S.TRUEMAN PhD THESIS 2016

134

reports’ or single cases selected retrospectively from larger studies (e.g., Bronken, Kirkevold, Martinsen & Kvigne, 2012; Coltart & Henwood, 2012; Hooghe, Neimeyer & Rober, 2012; Roscigno et al., 2012). In other purported ‘case studies’, justifications for the selection of a case and the choice to use case study methodology are fatally absent (Thomas, 2011). Absent or insufficient justifications for the selection of a case study methodology call into question whether or not the research is in fact a case study (Hyett et al., 2014). Similarly, a lack of explicit explanation as to whether a given case is indeed something particular to a discipline or field also adds to the confusion regarding the nature of case study methodology and research (Adamson & Holloway, 2012; Bronken et al., 2012; Colón-Emeric et al., 2010; Jackson, Botelho, Welch, Joseph & Tennstedt, 2012; Mawn et al., 2010; Snyder-Young, 2011). 4.5 Conclusion This chapter has outlined the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of the study. The discussion on case study design sought to justify why case study methodology is particularly suited to this research. Explanations were given for each of the four categories of case study design: single, intrinsic, explanatory and holistic. Importantly, the substantial academic challenges to case study as a methodology were discussed and addressed to support the utilisation of a case study methodology in this thesis. The next chapter outlines and discusses the research methods used to collect and initially analyse data in this study.