Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences - Alexander L. George [48]
Whether a single-case study or a case comparison is undertaken, specification of the data requirements should take the form of general questions to be asked of each case. This is a way of standardizing data requirements so that comparable data will be obtained from each case and so that a single-case study can be compared later with others. Case study methodology is no different in this respect from large-N statistical studies and public opinion surveys. Unless one asks the same questions of each case, the results cannot be compared, cumulated, and systematically analyzed.
This is only to say—and to insist—that case researchers should follow a procedure of systematic data compilation. The questions asked of each case must be of a general nature; they should not be couched in overly specific terms that are relevant to only one case but should be applicable to all cases within the class or subclass of events with which the study is concerned. Asking the same questions of each case does not prevent the case writer from addressing more specific aspects of the case or bringing out idiosyncratic features of each case that may also be of interest for theory development or future research.
A problem sometimes encountered in case study research is that data requirements are missing altogether or inadequately formulated. The general questions must reflect the theoretical framework employed, the data that will be needed to satisfy the research objective of the study, and the kind of contribution to theory that the researcher intends to make. In other words, a mechanical use of the method of structured, focused comparison will not yield good results. The proper focusing and structuring of the comparison requires a fine-tuned set of general questions that are integrated with the four other elements of the research design. For example, in a comparative study of policymakers’ approaches to strategy and tactics toward political opponents in the international arena, one might start by asking questions designed to illuminate the orientations of a leader toward the fundamental issues of history and politics that presumably influence his or her processing of information, policy preference, and final choice of action.182 In this type of study, the investigator examines an appropriate body of material in order to infer the “answers” a political leader might have given to the following questions:
PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS
• What is the essential nature of political life? Is the political universe essentially one of harmony or conflict? What is the fundamental character of one’s political opponents?
• What are the prospects for eventual realization of one’s fundamental political values and ideological goals? Can one be optimistic or pessimistic?
• In what sense and to what extent is the political future predictable?
• How much control or mastery can one have over historical developments? What is the political leader’s (or elite’s) role in moving and shaping history?
• What is the role of chance in human affairs and in historical development?
INSTRUMENTAL QUESTIONS
• What is the best approach for selecting goals or objectives for political action?
• How are the goals of action pursued most effectively?
• How are the risks of political action best calculated, controlled, and accepted?
• What is the best timing of action to advance one’s interests?
• What is the utility and role of different means for advancing one’s interests?
Integration of the Five Design Tasks
The five design tasks should be viewed as constituting an integrated whole. The researcher should keep in mind that these tasks are interrelated and interdependent. For example, the way in which Task Two is performed should be consistent with the specification of Task One. Similarly, both the selection