Based on an exploratory survey of doctoral programs in public administration, commonly (though not universally) accepted standards and guidelines for case study research are synthesized and articulated. A methodological context and strategy for these guidelines is also presented, focusing on theoretic case selection rather than standardization of meta-analytic instruments alone. The call for theoretic case selection strategies and for standardization of meta-analytic instrumentation in public administration is consistent with the increased recognition of the importance of grounded theory in qualitative social science research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsonP.R.1992. A Case for Case Studies.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
2.
AdamsGuy B.WhiteJay D.1994. “Dissertation Research in Public Administration and Cognate Fields: An Assessment of Methods and Quality.” Public Administration Review, 54(6): 565–76.
3.
AllisonGraham T.1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis.Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
4.
AllisonGraham T.ZelikowPhilip. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2nd edition. New York: Longman, 1999.
5.
AnnellsM.P.1997. “Grounded Theory Method, Part 1: Within the Five Moments of Qualitative Research,” Nursing Inquiry, 4: 120–129; and “Grounded Theory Method, Part 2; Options for Users of the Method,” Nursing Inquiry, 4: 176–180.
6.
BaileyMary Timney. 1992. “Do Physicians Use Case Studies? Thoughts on Public Administration Research.” Public Administration Review, 52(1): 47–55.
7.
BonomaT.1985. “Case Research in Marketing: Opportunities, Problems, and a Process.” Journal of Marketing Research, 12: 199–208.
8.
CampbellD.1975. “Degrees of Freedom and the Case Study.” Comparative Political Studies, 8: 178–185.
9.
EisenhardtKathleen M.1989. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review, 14(4): 522–550.
10.
EcksteinHarry. 1975. “Case Study and Theory in Political Science.” In GreensteinFredPolsbyNelson, Handbook of Political Science, 94–137.
11.
EvansR.1976. “Smoking in Children: Developing a Social Psychological Strategy of Deterrence.” Preventive Medicine, 5: 122–140.
12.
FeaginJ.OrumA.SjobergG.1991. A Case for Case Study.Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
13.
GlaserBarney G.StraussAnselm. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Co.
14.
GoetzJ.P.LeCompteM.D.1984. Ethnography and Qualitative Design in Educational Research.London: Academic Press.
15.
HamelJ.DufourS.FortinD.1993. Case Study Methods.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
16.
JensenJason L.RodgersRobert2001. “Cumulating the Intellectual Gold of Case Study Research.” Public Administration Review, 61(2): 236–246.
17.
KazdinA.E.1982. Single-case Research Designs-Methods for Clinical and Applied Settings.New York: Oxford Press.
18.
KennedyMary M.1979. “Generalizing from Single Case Studies.” Evaluation Quarterly, 3: 661–78.
19.
KingdonJohn. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies.New York: Little, Brown, and Company.
20.
LeeA.S.1989. “A Scientific Methodology for MIS Case Studies.” MIS Quarterly, 13: 1: 33–52.
21.
LijphartArend. 1971. “Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method.” American Political Science Review, 65: 682–93.
22.
McCurdyHoward E.ClearyRobert E., 1984. Why Can't We Resolve the Research issue in Public Administration?Public Administration Review, 44(1): 49–55.
23.
MerriamS.B.1988. The Case Study Research in Education.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
MorganDavid L.2001. Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods.Portland, OR: Portland State University.
25.
NaumesWilliamNaumesMargaret J.1999. The Art and Craft of Case Writing.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
26.
OdellJohn S.2000. “Case Study Methods in International Political Economy.” Paper presented at the International Studies Association, 41st Annual Convention, Los Angeles, CA, March 14–18, 2000. Retrieved 4/30/02 online at http://www.ciaonet.org/isa/odj01/.
27.
PressmanJ.WildavskyA.B.1973: Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland.Berkeley, Calif., University of California Press.
28.
RaginCharles. 1981. “Comparative Sociology and the Comparative Method.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 22(1–2): 102–120.
29.
RaginCharles. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies.Berkeley: University of California Press.
30.
RaginCharlesZaretDavid. 1983 “Theory and Method in Comparative Research: Two Strategies.” Social Forces, 61(3): 731–754.
31.
SabatierPaul C.1993. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
32.
SabatierPaul C.1999. Theories of the Policy Process: Theoretical Lenses on Public Polity.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
33.
StakeRobert E.1995. The Art of Case Study Research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
34.
StraussAnselmCorbinJuliet. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
35.
StraussAnselmCorbinJuliet1997. Grounded Theory in Practice.London: Sage Publications.
36.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1990. Case Study Evaluations.Washington, DC: USGPO. GAO/PEMD-91-10.1.9.
37.
WhyteWilliam F.1955. Street Corner Society.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
38.
YinRobert K.1994. Case Study Research, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
