The Case Study Paradox
Case studies have existed as long as recorded history. Much of what is known about the empirical world has been produced by case study research, and many of the classics in a long range of disciplines are case studies, including in psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, education, economics, political science, management, geography, biology, and medical science. Half of all articles in the top political science journals use case studies, for instance. But there is a paradox here, as argued by Oxford professor Bent Flyvbjerg. At the same time that case studies are extensively used and have produced canonical works, one may observe that the case study is generally held in low regard, or is simply ignored, within the academy. Statistics on courses offered in universities confirm this. It has been argued that the case study paradox exists because the case study is widely misunderstood as a research method. Flyvbjerg argues that by clearing the misunderstandings about the case study, the case study paradox may be resolved.
Read more about this topic: Case Study
Famous quotes containing the words case, study and/or paradox:
“Instructing in cures, therapists always recommend that “each case be individualized.” If this advice is followed, one becomes persuaded that those means recommended in textbooks as the best, means perfectly appropriate for the template case, turn out to be completely unsuitable in individual cases.”
—Anton Pavlovich Chekhov (1860–1904)
“Because just as arms have no force outside if there is no counsel within a house, study is vain and counsel useless that is not put to virtuous effect when the time calls.”
—François Rabelais (1494–1553)
“The conclusion suggested by these arguments might be called the paradox of theorizing. It asserts that if the terms and the general principles of a scientific theory serve their purpose, i. e., if they establish the definite connections among observable phenomena, then they can be dispensed with since any chain of laws and interpretive statements establishing such a connection should then be replaceable by a law which directly links observational antecedents to observational consequents.”
—C.G. (Carl Gustav)