Unfortunately, there was no lecture during this week. I felt that the quality and the discussions of the seminar would have profited a lot from a lecture. We asked quite general questions about what exactly defines a case study etc. in the seminar which I felt should not have been the framework for it.
Nonetheless, I got a more defined understanding of what a case study is and what it is not. First of all, something that I had not really understood before is that "it's not the method that makes it a case study" which Ilias explained for us. A case study can use either quantitative or qualitative methods, depending on its particular research question. A fellow student in my seminar made an important point when saying that a case study "constructs its methods while it's going on". No matter which method is applied, in a case study, research is always conducted in detail and intensively (cf. Swanborn SAGEpub).
What distinguishes a case study from other forms of research is that it always investigates something new, a case that has not been researched before. Based on this new research, theories can be formed, or at least started to be formed. An observation made in a case study can be researched further to formulate a generalised theory. I had actually not understood this correctly when I explained case studies to first year students in my pre-lecture blog post. Now, however, my understanding is that incidents that are unique, new or simply not researched yet are used in case studies with the aim of gaining insights into them and understand them. This can then lead to establishing a theory through further research but, unlike I though after reading the paper for this theme, a case study does not necessarily start with the aim of creating a theory about something.
In our group discussion, we mainly exchanged which research papers we had chosen for this theme. This is always interesting to hear, although not even this discussion helped us to clearly define what a case study was before bringing it up with Ilias.
After the smaller discussion, Ilias told us about Paul Feyerabend and his publication Against Method with the main argument that "anything goes" in research (cf. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The Austrian philosopher wanted to argue against too rigid methods and definitions in science which limit researchers and scientists. I personally found this to be a very fitting end of this course's final seminar. I had a very good understanding of research methods in social sciences, based on courses and practical experiences from my bachelor's degree. There however, we had always stuck to very precise definitions and executions of these methods. In this respect, this course was eye-opening to me, especially the topics of design and case study research because I learned that research can be defined by the researcher him- or herself. To me, this seems very liberating with regard to upcoming research projects during the master's degree.
I agree with you that the missing lecture in this weeks theme made the discussions in the seminar very general and it was a bit hard to talk about the questions from our pre-blog in-depth without that much further knowledge about the topic. You did a good job summarizing what a case study is and what it is not. For me it was also a bit hard in the beginning to fully understand what a case study is. Therefore the seminar helped me a lot to get a better understanding of it. I also liked the end of the seminar with the discussion about Feyerabend and his argument that anything is possible. It is good to read that you feel that the course was very eye-opening for you.
SvaraRaderaYou gave a great summary of last week's them Qualitative methods and Case study research! Your emphasis on the most important elements really focuses on the term case study itself, which cannot be defined by the method, but constructs the method along the way. I found the seminar also helpful in this regard, really outlining the tenure and explaining how a case study intends to establish a theory where no theory yet existed. Your clear structure and writing style complements your thoughts, and I really enjoyed reading your reflection. In particular, the last quote Ilias told us really questions everything we knew supposedly about research and its definitions. Since there is still an argument between researchers and philosophers alike if this quote by Feyerabend is applicable, I would be interested in your opinion about this. Do you think research can be conducted that uninhibited?
SvaraRaderaHi Malina,
SvaraRaderaI think you wrote a great summary of last week's last session of the seminar and I agree with you that it indeed was somewhat eye-opening that there is more than the strict quantitative / qualitative method approach that I have been taught during my undergraduate program. First I had problems understanding, that there is a differerent approach, like the case studies, that totally exclude the known approach of forming hypotheses and researching further from there on. But it's interesting to know, that it case studies research in a less structured and foreseeable way, referring to Feyerabend and the "anything goes" idea.
Overall, a great reflection!
Hi Malina!
SvaraRaderaI think your post reflection this week was really good. It's good that you give a reason for why you feel that it was a shame that the lecture was canceled. You show that you've understood the concepts well and that you're very on point when defining the difference between case studies and qualitative ones.
The form of your text and the highlighting makes your text pleasant to read and it's easy to see what you thought was important.
I REALLY liked that you looked Paul Feyerabend up after Ilias mentioning him at the seminar. It shows that you thought it was interesting and have high ambitions when you look him up and refer to one of his texts, I am actually impressed.
Good job! I am certain you will do a great job in the last post.