English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The purpose of this reply to Stiles' (this issue) article is threefold: identify his particular philosophy of theory-building, expose some of its problems for evaluation, and describe another philosophy of theory-building as a point of comparison. The article begins by describing how Stiles' philosophical approach to theory-building is ontologically dualist in nature. Dualism is evident in his view of experience, signs, meanings, knowledge, and truth. We point not only to general problems with this dualism but also to specific problems with Stiles' particular formulation. We then describe a nondualist philosophy in a successful case study movement outside psychology, namely Consumer Reports car ratings. It is only in comparison with such nondualist approaches that we can begin to evaluate Stiles' proposal and properly serve the important project of case study evaluation.

Evaluating the Philosophies of Theory-Building in Case Studies