I am conducting a single-case study (process tracing) on a civic movement. My approach is deductive, as I want to test if a theory applies to the selected case. My case is the movement, as this is the phenomenon that the theory is set to explain, and that I consequently study empirically.
However, I have two within-case observations (location A & B), that are interesting in the same context. While location A demonstrates both X and Y (i.e. typical case), location B only demonstrates Y, and X is not there.
What puzzles me is:
1. If my case and thus the unit of analysis is the movement, can I conduct a within-case comparison, and still have it be process tracing (theory-testing)?
2. If I take locations A & B as my units of analysis, then I have to drop process tracing and turn to structured focus comparison, which would mean I cannot conduct theory testing anymore?
Any guidance or literature recommendations would be highly appreciated!
/Hayk
Good morning
You can triangulate the answers and also, compare the cases
Best regards
Ph.D. Ingrid del Valle García C
I am a bit puzzled by your question. Process tracing is an approach that identifies causal mechanisms by empirically reconstructing the processes in which they operate. Thus, a single-case study is not the same as process tracing. At the same time, anything you do in terms of constructing and analysing cases is process tracing if and insofar it contributes to the identification of causal mechanisms.
The same applies to "structured focus comparison". If you want to test a theory, you have a procedure for this and do what ever the procedure requires, regardless of what similar approaches have been called by other people. The main methodological problem is the fit between research question and approach.
Furthermore, how would a theory "explain" a movement? This is difficult to imagine. You have to be much more specific about the phenomena you want to explain, how you want to explain them, and what you mean by "explanation".
@Jochen Glaser made several relevant points to consider. In addition....
Admittedly there is some confusion about "case studies " as a method, I prefer the post positivistic variation, pioneered by Robert Yin. My colleagues and I have written about this.
The population you are examining, with any method, is critical to understand. You often sample. A case site is generally a population and you collect evidence, documents, interviews, observe processes, to answer ok or RQ, and sometimes you can have hypotheses, again see Yin. A multiple case study compares populations, different locations, each site as I described above. Often the research design is comparative with multiple case studies.
If you gave a priority theory or theories then it is deductive, otherwise if you have RQs without theories it seems to be inductive. Case studies and many other methods could be used.
Triangulation of data (multiple sources), method (collection and or analysis techniques) and theories can strengthen the credibility Of the results.
Another technique to consider is workflow analysis, process analysis, which do ed a not have to be framed in a case per se.
Ken
Strang, K.D. (2015). Developing a goal-driven research strategy. In KD. Strang (Ed.), Palgrave handbook of research design in business and management (pp. 31-46). ISBN: 978-1137379924. NY: Palgrave Macmillan
Yes, you can conduct case comparison and it is the process of tracing. The process of tracing is the case study method. You can find out your solution through comparison.
- Badges
- Science topic