Because case studies are small, it is difficult to generalize their findings. A case study cannot make claims to universal human behavior simply because the field is too small and the behaviors noted may be unique to the group of subjects. If I were to study my class, for instance, I couldn't generalize my results for students in rural Louisiana or New York City, or Athens, Greece, because the number and quality of variables that would change in the different situations.
I think that case studies are most valuable for their heurism. Simply because a study does not result in generalizable knowledge, does not mean that that knowledge isn't valuable. The specific knowledge from a case study can and should be used to inspire and inform further research, perhaps research whose results can make a claim for universality. Case studies are heuristic in that they open spaces for new knowledge, sidestepping the assumptions of the researcher and possibly the literature.
Ultimately, I doubt the generalizability of any knowledge. I think that all knowledge takes its meaning as much from its specific context and situation as it does from itself in the abstract. There are many tools--statistical and rhetorical--that suggest that some knowledge can be objectively, positively true, but I think that all knowledge is simply a stepping stone to other knowledge...in other words a heuristic.
I totally agree with your emphasis on scope as far as case studies. It seems also that it has to do with where you are in the research process as well. For example, the focus groups seem to have an idea what variables are important to the research question while case study approaches are often all about getting the ball rolling. I was struck in readings for this week that focus groups seem to shy away from asking why and how while case studies seem to be all about it. Maybe case study v. ethnography is all about scope (time commitment, sample size) while case study v. focus group is about narrowness of research question.
ReplyDeleteYour skepticism about the generalizability of any knowledge is healthy, I think. This is a "takes a social constructionist to know one" sort of thing, maybe.