http://larabarker.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/aba-programs-for-children-with-autism/#comments
http://psuaa6.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/inductive-or-deductive-which-is-the-best-approach/
http://joestatsblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/25/internet-as-a-source-of-data/
https://blackboard.bangor.ac.uk/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_69325_1%26url%3D the comment it waiting moderation but here it is just incase it doesn’t work
I agree that one design should not be completely preferred over another design, because both case studies and group designs have their advantages and disadvantages.
Case studies provide qualitative data, which can be then further explored by using a group design and generating quantitative data to explore significance levels. But, as you have mentioned combing both types of studies can be time consuming.
Although, it does seem popular to choose group design because the results can be seen to be able to be ‘generalised’ to the rest of the population there is an argument that actually science is only benefiting parts of society. An article written by Dan Jones argues that actually psychologists mainly use a same of WEIRD people. (Western. Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic cultured.)
Although, initially I would agree that one design should not be preferred over another, if Jones is right about the subjects psychologists use to test their research designs then group designs cannot be generalised. So therefore, psychologists are actually not representing humans as a whole, so the claims from their research should not be generalised.
So in that case, case studies although maybe not as reliable as group design may be the better option because it is known that case studies cannot be generalised.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/qualitative-quantitative.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5986/1627.short
hb90 