Case Studies

Case studies are used in many subjects (especially in legal, medical, and business training) because they help people bridge theory and practice, basing thought experiments in real-world circumstances. Participants often like case studies because they involve storytelling, with its characters, conflicts, plot developments, emotions, and consequences. Case studies are also satisfying in their use of reasoned opinion and debate. Sometimes, the “answers” to a problem (the decisions and consequences unfolding in response to an actual challenge) are revealed up front, with follow-up and what-if questions drawing out the nuances for the educational discussion. In other case studies drawn from real life, participants reason through all the issues and courses of action first, before the decisions made in real life are available to them. This latter process simulates the messy world of real circumstances, in which we may never know the correct answer, just the actual one participants make.    

All the Learning NAGPRA case studies are based in fact. Some are described in great detail, with the permission of the participants. These cases may use media, remembrances, or other documentation that participants can examine to complete a rounder sense of the circumstances. Other cases are “hybrid” ones that collapse the details of several similar instances into a realistic, but not precisely real, story that evokes some of the central issues and dilemmas of the originals. The advantage of the hybrid cases is that they do not call out particular people, places, or circumstances and, in fact, are designed to protect the privacy of those involved. In this way, they allow anonymized discussion of sensitive but real dilemmas.

The case study teaching method is especially well-suited to topics that involve multiple stakeholders, who often come from different backgrounds with differing interests in the situation. Case studies are also useful for subjects such as NAGPRA that carry emotional weight. The opportunities lie in readers’ finding themselves in a familiar context—learning about a story with thinking, feeling characters who are poised to act in high-stakes dilemmas. With careful unfolding of detail by the leader, a good case allows readers to enter the narrative, establishing context, asking questions, debating next steps, and evaluating outcomes. They can learn to see the structure of the law in the context of life. In doing so, they are able not only to learn how to apply the law according to established best practices, but also to contribute personal, cultural, and ethical perspectives and take part in a new, NAGPRA-based community.

Learning NAGPRA case studies provide practice for key skills, knowledge, and dispositions that will be useful in NAGPRA and many other culturally nuanced circumstances. 

The case studies prompt critical thinking through:

• explaining assumptions
• identifying evaluative criteria
• sorting high-priority and low-priority items
• analyzing the roles of science, government, and community
• applying theory to practice
• balancing stakeholders’ needs, claims, concerns, and costs
• evaluating possible courses of action and outcomes
• arguing with evidence
• choosing and using appropriate analytical tools

...empathy through:

• listening actively
• building respect
• engaging constructively
• disagreeing constructively

...cultural relativism through:

• understanding and valuing differences in cultures
• identifying and valuing community-defined ethics
• understanding the difference between accuracy and truth
• understanding perspectives on better science and multiple sciences
• understanding the continuities and limits of history

...communication through:

• exchanging information for the purpose of understanding
• working cooperatively
• working across stakeholder groups

...resilience through:

• deciding in the absence of complete understanding
• tolerating uncertainty
• coping with ambiguities
• deciding in complex situations
• working in groups

... agency through:

• identifying possible actions
• gaining confidence in being able to discern solutions through analytical reasoning
• understanding relevant 21^st century fields, such as archaeology, museums, folklore, anthropology, as collaborative and consultative
• centering the work of these professionals and NAGPRA on people
• understanding human decision making and their stakes within relevant structures and organizations

Some learners may have little experience with open-ended, participatory, multimedia, or problem-based teaching approaches. They may be confused at first about what to make of fragmentary and multi-modal sources. This discomfort is part of the learning process—creating a sense of multiple voices, contending systems, difficult histories, and uncertain, sometimes dissatisfying solutions. Facilitators should alert readers to the unusual form the cases will take and assure them that, working together, the class will think together to understand each case in the most complete way possible. The teacher might also issue a “trigger warning” or other comment to let readers know when the cases are part of a past of violence and injustice that for many people continues into the present. The facilitator may want to reassure readers that personal responses will be valued and respected while at the same time the class, in community, works toward learning about the legal, practical, and ethical solutions possible through NAGPRA.    

One way to help readers navigate NAGPRA case studies before class is to give them a writing assignment that focuses on their reading. This helps them organize salient issues and prepare for in-depth discussion. Class can then begin with a discussion of their answers. Here are a few examples of assignments participants can do before class:

• Make a brief note in answer to each of the following prompts: who is involved, what is happening, when do events take place, where are the relevant places, why is this a dilemma?
• Why is NAGPRA invoked in this case?
• Write a brief paragraph for each person or institution (tribe, government, university, company, agency, museum, etc.) that describes the dilemma from that perspective.
• What response do you, personally, have to this case? What response do you imagine someone else affected might have? Why might those responses be the same or different?

There are many good ways to progress through a case study during class. Learning NAGPRA cases vary in the degree of detail they provide—from quick overviews to lengthy descriptions to open-ended discussions that invite further research. How a teacher approaches discussion of the cases will, to some degree, depend on the level of detail the case includes. In addition, the discussion facilitator may not know exactly which questions to ask or which problems to focus on until she sees where participants are experiencing the most success, the most trouble, or the greatest insights. Even meandering progress or unexpected comments can offer excellent opportunities to coach learners on critical and ethical thinking. In the best case, the facilitator is flexible and responsive, moving forward and circling back as the understanding of her participants dictates. 

Before beginning, facilitators should probably reflect on their own positions, opinions, and biases relative to the case. Some ethics educators debate about what should happen next. One opinion is that the facilitator has a responsibility to remain politically neutral, so as not to sway participants to agree or disagree with the facilitator. Another opinion argues that facilitators have a duty to reveal their position (that is, to reveal possible bias) while assuring the participants that they won’t be punished for taking an opposing position. Clearly, balancing one’s personal stake in a given case with her or his educational goals while maintaining an atmosphere that supports learners’ genuine engagement with the task is difficult. 

In preparing to discuss cases in class, teachers might contemplate five major moves.

1. Unpacking the problem - Cases are intended to represent real-world situations.  Like problems in life, they may need some clarifying and organizing before we can plan a solution. So, it’s useful to have participants begin by outlining the situation described, perhaps by creating (or confirming) answers to the who, what, when, where, why questions discussed above. You might also consider these core questions:
   • What is the situation? What questions do you have?
   • What problem(s) need to be solved? What are some solution strategies? What are the pros and cons and the underlying assumptions of each of these strategies?
   • What information do you need? If some is missing, where or how could you find it?
   • What criteria will you use to evaluate your solution? Remember that the case studies are designed to practice a process of decision making, following a path of best practices, not in finding a single right answer.
2. Applying what we know - Once the situation is clarified, the discussion can move to applying what the class has been learning about NAGPRA and the people it affects. Of course, disagreements may occur throughout, and that is part of the learning process! Questions to consider are:
   • Which portions of the law are most relevant in this case—from both its letter and its spirit?
   • What are the perspectives of the people involved? What is at stake for them?
   • What key facts or additional context should be included before a course of action is planned?
   • What precedents, historic events, related laws and policies, and ethical principles should guide our design of a consultation plan for this case?
3. Testing what we propose - Depending on how the instructor uses the Learning NAGPRA cases, the “proposals” or “solutions” to the problems the cases pose may center on 1) the decisions of the people in the cases, 2) the critique and improvement of their decisions, or 3) new pathways forward proposed by the participants. Regardless, much of the learning power of cases comes when participants test their understanding and that of their peers—critically evaluating how well their analysis and recommendations synthesize all the important legal, social, scientific, and ethical components that should be included. There are several good ways to organize a class to test solutions and evaluate pathways forward.
   • A simple discussion of what participants recommend and why can create a sense of synthesis, cooperation, and community building. Quality, not quantity, of participation should be emphasized during the discussion. Cooperation can be emphasized by requiring participants to acknowledge positively one idea in the comment before theirs. Critical thinking can be foregrounded by inviting participants to either endorse, critique, improve, or incorporate comments that have come before theirs.
   • A debate format divides the class into groups to represent different sides or constituencies. Give each group time to discuss their position before taking formal statements from each. Questions are important to the success of the debate format so that ideas can be supported by evidence and evaluated. Consider whether the questions are best coming from the instructor, the debate groups, or a specially designated neutral group. Debate formats will emphasize contending sides but can still move beyond a win/lose ethos if participants are prompted to try to synthesize everyone’s concerns. Debates can also be combined with roleplaying, as described below.
   • A fishbowl format designates most people as observers, while a few individuals hold a discussion or debate. This format works well if the participants have a chance to dialogue about the ideas before the whole class is invited to offer comments and questions. Because fewer people are involved in active discussion, a fishbowl can be a good way to practice respectful listening as well as manage participation on volatile topics.
   • Roleplaying asks participants to move beyond dispassionate analysis to advocacy. In this format, they are asked to play the part of individual people or members of groups who are involved in the case. The roles they are assigned are not necessarily ones that the participants would immediately identify with. Indeed, it can be informative to have to advocate for a position that one would not immediately side with or even to have to switch sides in the middle of the discussion. Although it involves a measure of advocacy, roleplaying can also mitigate assumptions about what perspectives participants are expected to take and can shield those participants who are uncomfortable disclosing their own perspective. Roleplaying actively engages participants and encourages flexibility of mind as they inhabit various positions suggested by the cases. In addition, videos and site visits related to the case can give participants new, more affective information to work with as they play out their roles. Roleplaying can offer a very particular challenge to the facilitator when stereotyping and other controversial issues arise. Barnard College’s Reacting to the Pastnotes that participants in role play can become confused about whether comments are made in a role or outside of one (“Pedagogical Introduction” 6). Is hate speech during an exercise part of a role? Is criticism aimed at a person or the position she is espousing in-role? And so on. One recommendation they make is to assign names to each role and use them in order to clarify who is speaking to whom. 
   • Progressive disclosure and interruption are variations on the case method proposed by Clyde Freeman Herreid and colleagues (2012). Both these versions use the narrative qualities of storytelling to enhance learning. In progressive disclosure, instead of having participants read the whole case in advance, the teacher relates the story in a series of “reveals.” The idea is that participants are given just enough information to begin making decisions (The museum curator arrives at work one morning and finds a box of bones on the doorstep. What should she do? What else do you need to know before you can decide?). Then information or complications enrich the participants’ discussion and, perhaps, to fuel debate. Similarly, in the interruption method, participants are given only partial information before they are asked questions. This method can emphasize a dialogue between novice and expert thinking—asking first what the novice would do and then checking that against the expert’s actions. Having multiple interruptions in the narrative flow means that participants cannot veer too far off course before being corrected.
   • Some key questions to ask regardless of the form of the activity will be:
     • How realistic is a solution? Who benefits from it? Who suffers? Who gets left out? What would happen if this solution were applied to all such situations?
     • How well does the solution meet the ideal goals for a NAGPRA consultation?
     • What alternatives are available to the decision-makers involved?
4. Transferring what we learn - One assumption behind the case method is that it highly contextualized the situations described but also carries with it elements transferrable to other situations. Cases that are simply anomalous, with no generalizable or transferable content, will not provide much utility beyond their historical interest. Yet participants don’t always recognize which parts imbedded in a rich and unique context are the ones that can travel. So, it is worthwhile to spend some time with them thinking carefully about “what we just learned.” Some questions might be:
   • What in this case seems to be transferable to other situations? What would those situations be? How will we know if a particular situation is similar enough for a similar solution?
   • What elements in this case seem not to be transferable? Why do you say so?
     • One practical way to get learners to recognize and appreciate transferability is to have them write their own fictional case studies for a future gathering (McGill). They can begin by outlining some of the major discussion topics and ethical issues as they see them and then draft a scenario that speaks to those issues. This exercise helps them to see gaps in their knowledge about the law, to understand better what types of contextual information need attending and which can distract, and to envision future collaborators in the larger NAGPRA initiative. 
5. Reflecting on our learning - The last step in successful case teaching will allow participants time to reflect on what they have learned, offering a specific period in which to integrate it into what they know about the world and themselves. This step is consistent with William Perry’s scheme of intellectual and ethical development, which culminates in a learner’s commitment to certain ideas and integrating knowledge learned from others with personal experience and reflection (1970). Similarly, C. Roland Christensen notes that the case method facilitates an advanced level of learning in which participants become involved with ideas such that the topics under study are no longer treated as abstractions. Instead, they become integrated into the learner’s sense of self and notions of right actions in specific real-world situations (Christensen, 1987, p. 35).  

In learning about NAGPRA, such reflection is especially important and powerful. It can allow for a participant to have emotional release and reconciliation. It can help her differentiate and reconcile preferred personal practice with best professional practice. Such reflection can be done in writing, verbally, or silently; and privately or shared with the class. The best practices will vary by participants and topics, and may be appropriate for such issues as community diversity, cultural appropriation, and colonialism. 

As with so many real-world dilemmas that we would like to prepare participants to solve, case studies offer a good way to address the challenges tied up in NAGPRA. However, it is worth preparing in advance for the special weight that NAGPRA carries with it that can affect how the case study method plays out.

Working through the NAGPRA case studies can be difficult. But these challenges represent opportunities to have participants exercise some essential skills, including the necessity to act responsibly in the absence of complete information, the ability to listen with respect even when in disagreement, and the ability to extend empathy to those who seem different. Some especially good structures and strategies for teaching difficult topics—both anticipated and unexpected—are available from the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching at the University of Michigan.