Advancing Rigorous Methodologies: A Review of “Towards Rigor in Reviews of Multivocal Literatures… ”

Abstract

In Towards Rigor in Reviews of Multivocal Literatures: Applying the Exploratory Case Study Method, Rodney Ogawa and Betty Malen (1991) propose an inventive methodological advance. Specifically, they propose that: (a) social scientists apply the notion of to their review of multivocal literatures and consider it as a form of original research and that (b) the exploratory case study be the method for this task. Whether this proposal actually is an advance is the topic of my review. At the outset, however, my own biases need clarification. First, any methodological advance is to be valued, because our craft has been considered more primitive than those in other academic disciplines. Moreover, advances in methods are often accompanied by advances in concepts (Yin, 1982). Therefore, the potential gains are significant. Second, any advance in the name of rigor is to be doubly valued, again reflecting continued criticism of the lack of rigor in social science research. Third, any advance based on the case study method may be considered pleasing, given my own previous work in this field. Finally, any advance in educational research techniqueswhich have not enjoyed the highest esteem even among social science inquiries-would be more than welcome. Despite my positive inclinations, Ogawa and Malen's article in the end falls short of its claims. Readers must therefore be forewarned of my article's conclusion: that the claimed advance is in fact based on muddled and tenuous grounds and that different conclusions are more than possible. My approach is straightforward. My review initially tries to organize, analytically, Ogawa and Malen's article. Then, my review shows how their article itself does not follow its own recommended standards for the rigorous testing and presentation of its own conclusions. Finally, my review also notes that Ogawa and Malen have accidentally or purposefully encountered a significant boundary-distinguishing the appropriate methods for contemporary events from those for entirely historic events-but that they do not discuss these ramifications.