Talk:Case study/Archives/2017

Inaccurate citation
The very first sentence defining "case study" cites a document which in turn cites Merriam-Webster’s dictionary - shouldn't M-W be credited instead? Especially since it's available for free online, it could be linked to easily. . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenbrarian (talk • contribs) 19:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This was later done, with quotation marks around the cited definition. Later someone took out the quotation marks. Later someone took out the words "over time" so that "a report about a person, group, or situation that has been studied over time" became the worthless "a report about a person, group, or situation that has been studied." Later some wise-cracker changed it to "a report about a person, group, or situation that has not been studied." I have now restored a better lede sentence, rather than a definition out of a dictionary. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Case study. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528061240/http://www.oup.com:80/us/catalog/general/subject/Sociology/TheoryMethods/?view=usa&ci=0195147944 to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Sociology/TheoryMethods/?view=usa&ci=0195147944

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it right?
I came to Wikipedia to double check under what form of research a case study would come under (qual or quan), and given it's separation from an umbrella school of thought I was not able to confirm this here (at Wikipedia).

Further, this article seems to take only one point of view into consideration when it comes to the case study. Most of the undergraduate books I have been reading in relation to the case study I am currently writing up, lead me to think other wise about the case study than that which is suggested in this article. Particularly, generalisable findings. My study of the case study leads me to believe that the case study is not a research method (since its findings are not generalisable) but merely a cross-sectional study of singular entities or experiences. Any thoughts on this? I would love to help clean up this article but, there does not seem to be a high level of engagement with this article. Dublindood (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)--Dublindood (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved this down to the bottom and added a section title. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Writings of Bent Flyvbjerg
While tryin' to find out how certain parts of the article got "messed up" (in my opinion) I discovered that on January 30, 2013 a lot of the article was removed because of supposed "self-promotion" by a user Sonderbro, who has since been ban'd. You can see the older version here. It contains a lot of references to things by Professor Bent Flyvbjerg. I don't know whether it was he who was "spamming" or someone else, but the result is that links to his website are now blacklisted. Which is too bad, because it's probably worth reading. You can still access these links from the old version I have mentioned. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)