clm ili dn method

8/13/2019 CLM Ili DN Method

1/3Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1953744

284 DeductiveNomological Model of Explanation

their in-depth study of a laboratory, Bruno Latourand Steve Woolgar deconstruct the oppositionbetween the original and the copy alongside manyother moves.

David M. Boje gives an example of the decon-structing strategies by applying them to the grandnarrative of Marxism. He first notes that the dis-course is based on a binary opposition betweencapital and labor and documents how the first issaid to dominate the other. He then tells the otherside of the story, finding several examples and pro-cesses in which labor dominates capital. He doesnot oppose the Marxist labor process theory butshows how the overall plot (the greedy accumula-tion of capital deskills the workers in order tocapture always more of their surpluses) does notgrasp the whole story. We need to see it from sev-

eral angles, listening to many voices. He ends upwith a far more complex story, in which bothcapital and labor haunt each other, and in whicheach agent has multiple selves and agency.

Another example is Jean-Luc MoriceausFaceless Figures: Is a Socially Responsible DecisionPossible? In this study he deconstructs the con-cept of corporate social responsibility. The analysisreveals that the concept of corporate social respon-sibility appears far less pure than initially presup-posed: Despite its claims, the social dimension isshown as being contaminated by the economicalcalculus, the corporate level as shielding thedecision makers, the actual beneficiaries as beingreplaced by mere figures of stakeholders. Theabsence of faces is also remarked on. This studythus proposes a look at the institutionalization ofcorporate social responsibility, in its transforma-tion from initially being an ethical concern to afocus on organizations striving to achieve goodscores from rating agencies. The previously mar-ginalized inscription of responsibility into scorescomes to assume a central importance. This rever-sal of hierarchy suggests a new insight into thepractices and discourses of corporate social respon-

sibility while putting to the front the adversaryconcept of the faceless figure.

Critical Summary

Deconstruction is a very powerful strategy thatseeks to propose new insights, especially on issuesthat have been already documented, through

exposing the taken-for-granted. A case study maybe a useful companion to deconstruction forgrounding and illustrating often-abstract andimplicit argumentations. Although deconstructionis often critiqued for offering mere criticism, a suc-cessful deconstructive analysis will offer a newpanorama of insights into an existing text or prac-tice. A study that would end up with a very com-mon and straightforward critic could not claim tobe deconstructionist.

Derridas philosophical concepts as well as hisnumerous books require a close and are a challeng-ing read. Deconstructionists case studies are likelyto be accepted in critical journals rather thanmainstream journals.

Jean-Luc Moriceau

See also Conceptual Argument; Critical DiscourseAnalysis; Decentering Texts; Intertextuality;Logocentrism; Textual Analysis; Writing and

Difference

Further Readings

Boje, D. M. (2001). Narrative methods for organizationaland communication research. London: Sage.

Cooper, R. (1989). Modernism, post modernism andorganizational analysis 3: The contribution of JacquesDerrida. Organization Studies, 10, 479502.

Derrida, J. (2001). Deconstructions: The im-possible. InS. Lotringer & S. Cohen (Eds.), French theory inAmerica (pp. 1332). New York: Routledge.

Jones, C. (2004). Jacques Derrida. In S. Linstead (Ed.),Organization theory and postmodern thought(pp. 3463). London: Sage.

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Moriceau, J.-L. (2005). Faceless figures: Is a sociallyresponsible decision possible? In Y. Pesqueux & M.Bonnafous-Boucher (Eds.), Stakeholder theory: AEuropean perspective (pp. 89103). Basingstoke, UK:Palgrave Macmillan.

D EDUCTIVE N OMOLOGICAL M ODEL OF E XPLANATION

The deductivenomological model is a widelyaccepted account of the nature of scientific

Fred Eidlin, "Deductive-Nomological Model of Explanation." In Albert J. Mills, Gabrielle Durepos, andElden Wiebe, Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . SAGE Publications, 2010


2/3Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1953744

285DeductiveNomological Model of Explanation

explanation. It is often called the covering law model (CLM), or the HempelOppenheim model. In anexplanation under the deductivenomological model,the explicandum is some phenomenon requiringexplanation. The explicans of the explicandum removes the puzzling or problematic character of theexplicandum by showing the phenomenon to be aparticular case of a known general law. In otherwords, according to the CLM, explanation ordersexperience by bringing particular instances undergeneral principles. The more particular instances canbe brought under a more general principle, the betterthe explanation. Explanation progresses from theless general to the more general.

In a CLM explanation, the explicandum fol-lows logically from the explicans. If, for example,a pencil is dropped and falls, the explanation,

according to the CLM, is as follows:

Explicandum: Observation: Pencil falls.Explicans: Initial conditions: Pencil dropped.Law(s): Law of Gravity

The falling of the pencil is thus explained bybeing subsumed under the Law of Gravity.

Criticism

This model of explanation has, from early on, beensubjected to serious criticisms by both philosophers

of science and social scientists. According to physi-cist and philosopher of science Norman Campbell,the belief that it is the aim of science to bring allparticular instances under one extremely generaland universal law neglects the most important partof science and fails completely to understand itsaims and development. Even if this were possible,Campbell notes, the resulting explanation wouldnot be what science, developing the tendencies ofcommon sense, demands. Sociologist Phillip Gorskiobserves that the model is inadequate consideringthat sociology has not as yet produced any suchlaws, and political scientist Samuel H. Beer assertsthat the model has not led to success and thatattempting to follow it would stand in the way ofany social scientist who took it seriously.

Curious Status in the Social Sciences

The CLM enjoys a curious status in the social sci-ences. On the one hand, it is still widely believed to

be a correct account of what a scientific explana-tion should be like. It continues to be widely pre-sented as such in the social science methodologytextbook literature. On the other hand, few if anyexplanations in the social sciences come close tofitting the model. This view of explanation wouldappear to be particularly distant from case studyresearch, with its focus on complex situations.Even those social scientists who subscribe to theCLM usually admit that there are, as yet, no uni-versal laws in the social sciences or that there areonly a few that might arguably qualify as such.Duvergers Law and Michelss Iron Law ofOligarchy are among those that might be nomi-nated. Yet even they are not universal laws in thesense of the CLM. Few would argue that thedeductivenomological model characterizes the

explanations extant in the social sciences.Some social scientistsfor example, RobertMertonargue that the absence of universal lawsin the social sciences is due to the fact that they arenot yet mature sciences. When they have reachedmaturity, so it is implied, their explanations willconform to the CLM. In the meantime, it is accept-able for social scientists to make use of whatMerton calls theories of the middle range. Yet,as Gorski points out, such generalizations are notthe universal laws presupposed under the CLM. Inrecent years, several writers have drawn attentionto another problematic aspect of the deductivenomological model, namely, that it mistakenlyassumes covariance or regularity implies causality.

Poppers Account of Deductive Explanation

Karl Poppers account of deductive explanation issometimes mistakenly identified with the CLM,which is sometimes referred to as the Popper Hempel model. Like the CLM, in Poppers accountof a scientific explanation the explicans of theexplicandum consists of laws and initial conditions,and the explicandum must follow logically from

the explicans. However, although this is a necessarycondition for Popper it is not a sufficient condition.First of all, Popper agrees with those critics of theCLM who point out that correlation or covariancedoes not entail causation. Something must drive theexplanation, must account for why the explican-dum necessarily follows from the explicans. Anexplicans may eliminate the problematic character


3/3

286 Depth of Data

of a phenomenon in various ways. Subsuming thephenomenon under a general law, as prescribed bythe CLM, is one possibility. However, even in suchcases the cause of an observed regularity may beunknown and requiring explanation. Moreover, theproblematic character of a phenomenon may alsobe removed by repairing or filling out initial condi-tions, or by reconceptualizing the situation. In anycase, according to Popper, the explicans must berich in content and must have a variety of indepen-dently testable consequences, which are differentfrom the explicandum. Poppers account of deduc-tive explanation is thus, unlike the CLM, congenialto case study research. It is precisely through cor-rection or reconceptualization of the situation (ini-tial conditions) that explanation is provided of whya particular case deviates from what had been

expected.Fred Eidlin

See also Explanation Building; Explanatory Case Study;Falsification; Middle-Range Theory; Philosophy ofScience; Probabilistic Explanation

Further Readings

Beer, S. H. (1963). Causal explanation and imaginativere-enactment. History and Theory, 3, 629.

Campbell, N. (1953). The Explanation of Laws. In What

Is Science? (pp. 77108). New York: Dover.Eidlin, F. (2007, AugustSeptember). Two kinds of

explanation in social science: Finding a cause versusconceptual breakthrough. Paper presented at the 2007Annual Meeting of the American Political ScienceAssociation, Chicago.

Gorski, P. S. (2004). The poverty of deductivism: Aconstructive realist model of sociological explanation.Sociological Methodology, 34, 133.

Popper, K. R. (1994). Models, instruments, and truth:The status of the rationality principle in the socialsciences. In The myth of the framework: In defence ofscience and rationality (pp. 154184). New York:

Routledge.

D EPTH OF D ATA

Depth of data refers to the detail, richness, com-prehensiveness, and explanative power of the data

supporting a case study. Increased depth of datapositively affects the perceived credibility andapplicability (or generalizability) of a case study.At the same time, this increased depth can alsoraise ethical challenges regarding the protection ofprivacy and confidentiality.

Conceptual Overview and Discussion

Depth and Breadth of Data

Characteristically, case study research drawsfrom an extensive and varied array of data resour-ces to bring depth of understanding about a well-defined, narrowly focused, and clearly boundedcase. Researchers may face a trade-off betweendepth and breadth in gathering and presenting datafor a case study. Although it is essential for casestudy researchers to seek out extensive evidence todevelop a comprehensive understanding of thecase, choices must be made about how much ofthat evidence can be presented directly in any casestudy report. Researchers must consider publish-ers requirements and readers needs in judging theamount and depth of data that can be presented.

The challenges of gathering and presenting suf-ficient depth of data in a case study report areparticularly acute for collective and comparativecase study research, where there is a need to con-sider information from multiple cases. It is not

uncommon for cross-case studies to be criticized asthin, reflecting insufficient depth about any indi-vidual case. At the same time, collective and com-parative case studies are valuable because theemphasis on similarities and differences acrosscases can provide breadth of understanding aboutthe phenomenon of interest that extends beyondone individual case.

Depth of Data Affects Credibility and Applicability

Case study researchers establish depth of datathrough triangulation and thick description, both

strategies that contribute to credibility of data.Through triangulation, comparing and con-

trasting across multiple data resources, case studyresearchers uncover consistencies and inconsisten-cies, thereby providing evidence from multipleperspectives and incorporating assessments aboutthe veracity of the evidence presented. In this way,researchers can build robust understandings about

clm ili dn method

Documents