scholarly journals How to get at Causality in the Social Sciences: Multiple Regressions Versus Case Studies

Author(s):  
Bo Rothstein
2005 ◽  
Vol 4 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 52-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosalind Hurworth ◽  
Eileen Clark ◽  
Jenepher Martin ◽  
Steve Thomsen

This article reviews the use of photographs as data within the social sciences as well as defining related terminology used over the past century. It then examines the use of photos as stimuli for talking about health settings before presenting three recent case studies where photo-interviewing has been used successfully in health evaluation and research. Advantages and limitations of the method are considered.


2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 163-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek Beach

AbstractThis article reviews recent attempts to develop multi-method social scientific frameworks. The article starts by discussing the ontological and epistemological foundations underlying case studies and variance-based approaches, differentiating approaches into bottom-up, case-based and top-down, variance-based approaches. Case-based approaches aim to learn how a causal process works within a case, whereas variance-based approaches assess mean causal effects across a set of cases. However, because of the different fundamental assumptions, it is very difficult for in-depth studies of individual cases to communicate meaningfully with claims about mean causal effects across a large set of cases. The conclusions discuss the broader challenges this distinction has for the study of comparative politics more broadly.


Author(s):  
Tina Haux

Academics are increasingly required to demonstrate their impact on the wider world. The aim of this book is to compare and contextualise the dimensions of impact within the social sciences. Unlike most other studies of the 2014 Research Excellence Framework impact case studies, this book includes case studies from three different sub-panels (Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work and Politics and International Relations), which in themselves capture several disciplines, and therefore allows for a comparison of how impact and academic identify are defined and presented. The impact case studies are placed in an analytical framework that identifies different types of impact and impact pathways and places them in the context of policy models. Finally, it provides a comparison across time based on interviews with Social Policy professors who are looking back over 40 years of being involved as well as analysing the relationship between research and policy-making. This long view highlights successes but also the serendipitous and superficial nature of impact across time.


Evaluation ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 256-273 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Busetti ◽  
Bruno Dente

In the social sciences, there is an emerging interest in process tracing as a method for improving rigour and transparency in within-case inferences. Recently, the method has been proposed as a possible enhancement of theory-based approaches to evaluation, but applications of the method remain rare. In an attempt to fill this gap, process tracing was used to evaluate the Universal Exposition held in Milano in 2015 (EXPO2015). Mega-events of this kind are perfect candidates for ‘testing’ the method; although their effects have been widely discussed in the relevant literature, claims about the causal contribution of mega-events are not straightforward, and a number of ambiguities complicate any clear assessment of their consequences. Two in-depth case studies of projects related to EXPO2015 – the East External Highway and Refettorio Ambrosiano – demonstrate the advantages and feasibility of process tracing and of the application of Bayesian logic to evidence search, collection and assessment. In particular, case study results show that Bayesian scrutiny may reveal unexpected weakness in apparently obvious inferences and increase reliability in assessing less straightforward causal attributions.


Author(s):  
Elisabeth E. Bennett

Since the first publication by Glaser and Strauss in 1967, Grounded Theory has become a highly influential research approach in the social sciences. The approach provides techniques and coding strategies for building theory inductively from the “ground up” as concepts within the data earn relevance into an evolving substantive theory. Over time, Grounded Theory has undergone development and adaptations, and the first phases of analysis have been successfully applied to other types of inductive approaches, such as basic qualitative and case studies. The methodological literature can be difficult to navigate for new researchers as well as experienced analysts using the approach for the first time. This article synthesizes the work of various seminal scholars to address the value of grounded theorizing and it builds a picture of what it means to do grounded theory.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 113-113
Author(s):  
Sylvie Beauchamp ◽  
Martin Drapeau ◽  
Carmen Dionne

Introduction:Methods to assess evidence and to use that evidence to inform practices and policies are under developed in the area of social services. Although health professions have developed robust methods in recent decades to collect, analyze and synthesize scientific evidence and to inform clinical recommendations, the use of these methods often remains difficult in social services. A taskforce was implemented to address this and to propose a method that may be more appropriate for the social sciences.Methods:The project was comprised of four steps: (i) performing a qualitative review of discussions between experts, (ii) designing a cognitive map of the data, (iii) conducting a systematic literature search, and (iv) comparing the data from the meetings with experts with the scientific literature. These steps were completed using the grounded theory approach. In order to test the method developed, focus groups were then conducted and four case studies were used to assess the evidence and provide recommendations for youths with mental health problems and for elderly care.Results:Although robust scientific data remain crucial when developing recommendations for practice, results showed that these data are incomplete if considered alone, and that contextual (circumstances in which the intervention is delivered) and experiential data (how the intervention is perceived by stakeholders) must also be taken into consideration. A method to triangulate these three types of data is proposed. Using this technique, the value of the data is established by means of various measurements that converge towards the same result or that provide a consistent overall picture or some important nuances that need to be considered, as illustrated by the four case studies.Conclusions:The proposed method can be used to address the limitations that are inherent to the use of techniques and procedures drawn from the medical field when assessing evidence and developing recommendations for the social sciences. The case studies that the proposed method is not only a viable option to methods drawn from medicine, but also adds to the quality of the recommendations that are made and is more congruent with the epistemology of social sciences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document