Abstract

Case studies have had a strong presence in the study of communication disorders throughout its history. And they continue to do so. Their historical importance has been extraordinary, given that they often appear in the lower rungs of researchers’ status hierarchy. This form of research has typically been regarded as less valid and less generalizable than studies that have many subjects and that are carefully controlled (Gillam & Gillam, 2006; Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, 2001). This set of criticisms, I will argue, arise from unfairly levied positivistic assumptions about the nature of reality and about the purpose of research.