S.TRUEMAN PhD THESIS 2016

121

phenomenon within its real-life context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident’ (pp. 13–14), facilitating a holistic understanding of the phenomenon under investigation (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Thus, a case study is not so much a method as a research strategy (Hartley, 2004; Titscher, Meyer, Wodak & Vetter, 2000), utilising multiple sources of evidence. As Stake (2000) wrote, ‘[c]ase study is not a methodological choice but a choice of what is to be studied. By whatever methods, we choose to study the case’ (p. 435); case study is not defined by its research methods, but rather in terms of its interest in individual cases (Hartley, 2004; Stake, 2000). This study adopted Stake’s (1995) definition of case study as an intensive study of an individual unit of interest, with a focus on the developmental factors of that unit (Flyvbjerg, 2011). This study’s understanding of the term was also expressed by Zucker (2001): ‘is an exploratory form of inquiry, providing an in-depth picture of the unit of study, which can be a person, group, organisation or social situation’, with the research goal being ‘to describe as accurately as possible the fullest, most complete description of the case’ (Zucker, 2001). The definition of what constitutes the ‘unit’ or case to be studied is at the discretion of the researcher’ (Stewart, 2013, p. 145). The boundaries of this study’s case are justified by ‘common sense’ (Smith, 1978), and encompass a system of connectedness (Stewart, 2013). This study’s focus is a phenomenon in its ‘real life’ context, aiming to explore and thereby understand the complexities of the contextually situated case. The researcher chose a single case study design because it allows for revelatory exploration of a previously unexamined phenomenon (Yin, 1994).