Study or Case Study? 87
Background: Set out the history and culture of
Vanuatu with a focus on diet. Demonstrate an
understanding of the traditional diet in Vanu-
atu. Illuminate ways in which globalization
is influencing life in Vanuatu with a focus on
diet. Create and justify research questions
Background: Trace the development of the
global food industry. Set out known impacts
of dietary change in a range of develop-
ing countries. Identify key points of debate
where issues arise, and are increasing, in an
effort to pinpoint significant areas of con-
cern. Create and justify research questions
Study design: Determine, and demonstrate
understanding of, appropriate data collec-
tion and techniques. Adapt, for example, an
existing questionnaire pertaining to dietary
choices. Gather data in Vanuatu
Study design: Select case-study approach. Jus-
tify the choice of Vanuatu as an example of
global issues. Describe Vanuatu. Determine,
and demonstrate understanding of, appropri-
ate data collection techniques. Gather data
in Vanuatu
Results: Analyze the current choices of food that
make up a diet in Vanuatu
Results: Analyze the current choices of food
that make up a diet in Vanuatu as they relate
to global factors
Discussion, conclusions: Within the context of
historical records of the Vanuatu diets, set out
the results to explain choice in modern diets
of Vanuatu
Discussion, conclusions: Set out the results in
the context of global influences, with a clear
link to the theoretical framework and the
ability to transfer, or generalize, findings to
similar developing countries
Further research; career goals: Propose that a
mixed methods approach be used to survey
more people (breadth) and understand choices
(depth); work for an agency concerned spe-
cifically with Vanuatu
Further research; career goals: Transfer the
study design to a range of developing coun-
tries, and nominate key variables to create a
survey instrument; work as a consultant to
an international organizationThe two structures are clearly very different, and the common elements appear at
different points. For example, the word ‘Vanuatu’ does not appear in the title or the
aim in the case-study approach, and the description of the Vanuatu case study is
deferred for several chapters. Not surprisingly, the discussion and conclusions take
quite different directions.
You must, from the start, be clear about which of the two approaches you are
using. If you are undecided, you will jump from one structure to the other as the
research develops. With regards to the example above, Hisako needed to know right
away whether to look for references to do only with Vanuatu or for work to do with
a range of South Pacific countries. A discussion of results can be a mess if you
sometimes see their relevance in terms of a specific situation, and at other times see
the results as an example of larger phenomenon. I offer a test: if you mention the
words ‘case study’ in your thesis, you shouldn’t mention the specific area or topic of
the case study in your aim or title. If you find that it keeps creeping back into work-
ing versions of your aim or title, you have not yet sorted out this problem.
The comparison above demonstrates that there is a leap of faith in the discussion
and conclusions sections of the case-study approach, in that it is assumed that the
findings for the case study can be generalized. (If you don’t go on to at least some
generalization, or transference to similar settings, then it is not a case study, but
merely a study.) You will have done your best to cover this point in your method sec-
tion, in which you try to choose the most representative case-study area. However, it