Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A
single
case
study
can
change
long-‐held
understandings.
The
latest
example
is
a
case
of
a
6
year-‐old
boy
who
went
into
anaphylactic
shock
after
he
received
a
blood
transfusion.
He
broke
out
in
a
rash,
had
difficulty
breathing,
and
his
blood
pressure
dropped.
Prompt
action
led
to
his
recovery.
He
had
received
blood
platelets
from
five
donors.
His
mother
told
the
medical
team
that
her
son
had
experienced
the
same
reactions
when
he
ate
peanuts
five
years
earlier.
He
had
had
no
peanuts
since.
A
blood
test
showed
that
the
boy
had
experienced
an
allergic
reaction
to
peanuts.
The
team
contacted
the
five
donors.
Three
of
them
had
snacked
on
peanuts
the
night
before
they
gave
blood.
The
team
that
treated
the
boy
reported
the
case
last
week
in
the
New
England
Journal
of
Medicine.
Members
of
the
team
from
a
medical
center
in
the
Netherlands
thought
that
the
“consumption
of
peanuts
by
the
donors
before
blood
donation
provide
the
trigger
for
this
patient’s
transfusion
reaction.”
They
pointed
out
that
other
patients
may
have
had
similar
reactions,
but
no
one
knew
how
or
why.
“It
is
possible
that
allergens
transferred
in
blood
products
have
led
to
reactions
that
have
gone
unexplained
and
unreported,”
they
wrote.
This
case
study
and
the
lesson
learned
from
it
show
how
important
case
studies
are.
Many
researchers
believe
that
case
studies
are
not
generalizable.
They
are.
This
case
shows
the
generalizability
of
lessons
learned
from
one
case.
The
medical
team
learned
that
allergens
related
to
peanut
consumption
can
be
transferred
through
blood
transfusions.
This
is
a
learning
that
can
be
applied
to
other
situations.
In
the
future,
blood
banks
throughout
the
world
will
ask
potential
donors
if
they
have
eaten
peanuts
recently,
or
at
least
they
should.
If
donors
have,
their
blood
products
would
be
so
labeled.
Some
blood
banks
may
not
take
blood
from
persons
who
have
eaten
peanuts
recently.
If
donors
forget
they
have
eaten
peanuts
or
lie
about
it,
then
recipients
with
peanut
allergies
may
go
into
shock.
If
this
happens,
medical
teams
will
know
right
away
that
peanuts
may
be
the
cause.
Medical
team
will
also
ask
if
candidates
for
blood
transfusions
have
allergies,
such
as
those
related
to
peanuts.
They
will
know
to
avoid
products
that
may
contain
traces
of
peanuts.
Persons
who
claim
that
the
findings
of
case
studies
are
not
generalizable
do
not
understand
that
there
is
more
than
one
type
of
generalizability.
They
believe
that
one
type
of
generalizability
fits
all
of
research.
This
is
not
so.
Lee
Cronbach
said
many
years
ago
that
any
finding,
no
matter
which
type
of
research
it
was
developed
upon,
can
be
useful
in
other
settings.
This
is
generalizability.
He
also
said
that
we
must
test
these
findings
for
fit
when
we
want
to
apply
them
in
new
situations.
This
means
that
in
situations
where
individuals
are
to
receive
donated
blood
products,
medical
teams
must
know
if
patients
have
allergies
to
peanuts
and
if
the
blood
products
contain
traces
of
peanuts.
Making
these
applications
will
initiate
prevention
strategies.
They
also
will
help
explain
reactions
that
until
now
have
gone
unexplained.
Researchers
use
case
studies
to
develop
and
test
theory
Discussion:
Learnings
from
Cases
are
Generalizable
Each
case
is
unique,
just
as
each
person
and
each
situation
are
unique.
What
is
not
unique
are
the
concepts
and
ideas
that
we
draw
from
case
studies.
These
concepts
and
ideas
are
generalizabile.
Researchers
and
people
living
their
everyday
lives
do
not
need
random
samples
in
order
to
learn
something
from
particular
situations.
What
they
need
is
imagination
and
capacities
to
abstract
ideas
from
particular
cases.
Then
they
need
imagination
and
attention
to
detail
to
see
if
what
they
learned
from
other
situations
fits
new
situations.
Probabilistic
generalizability
requires
random
samples.
Generalizaling
from
one
case
to
another
does
not.
There
is
more
than
one
type
of
generalizability.
Case
studies
are
important
sources
of
knowledge.
Findings
from
case
studies
are
generalizable.
Jane
F.
Gilgun,
Ph.D.,
LICSW,
is
a
professor,
School
of
Social
Work,
University
of
Minnesota,
Twin
Cities,
USA.
See
Professor
Gilgun’s
other
articles,
books,
and
children’s
stories
on
scribd.com,
Amazon
Kindle,
and
iBooks.
References
Allergic to peanuts, even in donated blood (2011). New York Times, May 24, D6.
Blumer,
H.
(1954/1969).
What
is
wrong
with
social
theory?
In
Herbert
Blumer
(1969/1986),
Symbolic
interactionism.
(pp
(pp.
140-‐152)
Berkeley:
University
of
California
Press.
Originally
published
in
Vol.
XIX
in
The
American
Sociological
Review.
Bryant,
Antony
&
Kathy
Charmaz
(Eds.)
(2007).
The
Sage
Handbook
of
Grounded
Theory.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage.
Bulmer,
M.
(1984).
The
Chicago
School
of
Sociology:
Institutionalization,
diversity,
and
the
rise
of
sociological
research.
Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press.
Corbin,
Juliet
&
Anselm
Strauss
(2008).
Basics
of
qualitative
research:
Techniques
and
procedures
for
developing
grounded
theory
(3rd
ed.).
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage.
Cronbach,
Lee
(1975).
Beyond
the
two
disciplines
of
scientific
psychology.
American
Psychologist,
30,
116-‐127.
Denzin,
Norman
K.
(2010).
Grounded
and
indigenous
theories
and
the
politics
of
pragmatism.
Sociological
Inquiry,
80(2),
286-‐312.
Denzin, Norman (1997). Coffee with Anselm. Qualitative Family Research 11(2), 1-4. Available at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27352636/Coffee-with-Anselm.
Gilgun, Jane F. (in press). Qualitative family research: Enduring themes and contemporary variations. In
Gary F. Peterson & Kevin Bush (Eds.), Handbook of Marriage and the Family (3rd ed.) (pp. 219-
261). New York: Plenum.
Gilgun, Jane F. (2011). Theory and case study research. Current Issues in Qualitative Research, 2 (3).
http://www.scribd.com/doc/48231895/Theory-and-Case-Study-Research
Gilgun, Jane F. (2005). Qualitative research and family psychology. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(1),
40-50.
Gilgun, Jane F. (2001). Case-based research, analytic induction, and theory development. This
paper
was
presented
at
the
31st
Annual
Theory
Construction
&
Research
Methodology
Workshop
of
the
National
Council
on
Family
Relations,
Rochester,
NY,
November
2001.
Available
at
http://www.scribd.com/doc/56167556/Case-Based-Research-Analytic-Induction-and-Theory-
Development-The-Future-and-the-Past
Gilgun,
Jane
F.
(1999).
Methodological
pluralism
and
qualitative
family
research.
In
Suzanne
K.
Steinmetz,
Marvin
B.
Sussman,
and
Gary
W.
Peterson
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
Marriage
and
the
Family
(2nd
ed.)
(pp.
219-‐261).
New
York:
Plenum.
Gilgun, Jane F. (1994). A case for case studies in social work research. Social Work,39, 371-380.
Gilgun, Jane F. (1992). Hypothesis generation in social work research. Journal of Social Service Research,
15, 113-135.
Glaser, Barney. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, Barney. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Polkinghorne,
Donald.
(l983).
Methodology
for
the
human
sciences:
Systems
of
inquiry.
Albany:
State
University
of
New
York
at
Albany.
Strauss,
A.
(1991).
A
personal
history
of
the
development
of
grounded
theory.
Qualitative
Family
Research,
5(2),
1-‐2.
Strauss,
Anselm.
1987.
Qualitative
Analysis
for
Social
Scientists.
New
York:
Cambridge
University
Press.
Strauss,
Anselm
&
Juliet
Corbin
(1998).
Basics
of
qualitative
research:
Techniques
and
procedures
for
developing
grounded
theory
(2nd
ed.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage.
Thomas,
W.
I.
&
Florian
Znaniecki.
(1918-‐1920/1927).
The
Polish
peasant
in
Europe
and
America,
Vol.
1-‐2.
New
York:
Knopf.
First
published
in
1918-‐1920
Webb, Sidney & Beatrice Webb. (l932). Methods of social study. London: Longman, Green.