Rethinking Case Study Methodology in Poststructural Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little consideration has been given to how case study might be used in poststructural research to explore power relations that constitute a phenomenon. Many case study scholars, most notably Robert Yin, adopt a postpositivist perspective that assumes the "truth" can be accessed through applying prescriptive and rigid research techniques. Using a discussion of Michel Foucault's key theoretical ideas and the insights gained through a Foucauldian case study of people with advanced cancer who continue to receive curative treatment, the authors argue for the expansion of case study in poststructural inquiry. They propose that the use of poststructuralist case study is valuable because of the flexibility and comprehensiveness of the methodology, which allows for the exploration of a deeper understanding of the broader discourses that shape a phenomenon, as well as how power/knowledge relations shape the behaviours and perceptions of people. They also introduce the reflexive implications of poststructural case study research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.409 | 0.283 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.085 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.036 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".