Today we
had our last seminar of this course. Leif was the seminar leader and it was a
good last seminar. We started with a discussion about the course overall and
also had a chance to ask questions about the examination, there were some
unclear instructions so it was much needed. The focus of this seminar was case
studies and we started by discussing in smaller groups. This is a great way of
getting new perspectives and thoughts about the topic. Before the seminar I
thought that case studies were a bit unclear, and the discussion confirmed that
I wasn’t alone t think so.
After
discussion in small groups, Leif led the seminar by answering questions and
starting discussions. The parable to a doctor and a police detective made it a
bit clearer for me; a case study examines the object itself, for example the
patient is the case for a doctor.
Leif explained
that it is characteristic for a case study to examine a “natural frame”, not
use any hypothesizes and use multiple methods (both qualitative and quantitative).
Though this was not the case of the paper I read. In that paper the authors “constructed”
the case and then examined it, therefore it was not a natural frame. But it
used both qualitative and quantitative methods and they didn’t use any hypothesis,
so they score two out of three. The author called the research a case study,
but maybe it should be called a qualitative study.
Hi,
SvaraRaderaThe doctor and police example helped me to understand what a case study really is. I guess as you're saying the main characteristic of a case study is to examine something within it's "natural frame". I think that many researchers might say that they are using a case study method when they're actually in some sense constructing the case. Perhaps the frames for calling it a case study is not so strict in practice as it is in theory. Good job!