Bent Flyvbjerg's article "Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research" examines five common misconceptions about case-study research. These include: (1) the belief that theoretical knowledge is more valuable than practical knowledge; (2) the idea that one cannot generalize from a single case, thus case studies cannot contribute to scientific development; (3) the notion that case studies are most useful for generating hypotheses, while other methods are better for hypothesis testing and theory building; (4) the assumption that case studies have a bias toward verification; and (5) the difficulty of summarizing specific case studies. The article argues that these misunderstandings are incorrect and that case studies are valuable for scientific development. It also emphasizes the role of case studies in human learning, noting that they produce context-dependent knowledge necessary for developing from rule-based beginners to virtuoso experts. The article also discusses the importance of case studies in social science, highlighting their ability to provide concrete, context-dependent knowledge that is often lacking in general, theoretical knowledge. It challenges the view that case studies are less rigorous than quantitative methods and argues that they can be just as rigorous, if not more so. The article also discusses the importance of strategic case selection, noting that critical cases can be particularly useful for testing hypotheses and generalizing findings. Finally, it argues that case studies do not necessarily have a bias toward verification, but rather are more likely to lead to falsification of preconceived notions. The article concludes that case studies are an essential part of scientific research and that they should be given more recognition and value in the social sciences.Bent Flyvbjerg's article "Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research" examines five common misconceptions about case-study research. These include: (1) the belief that theoretical knowledge is more valuable than practical knowledge; (2) the idea that one cannot generalize from a single case, thus case studies cannot contribute to scientific development; (3) the notion that case studies are most useful for generating hypotheses, while other methods are better for hypothesis testing and theory building; (4) the assumption that case studies have a bias toward verification; and (5) the difficulty of summarizing specific case studies. The article argues that these misunderstandings are incorrect and that case studies are valuable for scientific development. It also emphasizes the role of case studies in human learning, noting that they produce context-dependent knowledge necessary for developing from rule-based beginners to virtuoso experts. The article also discusses the importance of case studies in social science, highlighting their ability to provide concrete, context-dependent knowledge that is often lacking in general, theoretical knowledge. It challenges the view that case studies are less rigorous than quantitative methods and argues that they can be just as rigorous, if not more so. The article also discusses the importance of strategic case selection, noting that critical cases can be particularly useful for testing hypotheses and generalizing findings. Finally, it argues that case studies do not necessarily have a bias toward verification, but rather are more likely to lead to falsification of preconceived notions. The article concludes that case studies are an essential part of scientific research and that they should be given more recognition and value in the social sciences.