Scientific Or Not, Research Is Science

Both Yin and Beaulieu’s articles on case studies talk about the unstable reputation of this research method. They talk about the issue of scientists not taking case studies seriously. Yin cites Miles, when he presents the idea that case studies are merely “intuitive, primitive, and unmanageable” and “cannot be expected to transcend storytelling”. I think, so what.

Isn’t all research just storytelling in some way? Don’t we have to rely on the judgment of the practitioner and the idea that local circumstances may represent the whole? Focus groups, ethnography, participant observation –these can all be viewed as storytelling by a researcher. So what? After all, scientific progress relies on telling of stories and sharing of learning and knowledge. Would Albert Eistein do what he did in science if he were born just a few decades earlier and had exposure only to the information that had been available then? What if it is the combination of researchers’ opinions, judgments, and arguments at the time they reach a prepared and brilliant mind of some Enistein that leads the development of new successful theories?

Today, medical professionals are expected to subscribe to multiple medical journals and be read up on all the current research. Why do they do that? Not because every single research article completely solves a problem, is universal, and is a building block of theory. I think, the need for research is more about the need for developing dialogue. Many case studies are particular to their local circumstances, but after seeing a bunch of them on the same topic, we can progress further in thinking. Isn’t that what science is?