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:
“Consumer wants can have bizarre, frivolous, or even immoral origins, and an admirable case can still be made for a society that seeks to satisfy them. But the case cannot stand if it is the process of satisfying wants that creates the wants.”
—John Kenneth Galbraith (b. 1908)
“You should study the Peerage, Gerald. It is the one book a young man about town should know thoroughly, and it is the best thing in fiction the English have ever done.”
—Oscar Wilde (1854–1900)
“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)