Confession, I am a huge CSI fan. So when I read Yin's article, I felt like I related to his comparison to of detectives an academic case study, specifically, building explanations. It really seems to have the same twists and turns that my favourite corny Wednesday night show does.
(a) an accurate rendition of the facts of the case.
This is where, in a case study, the relevant data is collected in order to find out about the actual case, and what is happening/happened to explain a certain phenomena;
OR, this is where Grissam (I know it's Ted Danson now, but Grissam was so much better, so I'm sticking with him), or another member of the CSI teams finds the body, or discovers a mystery, and the team collects evidence to try to build the facts of the case.
(b) some consideration of alternative explanations of these facts.
This is, when I am doing research, I collect theories, and explore previous research (because my background is in history) to discover a framework in why and how the events being studied actually happened;
OR, this is about the time in the show where the detectives explore the different possible suspects. This is usually halfway through the show, and there is usually a twist (when writing a paper, however, I like to avoid giant plot twists halfway through).
(c) a conclusion based on the single explanation that appears most congruent with the facts.
This is where, after an analysis of the case study a result can be analyzed,
OR, Grissam catches the killer.
Obviously, this is a lot harder in real life, and different in academia. In my previous Masters degree, I studied crime in the American South, and really wish I felt like I was a detective when writing the paper. These steps are not so clear cut, and the results are much more complex; but, I think that these basic steps are important to keep in mind in academic studies.
No comments:
Post a Comment