Choosing and analysing a case study: VCE Philosophy
“How to identify a case study from a context, find its epistemological issues and analyse it using the general questions, concepts and set texts”
The three contexts are silencing, exclusion and cancelling; misinformation, disinformation and echo chambers; and truth, trust, credibility and expertise. Two contexts must be chosen, with one case study for each. A good case study is a specific, real event or situation in which beliefs are formed, shared, trusted or rejected. Analyse it by identifying the assumptions, arguments and viewpoints within it, naming the epistemological issues, linking them to the four general questions and then using set text ideas to evaluate and develop your own perspective.
Jump to a section
What this dot point is asking
In Area of Study 2, students examine two case studies drawn from two contexts. The contexts help you find a case study with epistemological issues. You then use the general questions, concepts, arguments and viewpoints from Area of Study 1 to analyse it. This page gives a method.
Context versus case study
A context is a broad area. A case study is a specific instance within it. The study design gives an example: how social media has been used in election campaigns is a case study suggested by the context of misinformation, disinformation and echo chambers. Your teacher will guide which contexts are used in your class, but you should understand how to build and analyse one.
What makes a good case study
- It is specific: a particular event, campaign, controversy or practice, with enough detail to analyse.
- It involves belief: people are forming, sharing, trusting or dismissing claims.
- It raises epistemological issues, not only moral or political ones. Ask: what is at stake about knowledge, evidence, trust or credibility?
- It is something you can find non-philosophical sources about, such as news reports, official data, interviews.
- It allows more than one reasonable perspective.
The method
- Describe the case briefly and neutrally. Who said what, to whom, with what effect?
- Identify assumptions, arguments and viewpoints within the case. For instance, a platform might assume that more speech corrects falsehood; a critic might argue that harmful claims should be removed.
- Name the epistemological issues. Typical issues: whose testimony is believed or discounted; how expertise is identified; whether evidence is sufficient; how disagreement is handled; whether a community is closed to correction.
- Link to the general questions. Which of the four (experience/testimony/expertise; responsibilities; trust; disagreement) is each issue an instance of?
- Bring in set text ideas. Use at least two texts: for instance Clifford on responsibility, M. Fricker on credibility, Nguyen on echo chambers, Mill on open discussion, Peirce on methods of settling belief.
- Evaluate arguments in the case. Are the claims made in the case plausible? Do the conclusions follow?
- Raise an objection to the use of the text on your case: does the theory fit or does the case show a limit?
- Develop a perspective and defend it.
Example of linking issue to question
Case issue: a group is dismissed as unreliable by officials. General question: in what circumstances should we trust assertions made by others? Text: M. Fricker. Objection: perhaps the dismissal was based on evidence, so it was not injustice. This shows how the framework supplies an analysis and a test.
Skeleton analysis (fictional composite, for practice): a community group warns about a local water issue, and officials dismiss them as 'emotional residents'.
Assumptions in the case: officials assume expertise lies only in credentialed testers; residents assume their observations are enough.
Issues: whose testimony counts; how experts are identified; is the evidence sufficient on either side.
General questions: trust (Q3) and the role of experience and expertise (Q1).
Texts: M. Fricker (possible credibility deficit because of a stereotype); E. Fricker (hearer should attend to the speaker's competence and sincerity, not only their status).
Evaluation: if the officials never checked the residents' evidence and relied only on a stereotype, that looks like testimonial injustice. If they tested and found no contamination, then distrust was based on evidence, and the claim of injustice fails.
Perspective: officials should treat the residents' reports as evidence worth testing.
Practice questions
Explain the difference between a context and a case study.
Model answer: A context is a broad area of concern, such as misinformation, while a case study is a specific event or practice within that context, such as the way a particular social media campaign spread claims during an election.
Name two features of a good case study for Unit 4.
Model answer: It is specific and detailed enough to analyse, and it involves belief formation, trust, testimony or evidence so that it raises epistemological issues and not only moral or political ones.
Do not retell the news story. Marks go to analysis: the assumptions, arguments and epistemological issues in the case, and how set text ideas illuminate or are challenged by it.