Abstract
Discussions on case study methodology in International Relations (IR) have historically been dominated by positivist and neopositivist approaches. However, these are problematic for critical IR research, pointing to the need for a non-positivist case study methodology. To address this issue, this article introduces and adapts the extended case methodology as a critical, reflexivist approach to case study research, whereby the case is constructed through a dynamic interaction with theory, rather than selected, and knowledge is produced through extensions rather than generalisation. Insofar as it seeks to study the world in complex and non-linear terms, take context and positionality seriously, and generate explicitly political and emancipatory knowledge, the extended case methodology is consistent with the ontological and epistemological commitments of several critical IR approaches. Its potential is illustrated in the final part of the article with reference to researching the socioeconomic dimension of transitional justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Highlights
Discussions on case study methodology in International Relations (IR) have historically been dominated by positivist and neopositivist approaches
While not being the only possible methodological choice for non-positivist case studies, and without wanting to play down the diversity of critical IR approaches, the extended case methodology contributes to IR methodology debates by responding to the need for non-positivist standards for conceptualising and carrying out case study research
Researchers are asked to justify what contribution to knowledge a single case study can make, and positivist approaches have developed specific answers to this question. We argue that these are not necessarily applicable to critical IR research, due to fundamental ontological and epistemological differences, which in turn translate into different research objectives and standards for evaluating knowledge claims
Summary
Discussions on case study methodology in International Relations (IR) have historically been dominated by positivist and neopositivist approaches. It builds on the recent fertile season of methodological reflections in critical IR, strategically concerned with reclaiming discussions on methods and methodology from the exclusive domain of positivist scholars, and substantively focused on making explicit the grounds for producing knowledge and evaluating knowledge claims.[3] In the recent surge of interest towards methods and methodology,[4] much attention has been devoted to the scientific status of knowledge produced through non-positivist approaches This development contests the tight link between positivism and methodologically sound research established in the classical literature on methods in IR,[5] but it explores new possibilities for pairing methodologies and methods in ways that expand, rather than constrain, our research possibilities.[6] As Jackson argues, science is ‘a pluralist endeavour’ that encompasses, following Weber, every ‘systematic empirical analysis that aims to produce knowledge rather than to produce innerworldly effects’.7. While not being the only possible methodological choice for non-positivist case studies, and without wanting to play down the diversity of critical IR approaches, the extended case methodology contributes to IR methodology debates by responding to the need for non-positivist standards for conceptualising and carrying out case study research
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
