S.TRUEMAN PhD THESIS 2016

132

type of comparison fails to recognise the inherent value of some research better understood using an interpretive or social constructionist lens of inquiry (Merriam, 2009; Stake, 1995). Second, critics have stated that case studies have limitations due to the issues of reliability, validity and generalisability. As Hamel, Dufour and Fortin (1993) stated, ‘the case study has basically been faulted for its lack of representativeness … and its lack of rigor in the collection, construction, and analysis of the empirical materials that give rise to this study’ (p. 23). However, this argument against case study research is misguided, for it misunderstands the original reasons for doing this type of research. As Shields (2007) argued in support of qualitative case studies: [t]he strength of qualitative approaches is that they account for and include difference--ideologically, epistemologically, methodologically--and most importantly, humanly. They do not attempt to eliminate what cannot be discounted. They do not attempt to simplify what cannot be simplified. Thus, it is precisely because case study includes paradoxes and acknowledges that there are no simple answers, that it can and should qualify as the gold standard. (p. 12) Flyvbjerg (2006) outlined five ‘misunderstandings’ (criticisms) about case study research (including the second criticism outlined above), which he then dismantled, substituting a more accurate statement on the issue underlying each misunderstanding. These misunderstandings and their restatements are displayed in Table 4.4.