hello everyone,

for those of you doing case studies within your thesis, am currently writing my second case - study and planning to have a comparative chapter. therefore my structure is case study a, then case study b, then compare a and b. however, am finding that whilst writing b i almost want to say 'similarly to a ... '. is this ok? or should i stay independent til the comparative chapter. on the one hand, not identifying similarities and differences, leaves it to the reader to take note of them, although i eventually acknowledge them in the end. on the other hand, identifying them means that i will be repititive in the next chapter but has the advantage of improving the flow of the thesis. has anyone encountered this and heard from their supervisor on it?

thanks.. you're my support group
:$

obviously, that was meant to be 'on this'.:-)

I Sneaks is doing case studies, and cant remember who else but am sure there'll be responses :-)

thanks phdbug. any ideas what i should do? am afraid of comparing at point b and being expected to say more, on not comparing and examiners thinking am incompetent.

its time to take a break. i can't spell anymore.

Hi Jojo, I have three case study chapters, each looking at two films by a single film maker. My method so far is to make comparisons only between case studies I have already written about, and, thus, build the layers of connections as the chapters progress; then ultimately pull all the strings together in the conclusion. So in the first case study chapter there are no comparisons with the other case studies; with the second case study discussions I make comparissons with the first; and in the final one I make comarisons between it and the previous two case studies. The emergent themes are framed in the introduction and conclusion.

The only time my sup has said about it was once when I re-jigged the order of the case study chapters at the last minute, but forgot to remove comparisons between case study films from what had then become the first chapter. He just commented 'we're not there yet'; and I agree, in my thesis at least, it's nigh on impossible to do justice in a discussion of a case study without its full contextual information; and, IMO, doing so renders the flow of writing confusing and disjointed.

I won't hassle you for a star; i'm, not that shallow. However, the helpful user button is just on the right had corner of my post. :-)

@eska - thanks. i did try to do mine that way but the second chapter was just too big that it obscured the point i was trying to make. i found i couldn't describe the case and compare at the same time. i then decided to have an extra chapter comparing the case studies and discussing the parameters of comparison.. leaving the case studies as descriptions. any thoughts?

Hi Jojo, Making comparisons between case studies isn't such a central issue for my research, rather my analysis of the films, and their degree of relevance to core issues and concepts, so I don't spend too many words on comparisons in the case study chapters. Instead, I draw attention to things which will illuminate the case studis in the chapter at hand, and the conclusion is where most of my comparative work willl be. Maybe you could use a similar model, with some relatively brief directional comments in the case study chapters which are later picked up on and expanded in the conclusion. The content of these discussions and your method of presenting them would be sign-posted in the introduction.

Hi Jojo, I'm also doing case studies, 5 of them. I'm keeping them all separate and then drawing out similarities and differences in the following analysis chapter. I did start of by making comparisons as I was writing, but this got too cumbersome, and my supervisor thinks it flows better to keep them separate. So I'm writing each one up, then discussing in their respective chapters how they relate to the literature and findings of others, then pulling it all together in an analysis chapter, and then will follow this with a conclusions chapter. It seems to be going OK so far. Have written them all up (tho they need rewriting) and am just about to start making a bit of a map for the analysis chapter. Hope this helps.

Sue - am trying your method. i think that's what am trying to do. i keep revisiting your post to clarify what am doing in my mind. thanks! :-)

Good luck Jojo, hope it goes well! Since your post, I've started doing flow charts and diagrams on butcher's paper all over my walls, trying to work out links that will come together and give me some smart conclusions (!). So far I've got a big 'so what?' but each day I make another small conceptual step, so hopefully will get somewhere. Better than the methodology chapter I'm still writing, which I just hate. Have you written your meth ch? Did you bleat on endlessly about validity and generalisability etc etc? It's so dull!!

i like the idea of maps to shape your analysis.. my methodology is very 'unserious' particularly because in my field - law - it is enough to argue. you don't really need to justify method that much. i discuss it as i go along but i don't defend it at all.. i will probably critique it in the end and talk about generalisations here and there..