Imental and quasi-experimental studies around the grounds that they lack predictive energy, how can we defend the case study against the countercharge of lack of generalizability (as well as the logical ecancer.2016.651 extension of this charge, that the richer a case study becomes, the much less generalizable it will likely be)? How (if at all) can any level of prediction be achieved when the information set comprises a handful of descriptive studies, every single of that is exceptional and unreplicable? To what extent (if at all) can the findings from such research be applied to inform system organizing in a further context or setting? How lots of instances are enough for a small-n sample? What abd1806-4841.20165577 will be the significance (if any) from the sample of just 1 study? Quite a few authors ahead of us have tried to summarize the big and contested literature on these concerns. On the list of clearest attempts can be a book chapter proposing to classify different approaches to case studyWhy National eHealth Programs Need Dead Philosophersresearch in terms of the differences in their underlying philosophical assumptions, not (as is far more typically the case) in terms of the variations in methodology (Tsoukas 2009). Tsoukas acknowledges the positivist mainstream in his personal discipline (organization and management research). Here, at the least till reasonably lately, Newtonian models of reality dominated, and experimental (preferably, large-n) research had been viewed because the most robust route to generalizable truths. Tsoukas describes a post-Kuhnian shift in the pursuit of the “decontextualized ideal” to a recognition of your historical contingency of scientific claims, paralleled by a expanding acceptance of (and, in some situations, a preference for) ethnographic and case study strategies. But, he argues, whilst the methodology for studying complex social phenomena srep30277 has moved on, lots of case study researchers (of whom most likely the best identified is Robert Yin) have retained an essentially experimental epistemology (Yin 1994). Yin emphasizes the theoretical sampling of instances with the goal of analytic generalization (reasoning inductively by way of systematic crosscase comparison from a specific set of results to some broader theory of causation). Central to Yin’s methodology are (1) a choice of many situations, each and every of which can be observed as representing a distinct instance from the theoretical phenomenon being investigated; (two) the exact same kinds of data collected from each and every case in broadly the same way; (three) a detailed and methodical comparison on the cases’ certain capabilities; and (four) rigorous testing of hypotheses concerning the relationships among the characteristics. This strategy to case study is preferred by lots of investigation sponsors and peer reviewers within the wellness care field, who tend to take their top quality criteria in the experimental paradigm. But, Tsoukas argues, if taken to its logical conclusion, this strategy would favor large-n samples, statistical testing of relationships among the variables, and articulation of the conclusions in terms of probabilistic reasoning. Tsoukas suggests that at a philosophical level, case study study centers on the tension in between two questions: “What is going on right here?” (the study of the distinct for its personal sake) and “What is this a case of?” (the look for generalizability). Yin’s analytic generalization privileges the latter at the expense from the former, whereas case study researchers like Robert Stake, who favor naturalistic generalization (the studying that comes from the intrinsic study on the unique case) (Stake 1995),.