Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research

This article , written by Bent Flyvbjerg (Aalborg University, Denmark) examines five common misunderstandings about case-study research: (a) theoretical knowledge is more valuable than practical knowledge; (b) one cannot generalize from a single case, therefore, the single-case study cannot contribute to scientific development; (c) the case study is most useful for generating hypotheses, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building; (d) the case study contains a bias towards verification; and (e) it is often difficult to summarize specific case studies. This article explains and corrects these misunderstandings one by one and concludes with the Kuhnian insight that a scientific discipline without a large number of thoroughly executed case studies is a discipline without systematic production of exemplars, and a discipline without exemplars is an ineffective one. Social science may be strengthened by the execution of a greater number of good case studies.

Contents

  • The conventional wisdom about case-study research
  • The role of cases in human learning
  • Cases as "Black Swans"
  • Strategies for case selection
  • Do case studies contain a subjective bias?
  • The irreducible quality of good case narratives

Source

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/Publications2006/0604FIVEMISPUBL2006.pdf

0
No votes yet
Rate this Resource:
This resource is useful for:
A special thanks to this page's contributors
Author
UX Designer / Information Architect, BetterEvaluation.
Melbourne, Australia.
Resource Suggested By
Director of Research & Evaluation, Meaningful Evidence, LLC.
Falls Church, Virginia, United States of America.

Comments

There are currently no comments. Be the first to comment on this page!

Add new comment

Login Login and comment as BetterEvaluation member or simply fill out the fields below.