Читать книгу Understanding Case Study Research - Malcolm Tight - Страница 30

The relationship between the singular and the general has long been the subject of discussion in case study research; indeed, it would probably be fair to say that it has been the most discussed issue of all (e.g. Bassey 1981; Kennedy 1979). It is an underlying problem with the case study design that needs to be recognised. Of course, if the case being studied has been chosen for its particularity or extreme characteristics, this may not be an important issue: the case is of interest because it is unusual, perhaps unique. Otherwise, however, unless the researcher can demonstrate that the case being studied is typical, generalising from the findings is problematic.

One common response to the generalisability issue has been to argue for the accumulation of single case studies on the same topic to allow for the identification of similarities and differences. This is, indeed, how case studies have long been used in certain disciplines. For example, writing in the 1980s, Tripp (1985) argued that:

we must find ways of utilising the cumulated wisdom of the case studies we have available… We also need to build archives of the cases similar to those of the legal system, and we need to develop more formally organised and broadly based networks through which teachers and researchers can communicate amongst themselves. (p. 41)

Greene and David (1984) took a similar stance, stating that ‘generalizing from multiple case studies – within the structure provided by a multiple case study design – has a sound basis in (inductive) logic’ (p. 82). More recently, Jensen and Rodgers (2001) also appear to agree, arguing that meta-analysis (i.e. the collection and reanalysis of collections of case studies addressing the same topic; meta-analysis is discussed further in Chapter 7, where a range of existing meta-analyses of case studies are identified and discussed) may be used to cumulate what they refer to as ‘the intellectual gold’ of case study research.

So the multiple case study design offers one obvious and acceptable strategy for generalising from case study findings. But what if you do not have the results of multiple case studies available, and it would be impractical for you to go beyond a single case study design (or just a limited number)? Is it still possible to then argue for generalisability?

Evers and Wu (2006) argue that it is possible to generalise from single cases, but suggest that this is not easy or straightforward:

Being able to generalise reasonably from a single case is a complex and difficult matter. But… the task is abetted by three important factors. First, cases possess considerably more structure than is commonly supposed… Second, researchers bring to a case much more knowledge than is often supposed… Finally, an ongoing trajectory of inquiry through time and changing circumstances makes it less likely that a stable match between patterns of researcher expectations and what is observed is sheer coincidence. (p. 524)

What they seem to be arguing here is that the researcher’s experience is a key factor, which relates to their knowing how typical or not the case being studied is, their having carried out other, and perhaps similar, case studies before, and their having an informed awareness of other relevant research. It would not, by comparison, be advisable for a young, inexperienced, honours or postgraduate student, carrying out a case study for perhaps the first time, to seek to generalise from their findings.

Thomas (2011b) reminds us that generalisation is an issue throughout the social sciences, by no means confined to case study research. He reasons that: ‘to argue that to seek generalizable knowledge, in whatever form – everyday or special – is to miss the point about what may be offered by certain kinds of inquiry, which is exemplary knowledge’ (p. 33, emphasis in original). We study particular cases for their interest and what we can learn from them. Whether these findings can be applied to other cases may be beyond the scope of the study, and is at least partly the business of other researchers to determine.

Mjoset (2006) suggests a further, pragmatist, stance towards generalisation, going beyond the natural/social science dichotomy, and uses a case study of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as an example. This is, though, what might be called a critical case: understanding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is of widespread interest – as it directly affects millions of people and many more indirectly – particularly if it helps to lead to some sort of solution of it (this case study is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7).

Ruzzene (2012) offers a further response to the dilemma, arguing that ‘the emphasis should be placed on the comparability of the study rather than on the typicality of the case’ (p. 99). This again suggests a kind of multiple case study approach, even if the case studies are carried out by different researchers (and may not have been carried out yet). In other words, one might study a school class or a small business, producing findings which others who were interested in schools or businesses could explore to assess their relevance.

What all of these authors and examples have in common is the realisation that there is no easy answer to the issue of generalisation. Yet it has to be faced, and addressed, every time a case study is carried out. Are you undertaking a case study to compare it to other, similar or related, case studies, whether carried out by you or others? Are you undertaking a typical, exemplary or indicative case study, the findings from which should be more broadly applicable? Or are you undertaking a case study which is of interest for its very particularity or extreme nature?

It is, of course, possible – and probably quite common, particularly among novice researchers – that the researcher does not (yet) know the answers to these questions. But the questions still need to be recognised and addressed as well as they can be (the practical issues involved are discussed further in the section on Sampling and Selection Issues in Chapter 8).