Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences - Alexander L. George [41]
Phase one—the research design—consists of five tasks. These tasks are relevant not only for case study methodology but for all types of systematic, theory-oriented research. They must be adapted, of course, to different types of investigation and to whether theory testing or theory development is the focus of the study. The design phase of theory-oriented case study research is of critical importance. If a research design proves inadequate, it will be difficult to achieve the research objectives of the study. (Of course, the quality of the study depends also on how well phases two and three are conducted.)
Task One: Specification of the Problem and Research Objective
The formulation of the research objective is the most important decision in designing research. It constrains and guides decisions that will be made regarding the other four tasks.
The selection of one or more objectives for research is closely coupled with identification of an important research problem or “puzzle.” A clear, well-reasoned statement of the research problem will generate and focus the investigation. A statement that merely asserts that “the problem is important” is inadequate. The problem should be embedded in a well-informed assessment that identifies gaps in the current state of knowledge, acknowledges contradictory theories, and notes inadequacies in the evidence for existing theories. In brief, the investigator needs to make the case that the proposed research will make a significant contribution to the field.
The research objective must be adapted to the needs of the research program at its current stage of development. Is there a need for testing a well-established theory or competing theories? Is it important to identify the limits of a theory’s scope? Does the state of research on the phenomenon require incorporation of new variables, new subtypes, or work on different levels of analysis? Is it considered desirable at the present stage of theory development to move up or down the ladder of generality?158 For example, as noted in Chapter 2, in the 1990s the democratic peace research program moved largely from the question of whether such a peace existed to that of identifying the basis on which democratic peace rests. It now needs to go further to explain how a particular peace between two democratic states developed over time. Similarly, in the 1960s deterrence theory needed to bring in additional variables to add to excessively parsimonious and abstract deductive models.
In general, there are six different kinds of theory-building research objectives. Arend Lijphart and Harry Eckstein identified five types. We outline these below and add a sixth type of our own:159
• Atheoretical/configurative idiographic case studies provide good descriptions that might be used in subsequent studies for theory building, but by themselves, such cases do not cumulate or contribute directly to theory.
• Disciplined configurative case studies use established theories to explain a case. The emphasis may be on explaining a historically important case, or a study may use a case to exemplify a theory for pedagogical purposes. A disciplined configurative case can contribute to theory testing because it can “impugn established theories if the theories ought to fit it but do not,” and it can serve heuristic purposes by highlighting the “need for new theory in neglected areas.”160 However, a number of important methodological questions arise in using disciplined configurative case studies and these are discussed in Chapter 9 on the congruence method.
• Heuristic case studies inductively identify new variables, hypotheses, causal mechanisms, and causal paths. “Deviant” or “outlier” cases may be particularly useful for heuristic purposes, as by definition their outcomes are not what traditional theories would anticipate. Also, cases where