Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences - Alexander L. George [40]
It is important for researchers to build self-consciously upon previous studies and variable definitions as much as possible—including studies using formal, statistical, and qualitative methods. “Situating” one’s research in the context of the literature is key to identifying the contribution the new research makes. Of course, researchers will sometimes find it necessary to modify existing definitions of variables or add new ones, but they must be precise and clear in doing so and acknowledge that this reduces the comparability to or cumulativity with previous studies.
It should be noted that a merely formalistic adherence to the format of structured, focused comparison will not yield good results. The important device of formulating a set of standardized, general questions to ask of each case will be of value only if those questions are grounded in—and adequately reflect—the theoretical perspective and research objectives of the study. Similarly, a selective theoretical focus for the study will be inadequate by itself unless coupled with a relevant set of standardized general questions.
In comparative case studies, structure and focus are easier to achieve if a single investigator not only plans the study, but also conducts all of the case studies. Structured, focused comparison is more difficult to carry out in collaborative research when each case study is undertaken by a different scholar. Collaborative studies must be carefully planned to impress upon all participants the requirements of structure and focus. The chief investigator must monitor the conduct of case studies to ensure that the guidelines are observed by the case writers and to undertake corrective actions if necessary. Properly coordinating the work of case writers in a collaborative study can be a challenging task for the chief investigator, particularly when the contributors are well-established scholars with views of their own regarding the significance of the case they are preparing.
This can be seen in comparing two collaborative studies. One study of Western democratic political opposition brought together a distinguished group of scholars, each studying the democratic opposition in a Western democracy. The study was not tightly organized to meet the requirement of a structured comparison, so the organizer of the study was left with the difficult task of drawing together the disparate findings of the individual case studies for comparative analysis in the concluding chapter.155 In contrast, Michael Krepon and Dan Caldwell developed a tight version of structured, focused comparison for their collaborative study of cases of U.S. Senate ratification of arms control treaties. They closely monitored the individual authors’ adherence to the guidelines and intervened as necessary to ensure that they adhered to the original or revised guidelines.156
The next chapter provides a more specific discussion of procedures for the design and implementation of case studies—either single case analyses or comparative investigations that are undertaken within the framework of the structured, focused method.
Chapter 4
Phase One: Designing Case Study Research
There are three phases in the design and implementation of theory-oriented case studies. In phase one, the objectives, design, and structure of the research are formulated. In phase two, each case study is carried out in accordance with the design. In phase three, the researcher draws upon the findings of the case studies and assesses their contribution to achieve the research objective of the study. These three phases are interdependent, and some