Flyvberg’s article from 2006 is an investigation into five misunderstandings often perceived when looking at case studies as a method of research. He argues that if people merely opperate at a theoretical level they remain at the beginners level of looking at the world they live in. He goes on to say ‘case knowledge is central to human learning’ Researchers who wish to develop there own skills need to use context depoendent examples in their work. Page 222-223.
Flyvberg then makes the admission that any social science is incapable of producing undeniable theory that is applicable independent of context. Flyvberg uses this idea to heap extra value on context dependent knowledge. This is something hope to produce in my work as ”case studies are particularly well suited to producing this knowledge…. as learning [in the social sciences] is possible” Page 224. Flyvberg is adamant that case studies and the ”force of example” are underestimated.
There then follows a good table that actually does not do what it says it does. The table claims to help select the case but instead lists the action that particular selection type performs. Take Deviant for example: It explains what it does but not which deviant case to choose. It is useful however and will probably make it into my dissertation.
Flyvberg continues to slam into the idea of firm theoretical truth in social science as he persuades us that complex real life narratives are impossible to fit into neat theories. This is helpful as I therefore feel under less pressure to do so. What is important from this article and Flyvbergs viewpoint is to understand the world a little better than before and explain it in a good narrative. Page 237
”the dense case study is more useful for the practitioner and more interesting for social theorythan either factual “findings” or the high-level generalizations of theory” PAGE 238
Flyvberg finishes by reminding us that we need to tell our cases story in as broader philosophical terms as possible as it will then appeal to many different readers. This could mean merely using the basic theoretical positions and not being too cleaver or narrow minded.
Alexander Dawson 