Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper argues that the discipline's near rejection of the case-study method is based on a restrictive view of the social sciences. Critiques of the case-study method are usually predicated on the assumption that the primary task of social science research is theory-testing (hypothesis-testing). In contrast, I demonstrate the utility of the case-study method for theory-building and theory-elaboration (or theory-reconstruction). I also answer the critics' two main criticisms of the case-study methd- the lack of "internal validity" and the lack of "external validity." The paper argues that the first criticism is only valid if the explicit purpose of analysis is the formal testing of causal relationships or hypotheses. I argue that the "internal validity" of case-study findings is predicated on the plausibility of analysis, the logical nexus between the independent and dependent variables, and the explantory utility of the findings. The second main criticism- the lack of "external validity"- is only valid if the explicit purpose of the research is enumerative extrapolation from a statistical sample to a parent universe. I argue that another purpose of social inquiry is analytical extrapolation by which causal processes occurring within one case are used to explain a particular social phenomenon, and also reevaluate theories about the general phenomenon in question. The "quasi-judicial" method and collegial review are ways to determine both "internal" and "external" validity.