Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research
arXiv:1304.1186 · doi:10.1177/1077800405284363
Abstract
This article examines five common misunderstandings about case-study research: (1) Theoretical knowledge is more valuable than practical knowledge; (2) One cannot generalize from a single case, therefore the single case study cannot contribute to scientific development; (3) The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses, while other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building; (4) The case study contains a bias toward verification; and (5) It is often difficult to summarize specific case studies. The 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 that a discipline without exemplars is an ineffective one. Social science may be strengthened by the execution of more good case studies.
Cited by in corpus (9)
- A Tale of Two Cities: Software Developers Working from Home During the COVID-19 Pandemic
- Forecasting the Socio-Economic Impact of the Large Hadron Collider: a Cost-Benefit Analysis to 2025 and Beyond
- Modelling Families of Business Process Variants: A Decomposition Driven Method
- Automatic Test Improvement with DSpot: a Study with Ten Mature Open-Source Projects
- Lessons Learned from Applying Social Network Analysis on an Industrial Free/Libre/Open Source Software Ecosystem
- Production Monitoring to Improve Test Suites
- An exploratory study on how Internet of Things developing companies handle User Experience Requirements
- Further Investigation of the Survivability of Code Technical Debt Items
- TripleAgent: Monitoring, Perturbation and Failure-obliviousness for Automated Resilience Improvement in Java Applications