Article hardships

I have to admit, I found this week's readings a little confusing and verbose. My brief summaries/interpretations of the first two readings are as follows:
Beauliu et al.: A research approach allows for debate and discussion, whereas work in a laboratory tends to constrict workers to their own tasks. A research approach can also be useful in examining elements of space, time and relationships. In studying the relationship between local and universal, it is helpful to draw comparisons across cases and disciplines.
Yin: Case studies do not necessarily entail a certain kind of evidence (such as “qualitative”) or a particular data collection method (such as ethnography or participant observation). The fundamental thing about case studies is that they attempt to examine a contemporary phenomenon in a real-life context. A number of techniques are effective in a case studies approach, such as focusing on a topic, noting meaningful events, and creating explanations for outcomes. Case studies yield more than single data points or single observations, so cross-case analysis should facilitate reflexivity.
Did I completely miss the point of the articles? It would be great if anyone could shed light on what the authors were trying to say!

No comments:

Post a Comment