Configurative-Ideographic Case Study

Conceptual Overview and Discussion

Configurative-ideographic case study tends to be wholly descriptive and entirely bereft of theoretical considerations. Indeed, as Arend Lijphart observes, such case studies are neither determined by established or hypothesized premises nor are they motivated to advance theory in the field through the generation of hypotheses. As such, its contribution to direct theory development—that is, the construction of generalizations—remains absent. It is, as Alexander George and Andrew Bennett describe, thus ontologically opposite of case methods that revolve around theory testing, that is, case methods that attempt to decipher the validity and the scope conditions of various theories.

Scholars adopting a configurative-ideographic case method endeavor to capture a holistic perspective on a given event or phenomenon. Juliet Kaarbo and Ryan K. Beasley note that while this case method requires the evocation of some level of a priori ideas—as do all examples of empirical research—which could be perceived as recourse to theoretical arguments, studies utilizing configurative-ideographic cases are not explicitly grounded in preconceived notions. The data emerging from this method provide the sole basis for describing the phenomenon under study. Thus, there is little, if any, consideration of how one phenomenon relates to another. This has led some scholars to conclude that configurative-ideographic case studies present few benefits beyond their contribution to conceptualizing historical events. Not surprisingly, then, it is historical studies that rely upon primary evidence to construct particular narratives that have most often utilized this specific case method.

As configurative-ideographic case studies do not directly engage with theory-related elements—and, hence, do not epistemologically cohere with the scientific method—they have been much criticized by scholars. Specifically, criticism has been deployed against its lack of methodological sophistication and the reliability and validity of the data that emerge from these studies. However, for the configurative-ideographic case scholar, this line of criticism remains moot. Indeed, the primary aim of such case studies is exclusively to provide a substantive descriptive analysis, which is viewed as the end itself rather than a means from which to ascertain broader theoretical objectives. It is precisely this fact that differentiates the configurative-ideographic case study from the disciplined-configurative case study that tests theory or invokes extant theory to explain an outcome, or the heuristic case study that, through induction, develops new theoretical variables and hypotheses.

Application

Due to the fact that they refrain from generalizing and, therefore, do not engage with theory development, social science researchers have largely refused to employ configurative-ideographic cases as a method for ascertaining empirical results. This might be explained, at least in part, as being due to the difficulties associated with publishing articles in scholarly journals that do not overtly provide theoretical advancements to the field. The utilization of such cases should not be dismissed imprudently, however. Configurative-ideographic cases elucidate, in the most detailed and nuanced of ways, the dynamics of a particular phenomenon. In this way, such studies can potentially offer rich description, which can then serve as an analytical site for theory building in future research.

...