the introduction or use of alternatives to face-to-face consultations. Recognising the importance of the wider study team members within general practice, each ethnographer engaged in informal conversations with these staff members to ensure that their perspectives were covered. These conversations were recorded in the researcher’s field notes and subsequently referred to in the structured summary profile.

Users of video consultation

As described in Chapter 3 , we recruited an additional four participants from outside the case study sites. These were general practice staff members who were using, were about to use or employed a system that used video consultations.

• We approached practices that had been funded by the GP Access Fund 14 to employ video consultations.
• We approached practices that had publicised their use of video consultation in news articles or reports.

Has your practice offered patients video/skype consults? We are looking for GPs to do a 30m phone interview for AltCon study.

• We used personal contacts (HA and CS) obtained via related research studies.

Two participants were recruited via Twitter, and a further two were recruited via personal contacts (HA). We were unable to contact all of the GP Access Fund 14 practices and, in the case of those we did contact, we could not identify individuals who were using video consultation. We received no reply from the practices that had publicised their use of video consultation via news articles or reports.

Patients/carers

The aim was to interview patients with different characteristics in relation to age, sex, ethnicity, disability, frequency of attendance and whether or not they had long-term health conditions. All patients invited to participate in interviews had experience of using an alternative to the face-to-face consultation within the practice.

Initially, patients were identified opportunistically, based on those who had engaged in contact with the practice via an alternative to the face-to-face consultation. In subsequent interviews, patients were purposively sampled to ensure that participants with the range of characteristics listed above were included. Practice staff and GPs helped to identify patients and carers and provided potential participants with a study information pack, either via post or in person when attending the practice. This pack included information about the study, an invitation to take part and a reply slip, which they could return via prepaid post. The researcher then called to arrange a convenient time for the interview.

Hard-to-reach and disadvantaged groups

In using a purposive sampling technique, we specifically included people who were identified in the protocol as being in hard-to-reach groups with regard to accessing general practice. Examples included parents/carers of people with complex needs, young men, the vulnerably housed and minority ethnic groups.

The other groups of interest were those that might be disadvantaged by limited provision of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation. These groups were described in the protocol, and further relevant groups were identified in the conceptual review (see Chapter 2 ). These included patients with mental health conditions, patients living in rural areas, patients with restricted mobility, patients with hearing loss, patients at a great distance from the practice (e.g. working away) and patients with low health literacy and/or low computer literacy.

The aim was to look at the range of problems and issues for these groups, rather than making statements about specific population subgroups. To make it easier for people in these groups to participate, there was flexibility about timings and locations for interviews, with telephone interviews offered when appropriate. Participants in hard-to-reach and disadvantaged groups were identified by the practices so that they could be invited to interview.

• Quantitative data

Quantitative data on the numbers and types of consultations recorded were collected from the six English practices, as they all used the same electronic medical record system (the Scottish practices used another system). The ethnographer in each of the practices enquired as to how consultation types were recorded and then conducted an audit of the reliability of this record-keeping by observing practitioners at work and asking a GP to review the last 20 consultations in which each of the alternatives to face-to-face consultations was used in the practice and note whether or not the type had been accurately recorded. Any use of protocols was also noted. Further details of the method and analysis of the quantitative data can be found in Chapter 6 .

• Data analysis

The coding frame for analysis of the ethnographic data was devised by the focused ethnographic team at a face-to-face meeting early in the data collection period. Each ethnographic team member had read a series of field notes and transcripts, and contributed to devising a coding structure for the staff data and another different coding structure for the patient data, which comprised interview data only. The three ethnographers read and coded interview transcripts and field notes [using the comment facility in Microsoft Word 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA)]. Once the coding frame was in place, the field notes were coded and each ethnographer condensed their findings into a summary profile. The day-to-day lead (HA) read the coding of the field notes into the summary profile and read every transcript, checking the coding to ensure reliability and comparability, and adding or making adjustments where relevant. The transcripts and summary profiles were then entered into NVivo software, which allowed thematic reports to be generated.

A series of NVivo reports were generated to gather related sections of the data together. At this point, two of the ethnographers had completed their contracts. The day-to-day lead of the focused ethnographic team (HA), senior team lead (SZ) and remaining ethnographer (HB) read all of the reports. They applied the OSOP method 90 to identify the line of argument in each thematic report and identify outliers or negative cases. The data from the staff and patient interviews and the field notes were integrated, and a condensed summary was produced for each thematic code.

At this point, the wider study team became involved and were paired with the remaining members of the ethnographic team to discuss the interpretation of the data (HA and BM, HB and CS, SZ and JC). The core messages were presented at a wider team meeting and the analysis refined through discussion among all the team members.

In addition, we held a stakeholder workshop to present and discuss the initial findings and their application. Attendees included academics, policy-makers and health-care professionals. The responses from the workshop delegates were considered during the final stages of the data synthesis. See Chapter 7 for further information on the stakeholder workshop.

• Ethics and research governance permissions

Ethics approval was obtained from NHS Yorkshire and the Humber-South Yorkshire Research and Ethics Committee on 23 March 2015 (15/YH/0135). NHS research and development approvals were obtained for the health boards (Scotland) and the CCGs (England) for the participating practices. Approval, via a substantial amendment, was obtained to recruit and interview four general practice staff from practices outside the case study sites. Consent was obtained from primary care staff and patients participating in the focused ethnography. Participation was voluntary and the optional nature of the study was explained in the information sheet.

• Description of the case study sites

We approached 20 practices and invited them to participate. Of these, one practice had closed and we received no response from two others. Nine practices declined to participate, stating excessive workload and/or staff shortages as the reason. Eight case study sites were recruited in total, and details of these practices and the period of time spent in each practice can be seen in Table 5 . A more detailed summary of each practice can be found in Appendix 6 , which includes contextual information about the practices collected by the ethnographers during the course of their observations.

Description of case study sites

• Description of interview participants

Staff interview participants

We interviewed 45 members of staff from the case study sites, and a further four from other practices. In the case study sites, we interviewed 19 GPs, eight practice managers, two deputy practice managers, one practice co-ordinator, two senior practice nurses, three practice nurses and one nurse practitioner, one rural health worker, four senior receptionists, one receptionist, one patient service manager, one practice administrator and an IT manager. The four participants from practices outside the case study sites were three GPs and one practice manager. Various different types of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation were used by staff in the case study sites. All GPs and nurses were using telephone consultations.

The participants from outside the case study sites were interviewed about video consultation; one had used video consultation with patients, two had limited experience of using video consultation with patients and one practice manager was in the process of setting up a video-consultation service.

Of the 48 staff interviewed, 33 were female. The age of participants ranged from 31 to 68 years. The majority of participants were white British. For clinical staff, the length of time since qualifying varied from 7 years to 40 years. Staff had been in their current role for varying amounts of time, from 10 months to 31 years. Of the GPs, 16 were partners and six were salaried.

Full details about staff interview participant characteristics can be found in Appendix 7 .

Patient and carer interview participants

We interviewed 39 patient and carer participants. All participants were using or had used an alternative to the face-to-face consultation with a health-care professional at their practice. We collected information on their ethnicity, age, sex, current health conditions and whether or not they were carers, alongside information about their level of education and current employment status. Full details about patient interview participant characteristics can be found in Appendix 8 .

The sample included a wide range of participants who may find it difficult to engage with general practice settings for varying reasons. These included a parent looking after a disabled child, an asylum seeker who was vulnerably housed, two men aged < 30 years (who typically do not engage in health care) and three participants in minority ethnic groups with English as a second language.

The sample also included patients who may find themselves disadvantaged by the current limited provision of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation, namely six patients with mental health conditions, four patients living in a very rural area, nine patients with restricted mobility and two patients with hearing loss.

Patient and public involvement and young people

The age range of our patient/carer participant sample was wide, but it did not include any participants younger than 24 years (range 24–91 years). Young persons below the age of 18 years were not eligible for inclusion in the study. Being mindful of the potential importance of alternatives to the face-to-face consultation in young people, we sought to obtain the views of young adults to supplement the study. We did this by organising a PPI event for young people. We were able to do this via ‘Bristol Young Health Watch’, a group of young people aged between 16 and 19 years who work alongside the Bristol CCG. The study PPI lead (AG) met with the group during one of their regular existing meetings. Group members were asked to comment on a number of issues related to alternatives to face-to-face consultations in primary care. These comments were recorded on flip charts during the meeting.

Although the people attending the workshop felt comfortable with potentially using new technology to access GP services, they reported similar concerns to other patient groups about issues of confidentiality, being able to exert choice over when to use alternatives and seeing these as a supplement rather than an alternative to face-to-face consultations. The content of the discussion was used to provide context for the findings obtained via interviews and observation.

• Cite this Page Atherton H, Brant H, Ziebland S, et al. The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2018 Jun. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 6.20.) Chapter 4, Focused ethnographic case studies, methodology and description of sites.
• PDF version of this title (10M)

In this Page

Other titles in this collection.

• Health Services and Delivery Research

Recent Activity

• Focused ethnographic case studies, methodology and description of sites - The po... Focused ethnographic case studies, methodology and description of sites - The potential of alternatives to face-to-face consultation in general practice, and the impact on different patient groups: a mixed-methods case study

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, ethnography versus case study ‐ positioning research and researchers.

Qualitative Research Journal

ISSN : 1443-9883

Article publication date: 6 April 2009

In this paper we narrate a story of working on a large project funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage grant the ‘Keeping Connected: Young People, Identity and Schooling’ project. The purpose of the study is to consider the social connection and schooling of young people who have experienced long‐term chronic illness. While the research involves both quantitative and qualitative elements, the qualitative component is the largest and involves the most researcher time and diversity. At an early stage of the project, three of the researchers working on the qualitative team consider why the study was framed as a series of case studies rather than as ethnography. The second issue considered in this paper is the different approaches to data collection, data analysis and truth claims we might take.

• Ethnography
• Funded research
• Methodology

White, J. , Drew, S. and Hay, T. (2009), "Ethnography Versus Case Study ‐ Positioning Research and Researchers", Qualitative Research Journal , Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 18-27. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0901018

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2009, Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Case Study vs. Ethnography — What's the Difference?

Difference Between Case Study and Ethnography

Table of contents, key differences, comparison chart, methodology, application areas, compare with definitions, ethnography, common curiosities, how long does an ethnography study typically last, what is the primary focus of a case study, are case studies subjective, what does ethnography emphasize in its study, can a case study be based on fictional events, can a case study be applied to organizations, is a case study quantitative or qualitative, are ethnographers detached observers in their studies, what's a common method used in ethnography, what disciplines commonly use case studies, what's a key outcome of ethnography, why is immersion important in ethnography, can the findings from one case study be generalized, can a case study cover multiple subjects, is ethnography limited to traditional cultures, share your discovery.

Author Spotlight

Popular Comparisons

Trending Comparisons

New Comparisons

Trending Terms

An Ethnographic Case Study Design

• First Online: 23 January 2020

Cite this chapter

• Congjun Mu 2  

437 Accesses

This chapter justifies the selection of an ethnographic case study approach to investigate Chinese multilingual scholars’ experiences in writing for scholarly publication in English. Mixed methods—quantitative survey and qualitative semi-structured interviews—are used to elicit data exposing Chinese scholars’ attitude to the controversies discussed in the literature and their strategies to cope with the challenges they face in writing and publishing in English. An in-depth case analysis method with text-history analysis is introduced. The questionnaire design owes much to previous studies in ERPP research, a field that has developed rapidly in recent years and may continue to grow in the future. The procedures of semi-structured interviews and document collection are presented in detail in the interests of transparency, reliability, and validity of the research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bazerman, C., Keranen, N., & Encinas, F. (2012). Facilitated immersion at a distance in second language scientific writing. In M. C. Badia & C. Donahue (Eds.), University Writing: Selves and Texts in Academic Societies (pp. 235–252). London: Emerald.

Google Scholar  

Burgess, S., Gea-Valor, M. L., Moreno, A. I., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2014). Affordances and constraints on research publication: A comparative study of the language choices of Spanish historians and psychologists. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14 , 72–83.

Article   Google Scholar  

Casanave, C. P. (1998). Transitions: The balancing act of bilingual academics. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 (2), 17–203.

Cho, D. W. (2009). Science journal paper writing in an EFL context: The case of Korea. English for Specific Purposes, 28 (4), 230–239.

Counsell, J. (2011). How effectively and consistently do international postgraduate students apply the writing strategies they have been taught in a generic skills-based course to their subsequent discipline-based studies? Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 5 (1), A1–A17.

Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38 (4), 663–688.

Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. M. (2010). Academic research networks: Accessing resources for English-medium publishing. English for Specific Purposes, 29 , 281–295.

Fernández Polo, F. J., & Cal Varela, M. (2009). English for research purposes at the University of Santiago de Compostela: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8 , 152–164.

Fife, W. (2005). Doing Fieldwork Ethnographic Methods for Research in Developing Countries and Beyond . London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Flowerdew, J. (1999a). Problems in writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 , 243–263.

Flowerdew, J. (1999b). Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 , 123–145.

Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34 (1), 127–150.

Flowerdew, J. (2008). Scholarly writers who use English as an Additional Language: What can Goffman’s “Stigma” tell us? Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 7 , 77–86.

Flowerdew, J. (2009). Goffman’s stigma and EAL writers: The author responds to Casanave. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8 , 69–72.

Fusch, P. I., Fusch, G. E., & Ness, L. R. (2017). How to conduct a mini-ethnographic case study: A guide for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 22 (3), 923–941.

Goetz, J. P., & LeCompte, M. D. (1984). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research . London: Academic Press.

Gollin-Kies, S. (2014). Methods reported in ESP research articles: A comparative survey of two leading journals. English for Specific Purposes, 36 , 27–34.

Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K. (2011). Quantifying the burden of writing research articles in a second language: Data from Mexican scientists. Written Communication, 28 , 403–416.

Hanauer, D. I., & Englander, K. (2013). Scientific Writing in a Second Language . Anderson, SC: Parlor Press.

Hirano, E. (2009). Research article introductions in English for specific purposes: A comparison between Brazilian Portuguese and English. English for Specific Purposes, 28 (4), 240–250.

Holloway, I., Brown, L., & Shipway, R. (2010). Meaning not measurement: Using ethnography to bring a deeper understanding to the participant experience of festivals and events. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 1 (1), 74–85.

Kourilova, M. (1998). Communicative characteristics of reviews of scientific papers written by non-native users of English. Endocrine Regulation, 32 , 107–114.

LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52 (1), 31–60.

LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (2008). Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research (2nd ed.). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

Lei, J., & Hu, G. (2019). Doctoral candidates’ dual role as student and expert scholarly writer: An activity theory perspective. English for Specific Purposes, 54 , 62–74.

Li, X., Xue, M., Wang, Q., & Feng, H. (2011). The thinking and practice on performance evaluation of the classification of higher education institutions in Shanghai. Research in Education Development, 17 , 1–5.

Li, Y. (2002). Writing for international publication: The perception of Chinese doctoral researchers. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 12 , 179–194.

Li, Y. (2006a). A doctoral student of physics writing for publication: A sociopolitically-oriented case study. English for Specific Purposes, 25 , 456–478.

Li, Y. (2006b). Negotiating knowledge contribution to multiple discourse communities: A doctoral student of computer science writing for publication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15 , 159–178.

Li, Y. (2012). “I have no time to find out where the sentences came from; I just rebuild them”: A biochemistry professor eliminating novices’ textual borrowing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 , 59–70.

Lillis, T. (2008). Ethnography as method, methodology, and “Deep Theorizing”: Closing the gap between text and context in academic writing research. Written Communication, 25 (3), 353–388.

Lillis, T., & Curry, M. J. (2006). Professional academic writing by multilingual scholars interactions with literacy brokers in the production of English-medium texts. Written Communication, 23 , 3–35.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1999). Designing Qualitative Research . London: SAGE Publications.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Moreno, A. I., Burgess, S., Sachdev, I., López-Navarro, I., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2013). The ENEIDA questionnaire: Publication experiences in scientific journals in English and Spanish. Retrieved from http://eneida.unileon.es/eneidaquestionnaire.php

Moreno, A. I., Rey-Rocha, J., Burgess, S., López-Navarro, I., & Sachdev, I. (2012). Spanish researchers’ perceived difficulty writing research articles for English medium journals: The impact of proficiency in English versus publication experience. Ibérica, 24 , 157–184.

Mur Dueñas, P. (2012). Getting research published internationally in English: An ethnographic account of a team of Finance Spanish scholars’ struggles. Iberica, 24 , 139–156.

Muresan, L.-M., & Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). English for research publication and dissemination in bi-/multiliterate environments: The case of Romanian academics. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13 , 53–64.

O’Malley, J. M., & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Ethnograph approaches and methods in L2 writing research: A critical guide and review. Applied linguistics, 20 (1), 41–70.

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative Research: Studying How Things Work . New York: Guilford Press.

Teng, L. S., & Zhang, L. J. (2016). A questionnaire-based validation of multidimensional models of self-regulated learning strategies. The Modern Language Journal, 100 (3), 674–701.

Watson-Gegeo, K. A. (1988). Ethnography in ESL: Defining the essentials. TESOL Quarterly, 22 (4), 575–592.

Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (Eds.). (2006). Interpretation and Method Empirical Research Methods and the Interpretive Turn . New York: M. E. Sharpe.

Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Designs and Methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Yockey, R. D. (2010). SPSS Demystified (C. Liu & Z. Wu, Chinese Trans.). Beijing: Renmin University of China Press.

Zhu, W. (2004). Faculty views on the importance of writing, the nature of academic writing, and teaching and responding to writing in the disciplines. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13 , 29–48.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Foreign Languages, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Congjun Mu .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Mu, C. (2020). An Ethnographic Case Study Design. In: Understanding Chinese Multilingual Scholars’ Experiences of Writing and Publishing in English. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33938-8_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33938-8_4

Published : 23 January 2020

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-33937-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-33938-8

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research