APG-L ArchivesArchiver > APG > 2009-02 > 1234642336
Subject: [APG] FW: BCG portfolio questions, Requirement #6
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 14:12:16 -0600
>I have sometimes noticed when a case study is presented in a journal, that the data are presented in both a discussion and a table. Each fact in the discussion is footnoted, and the table includes a note that the data in the table is previously cited in the discussion. Is this acceptable for the BCG Case Study Requirement #6?
I'll answer this wearing two different hats (BCG trustee plus 16 years as NGSQ editor). There is no way that every research problem can follow one rigid formula. There is no way every case study can follow a certain pattern or template. Every problem and solution has its own peculiarities. Part of being a good researcher and a good reporter of that research (whether it be in a client report, a report to our own files, or a formal case study for a journal) is the ability to analyze what we're working with and design the best presentation of the facts. It's really not possible for anyone else to tell you, in advance, how *exactly* to structure a case study. Advice can only be given after the fact, in the form of "this works but this doesn't" for your particular case.
I know this doesn't ease your uncertainty but, then, everyone who applies for certification or submits to a journal or, even, sends a report to a client has that sense of uncertainty, no? The best cure, IMO, is to hone one's ability to analyze a problem and design a presentation through regular reading of case studies in a journal such as NGSQ that specializes in that format---and, even better, participation in one of the Litchmann-style study groups that analyze case studies.
Elizabeth Shown Mills, CG, CGL, FASG
APG member, Tennessee