Vertaile menetelmiä
Tarkastele valitsemiasi menetelmiä rinnakkain; eroavat rivit korostetaan.
| Kriittinen institutionaalinen etnografia× | Kriittinen tapaustutkimus – Strateginen yksittäistapaustutkimus× | |
|---|---|---|
| Tieteenala | Laadulliset menetelmät | Laadulliset menetelmät |
| Menetelmäperhe | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Syntyvuosi≠ | 1987 (IE foundational); critical applications prominent 1990s–2000s | 1980s–2006 (formalized) |
| Kehittäjä≠ | Dorothy E. Smith (institutional ethnography); critical variant developed through feminist and critical scholars | Bent Flyvbjerg (formalized); Robert K. Yin (case study typology) |
| Tyyppi | Qualitative research design | Qualitative research design |
| Alkuperäislähde≠ | Smith, D. E. (2005). Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. AltaMira Press. ISBN: 978-0759105010 | Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. DOI ↗ |
| Rinnakkaisnimet | Critical IE, critical-IE, institutional ethnography with critical orientation, CIE | critical case, strategic case study, critical-instance case study, paradigmatic case study |
| Liittyvät | 6 | 6 |
| Tiivistelmä≠ | Critical institutional ethnography (CIE) combines Dorothy Smith's institutional ethnography with an explicit critical theory lens to investigate how ruling relations, texts, and institutional discourses reproduce inequality and power asymmetries. Starting from the lived experiences of people positioned within or subordinated by institutions, CIE traces how abstract institutional processes coordinate everyday life and subjects those processes to normative critique aimed at social transformation. | A critical case study is a case study design in which the researcher deliberately selects a case that is strategically important for testing, confirming, challenging, or extending an existing proposition, theory, or policy claim. Rather than choosing a typical or representative case, the researcher argues that if the finding holds here — in this most-likely, least-likely, or paradigmatic instance — it can reasonably be expected to hold more broadly. This purposive logic transforms a single case into a powerful analytical tool. |
| ScholarGateAineisto ↗ |
|
|