Finding Legitimacy for Case Study Knowledge: Introduction to a Trialogue in 4 Rounds

Abstract

With renewed interest in and support of the scholarly, theoretical, practical, and clinical value of case study knowledge (as illustrated in a wealth of recent writings reflecting a wide diversity of conceptual perspectives), questions have arisen as to the proper epistemology for philosophically grounding such knowledge. For example, how scientifically objective is case-based knowledge, how generalizable is it, and can it validly uncover causal mechanisms? And what are the implications for these questions when a psychological intervention project like psychotherapy is viewed as an intrinsically moral enterprise focusing on human agency, moral choice, and the alleviation of suffering? The present series of articles by Barbara Held, Ronald B. Miller, and myself offers different perspectives on these issues in the form of a trialogue. This introduction briefly outlines the structure of the arguments of Held, Miller, and myself as these sequentially emerged over the four rounds of our discussion.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.