De Vaus (2001) Research Design in Social Research.
Citation: De Vaus, David (2001) Research Design in Social Research, London: SAGE Publications.
Time Period Covered:
Theory, Research Question, Hypothesis:
Relationship to Other Research/Ideas Contested/Noted Gaps:
Concepts and Definitions:
Method:
Primary/Original Data:
Argument/Conclusion:
Limitations/Flaws:
Abstract:
Notes:
De Vaus (2001:219): Notes tendency to treat case study as “ugly duckling” or “soft” option, allowing for hypothesis generation that can then be tested through more rigorous approaches.
De Vaus (2001:220-221): Drawing on Yin (1989), distingushes between cases as ‘holistic’ entities, and those that are ‘embedded’ and have multiple constituent parts. “A well-designed case study will avoid examining just some of the constitutional elements. It will build up a picture of the case by taking into account information gained from many levels.” [I am treating the NC insurgency as a single case, with the geographic units acting as constitutional elements.]
De Vaus (2001:221): Insists “case study research in social sciences must have a theoretical dimension. Without a theoretical dimension a case study will be of little value for wider generalization.”
De Vaus (2001:221-222): Sees Yin as placing theory testing at the heart of case studies. “On the basis of a theory we predict that a case with a particular set of characteristics will have a particular outcome.” The case would thus be selected on the basis of these characteristics.
De Vaus (2001:222): Alternatively, proposes theory building as the basis for case selection, whereby cases are selected according to a very rough theory and then the theory is refined through examination of the cases. “The difference between the theory testing and theory building approaches is that in the former we begin with a set of quite specific propositions and then see if these work in real world situations. In the theory building model we begin with only a question and perhaps basic proposition, look at real cases and end up with a more specific theory or set of propositions as a result of examining actual cases.”
De Vaus (2001:222-223): Both are what he calls “theory centred.” Also identifies “clinical case studies,” which use theories to understand a case. “The goal is to understand the case and solve a problem for this case. The purpose is not to test or develop theories but to use existing theories.”
De Vaus (2001:226-227): “A single case represents only one replication and does not necessarily provide a tough test of a theory. […] Multiple cases, strategically selected, can provide a much tougher test of a theory and can help specify the different conditions under which a theory may or may not hold.”
De Vaus (2001:237-239): Sees case studies as often having strong internal validity because of their complex treatment of a phenomena, but potentially weak external validity because of the difficulty of generalising. Agrees that they cannot provide a basis for statistically valid generalisations, but argues that theoretical generalisability is as valid as statistical generalisability. External validity is enhanced by the strategic selection of cases for their relationship to the theory