Methodology Disaster Continued

Why, why, why...!

I have been thinking over ontology, epistemology and methodology... because the Research Dean will attend my PhD confirmation seminar. Why mine?! Prof LF is a well known critical theorist. Perhaps she will give me critical comments. Oh dear.

I should calm down. Let's find an article which helps to tide up my thoughts.

Cepeda, G. & Martin, D. (2005). A review of case studies publishing in Management Decision 2003-2004. Management Decision, 43(6), 851-876.

OK, sounds good. Let's look at inside.

Although several authors have suggested methods to develop case studies - one of the key contributions has been the formulation of a set of methodological principles for case studies that were consistent with the conventions of positivism (several authors mentioned including: Lee, 1989 and Yin, 1984) - few authors have suggested criteria for interpretive research. (p.853)

Really??? Yin is a positivist? So is Einsenhardit? Oh no, more confusion...

I know positivist can adopt a case study method. However, I misunderstand that both Yin and Eisenhardit have anti-positivist orientation (I thought they have either pragmatist or realist orientation).

Gee... I should stop reading the article at this stage. I have only for one week (actually, less than a week now). The most important thing and the first priority is to think how I can rescue myself from this methodology disaster and how I can survive the defence.

どうするよ、自分。　やばいぜ、マジで。