Talk:Case study/Archives/2012

Case method should be separate
In law, case method is the common shorthand for the casebook method of teaching law, which is dominant throughout the United States. Both "case method" and "casebook method" are included in Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed. When I have the time I will redirect Case method to Casebook method and write that article. --Coolcaesar 05:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

= a qualitative method? == 'I LOVE ROBERTO' This article seems influenced mainly by the Flyberg point of view (which I do not know). I strongly suggest (following Yin) defining the case study as a research strategy instead of a particular qualitative method which can comprise qualitative and/or quantitative approaches to data collection and analysis. Simple argumentation: You will find case studies in literature which use quantitative analysis. I write this just after having read the first paragraph. But that's that picture. The view that a case study is a qualitative method is simply too narrow. Bakterius 12:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

---

This can't be left alone. This page suggests that case studies are not a qualitative method, while the page on methodology suggests that they are. Thomblake (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is a mess
A lot of work is needed here. 201.81.242.122 08:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of trying to make clear the breadth of application of case-study methods, while keeping the social-science-derived methodological discussion, which is probably the best thinking on the subject. I am surprised that there is no article and little mention in Wikipedia of Single-(Subject|Case) Experimental Design. It was well-developed in the 1970s by behaviorists and is related to quality-control statistical methods. I will attempt to provide what I see lacking after further research on Wikipedia coverage. DCDuring 15:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the sentence is missing here.
Critical case ..... Instead of choosing a representative sample among all those enterprises in the clinic’s area that used organic solvents, the clinic strategically located HERE TEXT IS MISSING, ‘If it is valid for this case, it is valid for all (or many) cases.’ In its negative form, the generalization would be, ‘If it is not valid for this case, then it is not valid for any (or only few) cases.’ Michael, August 4th 2009

=
====================

It seems to me that the first sentence misquotes Robert Yin (reference 2). On page 7-8 of his book, he says that case studies have three purposes, not two, namely descriptive, exploratory and explanatory. This is disputed by other social scientiests, eg. Schrank, who assert that case study research in the social sciences can only ever be pre-inferential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.15.240 (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The entry is biased in favour of the use of case studies
The entry appears biased in favour of accepting case studies as a valid approach of gaining scientific knowledge. This strikes me as strange, as most textbooks in psychology and social sciences cautions against trusting this method alone (e.g. it can be useful for generating hypotheses, but these should then be validating using other methods).

I find it particularly strange that the entry states that an author (Flyvbjerg, who appears quite sympathetic to the use of case studies) has "identified and corrected" five common misconceptions about case studies, and then continues to list five statements and claims them to be "corrected", without stating any counterarguments. Several philosophy of science texts presents these statements as an overall accepted view and argues in favour for them. I don't think it's valid to just claim them as rejected in such a cavalier manner. I'd like to see some argument showing how these "misconceptions" have been countered, and I think it should be done with something other than pointing to some case studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CortexSurfer (talk • contribs) 11:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

introduction to it managment
case study mary has worked for the local libarary as an administrative assistant for the past two years. her role is quite specific; undertakeing clerical task, receiving phone calls, greeting client and while she enjoy her job she has noticed that her computer skill are getting a little 'rusty' she decided to find out what te local TAFE provide in the way of refresher computer courses. mary tells sharon her supervisor about her learning goals and sharon suggest she also makes an appointment to talk to the training manager.

The training manager is more than happy to discuss with mary different option for further training in computer, and offers jer a position in the next house training programe on data base managment, MS Office, MS Access and the library management Software.

After mary leaves the training manager contacts mary's supervisor and they discuss how might be able to help mary her learning goal.

 please i need the answers of all activity ASAP. i'll be very thankful to you.

Respond or provide best description to following activities according to the case study above:

Activity 1 : Mary realised that her computer skill was getting 'rusty' while she was working in the library. Explain how should mary develop her skills for future promotion? Activity 2 : How does mary support her company effectively? Activity 3 : When mary realised that she need to develop her current skill for her future career. Brifly explain how did she plan for her career development? Activity 4 : What are the opportunities offered to mary for the in-house training? Activity 5 : How the feedback does from the supervisor helps mary to develop her career? Activity 6 : Considering the current scenario explain how mentoring or coaching advice help employeess, students, professionals to improve their career development? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.93.76 (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

differing perception at clarkston industries susan continued to drum her fingers on her desk.she had a real problem and wasnt sure what to do next .she was the last person in the office who did ,perhaps if she ran through the entire story again in her mind she would see the solution. susan had been distribution for clarkston industries for almost 20 years ,an early brush with law and a short stay stay in prison had made her realize the importance of honesty and  hard work henry clarkston had give her a chance despite her record ,and susan had made the most of it,she now was one of the most respected managers in the company .few people knew her background. susan had hired jack reed fresh out of prison 6 months ago .susan understood how jack felt when jack tried to explain his past and asked for another chance .susan decided to give him that chance just as henry had given to her one.jack eagerly accepted a job onthe loading docks and could soon load a truck as fast as anyone in the crew. things had gone well at first .every one seemed to like jack ,and he made several new friends .susan had been vaguely disturbed about two months ago ,however ,when another dock worker reported that his wallet missing .she confronted and earnestly but calmly asserted his innocence.susan was especially relieved when the wallet was found a few days later. the events of last week ,however,had caused serious trouble .first ,a new personnel clerk had come across records about jacks past while updating employees files .assuming that the information was common knowledge ,the clerk had mentioned to several employees what a good things it was to give ex-convicts like jack a chance .the next day, some one in bookkeeping discovered some money missing from petty cash ,another worker claimed to have seen jack in the area around the office strongbox,which was open during working hours ,earlier that same day. most people assumed jack was the thief .even the worker whose wallet had been misplaced suggested that perhaps jack had indeed stolen it but had returned it when questioned. several employees had approached susan and requested that jack be fired.meanwhile, when susan had discussed the problem with jack,jack had been defensive and sullen and said little about the petty cash situation other than to deny stealing the money. to her dismay, susan found that rethinking the story did little to solve his problem .should she fire jack? the evidence ,of course was purely circumstantial ,yet everybody else seemed to see things quite clearly.susan feared that if she did not fire jack ,she would lose everyone's trust and that some people might even begin to question her own motives. 1, explain the events in this case in terms of perception and attitudes.does personality play a role? 2,what should susan do?should she fire jack or give him another chance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.108.42 (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Scope?
A couple of queries - Should this page perhaps be restricted to the social sciences? In what way, if any, does it regard WikiProject Medicine? (We already have separate pages on clinical case reports and case series.) —81.151.194.238 (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)