Case Studies

I love case studies. Ok - maybe not as much as the authors of the Zimbabwe Bush Pump study love their subject, but close. I get the analogies. Yes they are studying without a critical distance. There is fluidity in the production of knowledge. The bush pump is immersed and somewhat inseparable from its environment. All that is what can be argued of case studies. That being said, I am far more critical of case studies than so-called evidence based studies. The other day, a visiting scientist in my other research course was presenting her study proposal on a smoke free public housing legislation study. I felt very much like I had to be critical of the study. What do you mean you triangulated data results? Where was the definitive data on the matter? What the hell kind of scientific study was this? But then, isn’t it better to be critical? At the end of the day, the case study she described was amazingly complex. Both qualitative and quantitative, it examined almost every angle possible. It provided clarity and explored nuances that would have been impossible to see from a purely experimental or quantitative perspective. Isn’t that the value of case study? Aren’t case studies every bit as evidence based as experiments, particularly when they demonstrate knowledge that is unique and unavailable from every other type of study? I guess I am just sick of the diversity of science argument. I should love that word but to me it is just a word that begs for acceptance based on the "we are different but we are ok too" mentality. Perhaps case studies are just good because they are good - because they find stuff that nothing else can. Perhaps they are scientifically better in many ways. Isn’t that why we should love case studies?