Aubrey Rocheleau's clear crisp diagram on Flyvbjerg's article on the Case Study reminded me much of her classmate Amy Gerarde. Both went simple to go complex.
Here is Aubrey's description of what she was doing with Flyvbjerg's article:
Flyvbjerg begins his article by pointing out the differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods, highlighting the claim of quantitative researchers that results from qualitative studies (particularly those obtained from case studies) are not as noteworthy as those obtained by quantitative methods. The bulk of his article deals with identifying and correcting five “misconceptions” that quantitative researchers have of the case study method. In my diagram, I interpreted Flyvbjerg’s five misconceptions as ways that case study is a useful method of research. The two elements on the left (provides specific knowledge and helps the researcher learn about phenomena) are both ways that case study helps informs the practice of the researcher using the method and helps the researcher grow in his or her knowledge of the topic. The elements on the top and upper right corner (creates opportunities for falsification and tests hypothesis) are both ways that case study assists with theory development. The final element (can encourage readers to develop their own conclusion) demonstrates the open-ended nature of case study and how they can be used to stimulate further thinking on the part of the reader. Flyvbjerg concludes his article by noting that both quantitative and qualitative methods of research are useful; together they provide both breadth and depth about a topic.
And here is her visual:
I thought Rocheleau's "Let me turn this on its head" was an inspired way to work out understanding of the article. As she explained to us in class, as a beginner, she needed to figure out what it was before she could shift to what it was not.