S.TRUEMAN PhD THESIS 2016

127

Yin (2009) argued that there is no more important decision in case study research design than defining the unit of analysis, for the object of the study defines the boundaries within which the research is undertaken. In the present study, the unit of analysis is the population of Australian remote generalist nurses providing mental healthcare. This unit of analysis was chosen to ‘maximize what we can learn’ (Stake, 1995, p. 4). Australian remote nurses providing mental healthcare is the ‘bounded system’ (Creswell, 1998; Merriam, 1998), thereby identifying the parameters of the research inquiry. This is consistent with Stewart’s (2013) statement that boundaries should be justified by common sense and include a system of connection. It is not the intention of this case study to generalise its findings across multiple additional cases, or to compare it to theory, and this is not necessary in order to answer the research questions (Carroll & Johnson, 1990). After all, the number of actual cases is not anywhere near as important as the quality of the collected data and the ‘case’ itself to understanding the issue (Patterson, 2000; Stake, 1995). Identifying the confines of the study at the outset allowed the researcher to establish parameters for what would and would not be included. The boundaries of this case study were purposively selected; remote settings, generalist nurses and mental health clients thereby ‘bounded the case’ to identifiable individuals (generalist nurses, mental health clients), place (Australia, remote locations) and time (contemporary) (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Creswell, 1998). Hence this case study’s boundaries identify ‘who is included, context, phenomenon and time-period being studied’ (Gangeness & Yurkovich, 2006, p. 11).