“JOSEPH”

1. What methods of data collection did Josef employ?

Josef applies to his university for ethical approval for his study using the title “Risk and
Return in loan decisions at Credit Unions: A case study”. He received permission to
collect information through observations, documents and interviewing the CU’s paid
worker and volunteers.
 Documents: includes manuals on loan decisions.
 Observations: here he observes how people advice members who enquire about
loans.
 Interviews: Josef interviews both the paid manager and other volunteers.
2. How was Josef’s approach to a case study different from a conventional or orthodox
approach?
Josef’s approach towards his case study was different from an orthodox or conventional
approach because in an orthodox approach everything is rigorously defined and highly
structured where the literature is reviewed first, the research question is defined, the
research project is designed, preparation for the conduct of the research is undertaken,
and data are collected, analyzed, interpreted and then reported. However, Josef in his
approach used different stages of data collection and continuously analyzed the data
and with time evolved/improved his objectives and research questions accordingly, to
gain better understanding of relationship between risk and return in credit unions. As he
emerged more and more into the case he gained more information and changed his
research title twice to fit his objective. As Josef was doing the work the same way it is
done in emergent case study, he was recommended by his supervisor to reads Lee and
Saunders’ (2017) discussion of emergent case studies after which Josef re-wrote his
methodology chapter to state how he conducted an emergent case study in an iterative
way, by continually moving between the research and literature to develop and refine
his argument. Josef’s approach was emergent case study approach where a researcher
strategically choose a case study environment within which research will be conducted
but allowing the focus of the research to emerge through his or her engagement in this
setting (involving different stages of data collection and analysis) and with relevant
literature.
3. Will Josef be able to ‘generalize’ his findings to other credit unions? Does it matter
whether he can or cannot do so?
Josef is using a small Version 1 CU tier in his study so he can only generalize his findings
to small Version 1 credit unions and not to other credit unions as there is a criticism
about generalization of case studies related to their ability to produce general, reliable
and theoretical contributions to knowledge. This is largely based on positivist criticisms
of using small samples and more generally about using interpretive, qualitative
research.
 It does matter that he does generalization, because it is an essential component of the
wider scientific process. It will allow researchers to take what they have learnt on a
small scale and relate it more broadly to the bigger picture and moreover it is also
important to increase the external validity of his work so generalization matters
otherwise people will say that he did his study for himself.
4. Did Josef apply for ethical approval for his study at the correct point and what should
he have done when changing his research question?
Yes, Josef has gone through approval at the correct timing when he first applies to his
university for ethical approach for his study using the title “Risk and Return in loan
decisions at Credit Unions: A case study”.
When changing his research question, he should cite the new information he learned
and document it. If he is getting information that can improve his research questions, he
should improve it and if the information he is getting is satisfying his existing research
questions he should keep it the way it is.