What are the assumptions of Case Study Method?

Answer 1

this paper is to outline the way in which different variations of the same psm have different assumptions or, conversely, how different assumptions holding in a domain can be used to derive the appropriate variant of propose-and-revise for a given application. By making assumptions explicit, it becomes possible to check whether an application domain really fits to an available psm and, conversely, which of the several variants of the methods fits (best) to it. We assume such a description as an absolute necessity, especially if the psms are designed for reuse. The KARL specification which we used as an empirical resource for our case study was the result of a reengineering activity. First, a configurable-role-limiting-method shell (Poeck and Gappa, 1993) for propose-and-exchange (see Poeck and Puppe, 1992) was adopted to 6 propose-and-revise according to its informal description by Yost (1992). Then a formal specification of the reasoning process of this shell was provided in KARL (see Fensel, 1995). Finally, we examined the KARL specifications for assumptions which are implicitly encoded in it. These assumptions which we detected do not reflect specific features of KARL, but are based on (implicit) decisions which were made by the shell authors Poeck & Puppe (1992) or by the VT-task description in Yost (1992). The KARL specification was just a precise and unique description of the problem-solving process which abstracted from implementational details. As the analysis of hidden assumptions in the specification was mainly a conceptual activity, the conceptual model underlying a KARL specification was very helpful. Again, it was the integration of a specification at the conceptual level (based on the KADS model of expertise) and at the formal level (which eliminates amb...

-jack rocker