Сравнение методов
Просматривайте выбранные методы рядом; строки с различиями подсвечены.
| Критическое исследование отдельного случая× | Критическое исследование случая× | |
|---|---|---|
| Область | Качественные методы | Качественные методы |
| Семейство | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Год появления≠ | 1984 (Yin's foundational text); critical framing developed through 1990s–2000s | 1980s–2006 (formalized) |
| Автор метода≠ | Robert K. Yin (case study design); Bent Flyvbjerg (critical case logic); critical theory influence from Max Horkheimer and Frankfurt School | Bent Flyvbjerg (formalized); Robert K. Yin (case study typology) |
| Тип | Qualitative research design | Qualitative research design |
| Основополагающий источник | Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. DOI ↗ | Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. DOI ↗ |
| Другие названия | critical case study, critical-theory case study, single critical case, CSCS | critical case, strategic case study, critical-instance case study, paradigmatic case study |
| Связанные≠ | 4 | 6 |
| Сводка≠ | A critical single case study is a qualitative research design that investigates one bounded, strategically selected case through a critical-theory lens, aiming not only to understand the case in depth but also to expose underlying power relations, structural inequalities, or ideological conditions that shape the phenomenon. It combines the analytic depth of single-case inquiry with the emancipatory agenda of critical social science. | 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. |
| ScholarGateНабор данных ↗ |
|
|