Embedded in the critical realist tradition, this article aims to explore the potentialities of the case study for evaluation purposes when complexity and specificity are moderate.Three objectives are pursued. First, it is stated that the focus of the evaluation effort is not necessarily the programme itself, but can be one premise upon which the programme is built. Second, taking into account Donald Campbell's contributions, it is asserted that, under favourable conditions, not only deterministic propositions, but also probabilistic ones can be rejected as highly improbable via case studies. Third, making use of the Context—Mechanism—Outcome model proposed by Pawson and Tilley, this article demonstrates the capacity of a critical case study to sustain theory building.
Bhaskar, R. (1998) `General Introduction', in M. Archer, R. Bhaskar, A. Collier, T. Lawson and A. Norrie (eds) Critical Realism , pp. ix-xxiv. London: Routledge.
2.
Brody, B., Y. Létourneau and A. Poirier (1990) Les coûts indirects des accidents du travail, Rapport R-044, Sept., Institut de recherche en santé et en sécurité du travail du Québec.
3.
Campbell, D.T. (1961) `The Mutual Methodological Relevance of Anthropology and Psychology', in F. L. K. Hsu (ed.) Psychological Anthropology: Approaches to Culture and Personality , pp. 333-52. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
4.
Campbell, D.T. (1975) `"Degrees of Freedom" and the Case Study', Comparative Political Studies8(2): 178-93.
5.
Campbell, D.T. (1978) `Qualitative Knowing in Action Research', in M. Brenner, P. Marsh and M. Brenner (eds) The Social Contexts of Method, pp. 184-209. London: Croom Helm.
6.
Campbell, D.T. (1984) `Can we be Scientific in Applied Social Science?' , in R. F. Conner, D. G. Attman and C. Jackson (eds) Evaluation Studies Review Annual9: 26-48. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
7.
Campbell, D.T. (1988) `Descriptive Epistemology: Psychological, Sociological and Evolutionary', in E. S. Overman (ed.) Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science, pp. 435-86. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
8.
Campbell, D.T. and J.C. Stanley (1963) `Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching', in N. L. Gage (ed.) Handbook on Research on Teaching, pp. 171-246. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Reprinted as Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Chicago: Rand Mc Nally, 1966.
9.
Crozier, M. (1964) The Bureaucratic Phenomenon. London: Tavistock.
10.
Eckstein, H. (1975) `Case Study and Theory in Political Science', in F. I. Greenstein and N. W. Polsby (eds) Handbook of Political Science, vol. 7, Strategies of Inquiry, pp. 79-137. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Press.
11.
El Akremi, A., J. Igalens and C. Vicens (2004) `Flexibilité organisationnelle: Complexité et profusion conceptuelles', in R. Beaujolin-Bellet (ed.) Flexibilités et performances - Stratégies d'entreprise, régulations, transformations du travail, pp. 23-50. Paris: Éditions La Découverte.
12.
Granger, G.G. (1992) La vérification. Paris: Odile Jacob.
13.
Health and Safety Executive (1993) The Costs of Accidents at Work. London: HMSO.
14.
Hennart, J.-F. (1988) `Upstream Vertical Integration in the Aluminium and Tin Industries: A Comparative Study of the Choice between Market and Intra Firm Coordination', Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization9(3): 281-99.
15.
King, G., R.O. Keohane, and S. Verba (1994) Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
Lieberson, S. (1991) `Small N's and Big Conclusions: An Examination of the Reasoning in Comparative Studies Based on a Small Number of Cases' , Social Forces70(2): 307-20.
17.
Lijphart, A. (1971) `Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method' , American Political Science Review65(3): 682-93.
18.
March, J.G. and J.P. Olsen (1975) `The Uncertainty of the Past: Organizational Learning under Ambiguity', European Journal of Political Research3: 147-71.
19.
Martinet, A.-C. and H. Savall (1978) `Dysfonctionnements, coût et performances cachées dans l'entreprise', Revue d'Économie industrielle5(3): 82-94.
20.
Munck, G.L. (1998) `Canons of Research Design in Qualitative Analysis' , Studies in Comparative International Development33(3): 18-45.
21.
Passeron, J.-C. (1991) Le raisonnement sociologique: L'espace non-poppérien du raisonnement naturel. Paris: Nathan.
22.
Patton, M.Q. (1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
23.
Pawson, R. (2002) `Evidence-Based Policy: The Promise of "Realist Synthesis"', Evaluation8(3): 340-58.
24.
Pawson, R. (2003) `Nothing as Practical as a Good Theory', Evaluation9(4): 471-90.
25.
Pawson, R. and N. Tilley (1997) Realistic Evaluation. London : SAGE.
26.
Pettigrew, A.M. (2001) `Management Research after Modernism', British Journal of Management12(4): 561-70.
27.
Popper, K.R. (1984) La logique de la découverte scientifique. Paris: Payot.
28.
Savall, H. (1981) Reconstruire l'entreprise: Analyse socio-économique des conditions de travail. Paris: Dunod.
29.
Stablein, R. (1996) `Data in Organization Studies', in S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. R. Nord (eds) Handbook of Organization Studies, pp. 509-25. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30.
Stake, R.E. (1994) `Case Studies', in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 236-47. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
31.
Volberda, H.W. (1996) `Toward the Flexible Form: How to Remain Vital in Hypercompetitive Environments', Organization Science7(4): 359-74.
32.
Yin, R.K. (1988) Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
