Rival Explanations

Conceptual Overview and Discussion

Rival explanations are derived from good-quality rival analysis. Eminent case study researcher Robert Stake explains that good-quality rival analysis is achieved when (a) the researcher has shown that the evidence does not suggest something else (i.e., the events happened as the researcher says or supposed they did/would), (b) the evidence is enough to suggest that the event is integrally related, and (c) the explanation of the finding could not have been produced by any other or additional antecedent events. Rival explanations are derived from a systematic and thoughtful examination and understanding of the rich context in which the phenomena occur. Rival explanations are often articulated in the research literature, and they need to be given appropriate attention if the new explanation is to be credulous.

The process of rival analysis adds a richness to the understanding of the phenomenon by illustrating how it can be manifested differently as a result of the influence from factors in the environment or characteristics of the subject. The explanation should address the iteration of the understanding of both the whole and its parts. The process of discerning contributory factors and entities in a case study will help to distinguish whether the case is a typical example of the phenomenon or a deviant example, which enables an evaluation of the relative explanatory power of the case in relation to the emerging theory.

Rival explanations challenge whether the significant aspects of the phenomenon that the researcher attributes to the finding are actually the most critical. Such explanations also take into account inactivity or silence; that is, the researcher considers what is not happening and what inaction is significant to the event or what could be taking place. When researchers contemplate rival explanations they also consider how cognizant participants are of nonactions or withheld events. For example, a researcher studying the phenomenon of hospitality in an early childhood center may consider the multiple meanings of an absence of invitational and welcoming commentary. An ability to offer an explanatory argument that is both theoretically and philosophically sound demonstrates that the explanation has tensile strength and is able to hold up under close scrutiny.

Although the findings of a case study should stimulate questions and, in fact, may invite [Page 834]controversy, rival explanations should preempt obvious and previously documented rival theories. A persuasive proposition presents sufficient evidence from the study and acknowledges alternative interpretations, giving clear reasons for their rejection. Rival explanations can reveal the inadequacy of the provisional explanation, or they can validate it. The absurdities, contradictions, and oppositions exposed at the stage of data reduction are often not resolved until a rival analysis occurs.

...