Revisiting Comparative Case Study: A Critical Analysis

• In Event: Critical encounters with sustainability

Proposal

This paper offers a critical analysis of the Comparative Case Study (CCS), a methodological framework particularly used in the field of comparative and international education. Originally developed by Vavrus and Bartlett (Vavrus & Bartlett, 2006, 2009; Bartlett & Vavrus, 2014a, 2014b, 2017), the CCS enquires into how historical development, social and political structures, as well as national and international policies, shape policy implementation in a setting with horizontal, vertical and transversal axes. The horizontal axis denotes multi-sited comparisons of policy implementation. It intends to assess how differently and similarly each case within distinctive localities contextualizes and appropriates certain policies at one point in time. The vertical axis situates the horizontal cases within this cultural and social network. It analyses how policy discourse within and between global and national institutions shape the social norms and practices of individual schools. The transversal axis contextualizes the horizontal and vertical components in the country’s past and present. Bartlett and Vavrus (2017) emphasize that any social issue of today has been rooted wthin history; to study the contemporary issues requires tracing the history. The transversal comparison over time investigates how the contemporary phenomenon, explored through the horizontal and vertical axes, has come out as a practice.

While the CCS provides a comprehensive methodological framework for case-based research, it is not free from drawbacks. One criticism the approach may receive, ironically, is the lack of criticism it encounters. Various researchers have adopted the CCS model for their multi-sited case studies (e.g. Bellino, 2016; Foulds, 2014; Shah & Quinn, 2016; Millei, 2011; Gardinier, 2015). However, these scholars have seldom identified the limitations of the framework, merely adopting the three axes as appropriate methodological tools. There is barely any research, to my knowledge, that judiciously analyzed, applied and refined the CCS approach. This in itself can be a weakness of the CCS, given the lack of academic scrutiny. Analytical engagement with the CCS framework would enhance this methodological tool.

One possible critique pertains to its naming. Vavrus and Bartlett have revised the naming of the framework as they modify and enhance the concepts underpinning the CCS. The framework was born with vertical and horizontal axes as primary concerns, labelled the “vertical case study” (Vavrus & Bartlett, 2006, 2009). Although the authors insinuated inclusion of transversal tracing in the vertical case study, the historical dimension had not gained significant attention until a later conceptualization. Bartlett and Vavrus (2014a, 2014b) introduced the transversal comparison as the third axis that locates policy appropriation within a historical milieu. The modification of the framework nevertheless did not lead the authors to alter its name. Despite the equivalent importance placed on the three axes – the transversal, vertical and horizontal – the term “vertical case study” remained as if it considered only the vertical axis.

Upon reflection, Bartlett and Vavrus (2017) compiled a decade of their work and renamed the framework as “comparative case study”. Even though this term may denote the equal value placed upon the three axes, it is too generalized and might miss the significance of the axes. Any case study – whether it applies three axes or not – can be comparative. Yin (2014) distinguishes two approaches used in a case study: single- and multiple-case studies. The latter is commonly called “comparative case study” (e.g. Sheridan et al., 2014; Lane et al., 2014; Monte-Sano, 2008). These studies often present comparisons between cases, albeit comparing only horizontal cases in Bartlett and Vavrus’s model. I acknowledge the import of all transversal, vertical and horizontal axes being integrated in a multiple-case design. An alternative name, “the transversal–vertical–horizontal (TVH) case study”, which this paper onward adopts, could reflect the key components of the CCS better and express the significance of the three axes equally.

Another possible limitation of the TVH case study pertains to its methodological application. Deriving from the anthropological tradition that Bartlett and Varus bring to the table, the TVH case study endorses ethnography-oriented studies. It is grounded in interpretivist, constructivist epistemology which employs qualitative methods (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017). Its conceptual basis derives from theories developed in anthropology, such as the extended case method, multi-sited ethnography and actor network theory. The researchers unequivocally criticize variable-oriented, quantitative research for its ignorance of context, unpredictability and the co-constructedness of human behavior. Yet at the same time, Bartlett and Vavrus (2017) appear to appreciate the usefulness of mixed methods. The authors introduce in detail the survey method for collecting quantitative and qualitative data to help investigate what is represented by the three axes (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017). Nonetheless, there is little clarification as to how a researcher can utilize and incorporate a quantitative strand into the TVH approach; this is reflected in the much smaller number of mixed methods approaches in existing TVH studies compared to qualitative studies. Even when some researchers used quantitative and qualitative methods, their research could be described as qualitative studies with an addition of quantitative data (e.g. Shriberg, 2009) rather than mixed methods research with “a specific research design that includes rigorous, systematic and the planned use of different quantitative and qualitative methods for collecting and/or analyzing data in the same study” (Cara, 2017, p. 195).

The TVH case study is a powerful methodological tool for exploring policy trajectories and appropriation. By providing a critical examination of this approach, which has been lacking from existing literature, the presentation intends to further enhance the methodological rigor of the TVH case study.

Author

• Nozomi Sakata, University College London, Institute of Education