Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 51, Issue 5, pp 857–868 | Cite as

Studying mathematical practices: the dilemma of case studies

  • Colin Jakob RittbergEmail author
  • Bart Van Kerkhove
Original Article

Abstract

In this paper we argue that the choice of research methods reflects the theoretical framework even before these methods have been put to use in case studies. We understand the term ‘case study’ broadly in this paper and argue that neither thinking of them as cherry-picked cases to support preconceived ideas about mathematical practices nor thinking of them as inductive leaps from (too) few cases to general features is suitable. By realising the deep entanglement of our case studies with our theoretical framework we propose to view case studies as an invitation for critical reflection upon one’s own assumptions. We discuss an example taken from the philosophy of mathematical practices. The upshot is threefold: (1) we provide an argument that case study based research strategies can be successful; (2) we delineate how an awareness of the methodological difficulties of case study based research strategies can positively influence the way case studies are conducted; (3) we suggest that case studies are not dispassionate examinations that deliver cold facts.

Keywords

Philosophy of mathematical practices Case studies Methodology Set theory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Karen François for helpful discussions, three anonymous referees for valuable comments, the participants of the “Mathematical Evidence and Argument” symposium (Bremen 2017) for their insightful remarks, and the reading group of the Centre for Logic and Philosophy of Science at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel for their critical minds. Furthermore we thank Henrik Kragh Sørensen for his consent to present here the list of methods that have been used to study mathematical practices philosophically plus associated exemplar publications, which was created by him in joint work with the first author. Research for this paper by the first author has been funded by the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO), project G056716N.

References

  1. Andersen, L. E. (2017a). On the nature and role of peer review in mathematics. Accountability in Research, 24(3), 177–192.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, L. E. (2017b). Outsiders enabling scientific change. Learning from the sociohistory of a mathematical proof. Social Epistemology, 31(2), 184–191.Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, L. E., Johansen, M. W., & Kragh Sørensen, H. (in perparation). Mathematicians writing for mathematicians.Google Scholar
  4. Barany, M. J., & MacKenzie, D. (2014). Chalk: Materials and concepts in mathematics research. In C. Coopmans, J. Vertesi, M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representation in scientific practice revisited (pp. 107–129). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bassey, M. (1999). Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bikner-Ahsbahs, A., Knipping, C., & Presmeg, N. (2015). Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Buldt, B., Löwe, B., & Müller, T. (2008). Towards a new epistemology of mathematics. Erkenntnis, 68(3), 309–329.Google Scholar
  8. Burian, R. M. (2001). The dilemma of case studies resolved: The virtues of using case studies in the history and philosophy of science. Perspectives on Science, 9(4), 383–404.Google Scholar
  9. Burian, R. M. (2002). Comments on the precarious relationship between history and philosophy of science. Perspectives on Science, 10(4), 398–407.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  11. Chang, H. (2011). Beyond case-studies: History as philosophy. In S. Mauskopf & T. Schmaltz (Eds.), Integrating history and philosophy of science (pp. 109–124). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Corfield, D. (2003). Towards a philosophy of real mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Džamonja, M. (2017). Set theory and its place in the foundations of mathematics: A new look at an old question. Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research, 34(2), 415–424.Google Scholar
  14. De Toffoli, S., & Giardino, V. (2014). Forms and roles of diagrams in knot theory. Erkenntnis, 79(4), 829–842.Google Scholar
  15. Eckstein, H. (1992). Case studies and theory in political science. In H. Eckstein (Ed.), Regarding politics: Essays on political theory, stability, and change. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ferreirós, J. (2015). Mathematical knowledge and the interplay of practices. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. François, K., Löwe, B., Müller, T., & Van Kerkhove, B. (2011). Foundations of the formal sciences VII: Bringing together philosophy and sociology of science. New York: College Publications.Google Scholar
  18. François, K., & Vandendriessche, E. (2016). Reassembling mathematical practices. A philosophical-anthropological approach. Revista Latinoamericana de Etnomatemática, 9(2), 144–167.Google Scholar
  19. Friedman, M., & Rittberg, C. J. (to appear). The material reasoning of folding paper. Synthese.Google Scholar
  20. Friend, M. (2014). Pluralism in mathematics: A new position in philosophy of mathematics. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2004). Case studies and theory development. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gerovitch, S. (2016). Creative discomfort: The culture of the Gelfand Seminar at Moscow University. In B. Larvor (Ed.), Mathematical cultures. The London meetings 2012–2014 (pp. 51–70). Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  23. Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American political science review, 98(2), 341–354.Google Scholar
  24. Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Emergence vs forcing. California: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hamkins, J. D. (2012). The set-theoretic multiverse. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 5(3), 416–449.Google Scholar
  26. Hamkins, J. D. (2015). Is the dream solution of the continuum hypothesis attainable? Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 56(1), 135–145.Google Scholar
  27. Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017). Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research.  https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-18.1.2655.Google Scholar
  28. Hernandez-Martinez, P., & Vos, P. (2017). Why do I have to learn this?” A case study on students’ experiences of the relevance of mathematical modelling activities. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(1–2), 245–257.Google Scholar
  29. Hersh, R. (1997). What is mathematics, really? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Inglis, M., & Aberdein, A. (2014). Beauty Is not simplicity. An analysis of mathematicians’ proof appraisals. Philosophia Mathematica, 23(1), 87–109.Google Scholar
  31. Inglis, M., & Aberdein, A. (2016). Diversity in proof appraisal. In B. Larvor (Ed.), Mathematical cultures: The London meetings (pp. 163–179). Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  32. Johansen, M. W., Misfeldt, M., & Lomholt Pallavicini, J. (2018). A typology of mathematical diagrams. In P. Chapman, G. Stapleton, A. Moktefi, S. Perez-Kriz & F. Bellucci (Eds.), Diagrammatic representation and inference (pp. 105–119). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Jungwirth, H. (2003). Interpretative Forschung in der Mathematikdidaktik—Ein Überblick für Irrgäste, Teilzieher und Standvögel. ZDM, 35(5), 189–200.Google Scholar
  34. Kanamori, A. (2009). The higher infinite. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Kaufman, S. (2016). On the emergence of a new mathematical object. In B. Larvor (Ed.), Mathematical cultures. The London meetings 2012–2014 (pp. 91–110). Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  36. Kelle, U., & Buchholtz, N. (2015). The combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods in mathematics education: A “mixed methods” study on the development of the professional knowledge of teachers. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs et al. (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education, advances in mathematics education (pp. 321–361). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  37. Larvor, B. (2010). Syntactic analogies and impossible extensions. In B. Löwe & T. Müller (Eds.), PhiMSAMP—Philosophy of mathematics: Sociological aspects and mathematical practice (pp. 197–208). New York: College Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Larvor, B. (2016). Mathematical cultures: The London meetings 2012–2014. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  39. Löwe, B. (2016). Philosophy or not? The study of cultures and practices of mathematics. In S. Ju, B. Löwe, T. Müller & Y. Xie (Eds.), Cultures of mathematics and logic (pp. 23–42). Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  40. Löwe, B., & Müller, T. (2010). PhiMSAMP—Philosophy of mathematics: Sociological aspects and mathematical practice. New York: College Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Löwe, B., Müller, T., & Müller-Hill, E. (2010). Mathematical knowledge as a case study in empirical philosophy of mathematics. In B. Van Kerkhove, J. P. Van Bendegem & J. De Vuyst (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on mathematical practice (pp. 185–203). New York: College Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Löwe, B., & Van Kerkhove, B. (2019). Methodological triangulation in empirical philosophy (of mathematics). In: A. Aberdein & M. Inglis (Eds.), Advances in experimental philosophy of logic and mathematics. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  43. Maddy, P. (1988a). Believing the axioms I. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 53(2), 481–511.Google Scholar
  44. Maddy, P. (1988b). Believing the axioms II. The Journal of Symbolic Logic, 53(3), 736–764.Google Scholar
  45. Maddy, P. (1997). Naturalism in mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Maddy, P. (2011). Defending the axioms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Maddy, P. (2017). Set-theoretic foundations. In: A. E. Caicedo, J. Cummings, P. Koellner & P. B. Larson (Eds.), Foundations of mathematics (pp. 289–322). Providence: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  48. Magidor, M. (2012). Some set theories are more equal. Preprint. http://logic.harvard.edu/EFI_Magidor.pdf. Accessed 03 Dec 2018.
  49. Manders, K. (2008). The Euclidean diagram. In P. Mancosu (Ed.), The philosophy of mathematical practice (pp. 80–133). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Martin, U. (2015). Stumbling around in the dark. Lessons from everyday mathematics. In A. Felty & A. Middeldorp (Eds.), Automated deduction: CADE-25 (pp. 29–51). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd edn.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  52. Núñez, R. (2005). Creating mathematical infinities: Metaphor, blending, and the beauty of transfinite cardinals. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(10), 1717–1741.Google Scholar
  53. Pitt, J. C. (2011). The dilemma of case studies. In J. C. Pitt (Ed.), Doing philosophy of technology (pp. 103–110). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Radford, L. (2012). On the growth and transformation of mathematics education theories. Paper presented at the International Colloquium: The didactics of mathematics: Approaches and issues. 31 May–1 June 2012 http://www.luisradford.ca/pub/Connecting%20theories%20-%20Paris%20Oral%20Presentation%20rev2014.pdf. Accessed 19 Dec 2018.
  55. Rav, Y. (1999). Why do we prove theorems? Philosophia Mathematica, 7(1), 5–41.Google Scholar
  56. Rittberg, C. J. (2016). Methods, goals and metaphysics in contemporary set theory. Ph.D. Thesis. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0fac/03d2192e91e5b4501a5994def3e396669e7e.pdf. Accessed 03 Dec 2018.
  57. Rittberg, C. J., Tanswell, F. S., & Van Bendegem, J. P. (2018). Epistemic injustice in mathematics. Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-018-01981-1.Google Scholar
  58. Rota, G.-C. (1993). The concept of mathematical truth. In: A. M. White (Ed.) Essays in humanistic mathematics (pp. 91–96). Washington: The Mathematical Association of America.Google Scholar
  59. Sauer, T., & Scholl, R. (2016). The philosophy of historical case studies. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Schickore, J. (2011). More thoughts on HPS: Another 20 years later. Perspectives on science, 19(4), 453–481.Google Scholar
  61. Scholl, R., & Räz, T. (2016). Towards a methodology for integrated history and philosophy of science. In T. Sauer & R. Scholl (Eds.), The philosophy of historical case studies (pp. 69–94). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  62. Simons, H. (1980). Towards a science of the singular: Essays about case study in educational research and evaluation. Norwich: Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
  63. Steiner, M. (1978). Mathematical explanation. Philosophical Studies, 34(2), 135–151.Google Scholar
  64. Teppo, A. R. (2015). Grounded theory methods. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 3–22). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  65. Väänänen, J. (2014). Multiverse set theory and absolutely undecidable propositions. In J. Kennedy (Ed.), Interpreting gödel (pp. 180–208). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. van der Ham, I. J., Hamami, Y., & Mumma, J. (2017). Universal intuitions of spatial relations in elementary geometry. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 29(3), 269–278.Google Scholar
  67. Van Kerkhove, B., De Vuyst, J., & Van Bendegem, J. P. (2010). Philosophical perspectives on mathematical practices. New York: College Publications.Google Scholar
  68. Van Kerkhove, B., & Van Bendegem, J. P. (2007). Perspectives on mathematical practices. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  69. Weber, K. (2008). How mathematicians determine if an argument is a valid proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 431–459.Google Scholar
  70. Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study crisis: Some answers. Administrative science quarterly, 26(1), 58–65.Google Scholar
  71. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations