case study social science

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Assignments

• Annotated Bibliography
• Analyzing a Scholarly Journal Article
• Group Presentations
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Leading a Class Discussion
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Works
• Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Reflective Paper
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Generative AI and Writing
• Acknowledgments

A case study research paper examines a person, place, event, condition, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis in order to extrapolate  key themes and results that help predict future trends, illuminate previously hidden issues that can be applied to practice, and/or provide a means for understanding an important research problem with greater clarity. A case study research paper usually examines a single subject of analysis, but case study papers can also be designed as a comparative investigation that shows relationships between two or more subjects. The methods used to study a case can rest within a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method investigative paradigm.

Case Studies. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010 ; “What is a Case Study?” In Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London: SAGE, 2010.

How to Approach Writing a Case Study Research Paper

General information about how to choose a topic to investigate can be found under the " Choosing a Research Problem " tab in the Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper writing guide. Review this page because it may help you identify a subject of analysis that can be investigated using a case study design.

However, identifying a case to investigate involves more than choosing the research problem . A case study encompasses a problem contextualized around the application of in-depth analysis, interpretation, and discussion, often resulting in specific recommendations for action or for improving existing conditions. As Seawright and Gerring note, practical considerations such as time and access to information can influence case selection, but these issues should not be the sole factors used in describing the methodological justification for identifying a particular case to study. Given this, selecting a case includes considering the following:

• The case represents an unusual or atypical example of a research problem that requires more in-depth analysis? Cases often represent a topic that rests on the fringes of prior investigations because the case may provide new ways of understanding the research problem. For example, if the research problem is to identify strategies to improve policies that support girl's access to secondary education in predominantly Muslim nations, you could consider using Azerbaijan as a case study rather than selecting a more obvious nation in the Middle East. Doing so may reveal important new insights into recommending how governments in other predominantly Muslim nations can formulate policies that support improved access to education for girls.
• The case provides important insight or illuminate a previously hidden problem? In-depth analysis of a case can be based on the hypothesis that the case study will reveal trends or issues that have not been exposed in prior research or will reveal new and important implications for practice. For example, anecdotal evidence may suggest drug use among homeless veterans is related to their patterns of travel throughout the day. Assuming prior studies have not looked at individual travel choices as a way to study access to illicit drug use, a case study that observes a homeless veteran could reveal how issues of personal mobility choices facilitate regular access to illicit drugs. Note that it is important to conduct a thorough literature review to ensure that your assumption about the need to reveal new insights or previously hidden problems is valid and evidence-based.
• The case challenges and offers a counter-point to prevailing assumptions? Over time, research on any given topic can fall into a trap of developing assumptions based on outdated studies that are still applied to new or changing conditions or the idea that something should simply be accepted as "common sense," even though the issue has not been thoroughly tested in current practice. A case study analysis may offer an opportunity to gather evidence that challenges prevailing assumptions about a research problem and provide a new set of recommendations applied to practice that have not been tested previously. For example, perhaps there has been a long practice among scholars to apply a particular theory in explaining the relationship between two subjects of analysis. Your case could challenge this assumption by applying an innovative theoretical framework [perhaps borrowed from another discipline] to explore whether this approach offers new ways of understanding the research problem. Taking a contrarian stance is one of the most important ways that new knowledge and understanding develops from existing literature.
• The case provides an opportunity to pursue action leading to the resolution of a problem? Another way to think about choosing a case to study is to consider how the results from investigating a particular case may result in findings that reveal ways in which to resolve an existing or emerging problem. For example, studying the case of an unforeseen incident, such as a fatal accident at a railroad crossing, can reveal hidden issues that could be applied to preventative measures that contribute to reducing the chance of accidents in the future. In this example, a case study investigating the accident could lead to a better understanding of where to strategically locate additional signals at other railroad crossings so as to better warn drivers of an approaching train, particularly when visibility is hindered by heavy rain, fog, or at night.
• The case offers a new direction in future research? A case study can be used as a tool for an exploratory investigation that highlights the need for further research about the problem. A case can be used when there are few studies that help predict an outcome or that establish a clear understanding about how best to proceed in addressing a problem. For example, after conducting a thorough literature review [very important!], you discover that little research exists showing the ways in which women contribute to promoting water conservation in rural communities of east central Africa. A case study of how women contribute to saving water in a rural village of Uganda can lay the foundation for understanding the need for more thorough research that documents how women in their roles as cooks and family caregivers think about water as a valuable resource within their community. This example of a case study could also point to the need for scholars to build new theoretical frameworks around the topic [e.g., applying feminist theories of work and family to the issue of water conservation].

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (October 1989): 532-550; Emmel, Nick. Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2013; Gerring, John. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” American Political Science Review 98 (May 2004): 341-354; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Seawright, Jason and John Gerring. "Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research." Political Research Quarterly 61 (June 2008): 294-308.

Structure and Writing Style

The purpose of a paper in the social sciences designed around a case study is to thoroughly investigate a subject of analysis in order to reveal a new understanding about the research problem and, in so doing, contributing new knowledge to what is already known from previous studies. In applied social sciences disciplines [e.g., education, social work, public administration, etc.], case studies may also be used to reveal best practices, highlight key programs, or investigate interesting aspects of professional work.

In general, the structure of a case study research paper is not all that different from a standard college-level research paper. However, there are subtle differences you should be aware of. Here are the key elements to organizing and writing a case study research paper.

I.  Introduction

As with any research paper, your introduction should serve as a roadmap for your readers to ascertain the scope and purpose of your study . The introduction to a case study research paper, however, should not only describe the research problem and its significance, but you should also succinctly describe why the case is being used and how it relates to addressing the problem. The two elements should be linked. With this in mind, a good introduction answers these four questions:

• What is being studied? Describe the research problem and describe the subject of analysis [the case] you have chosen to address the problem. Explain how they are linked and what elements of the case will help to expand knowledge and understanding about the problem.
• Why is this topic important to investigate? Describe the significance of the research problem and state why a case study design and the subject of analysis that the paper is designed around is appropriate in addressing the problem.
• What did we know about this topic before I did this study? Provide background that helps lead the reader into the more in-depth literature review to follow. If applicable, summarize prior case study research applied to the research problem and why it fails to adequately address the problem. Describe why your case will be useful. If no prior case studies have been used to address the research problem, explain why you have selected this subject of analysis.
• How will this study advance new knowledge or new ways of understanding? Explain why your case study will be suitable in helping to expand knowledge and understanding about the research problem.

Each of these questions should be addressed in no more than a few paragraphs. Exceptions to this can be when you are addressing a complex research problem or subject of analysis that requires more in-depth background information.

II.  Literature Review

The literature review for a case study research paper is generally structured the same as it is for any college-level research paper. The difference, however, is that the literature review is focused on providing background information and  enabling historical interpretation of the subject of analysis in relation to the research problem the case is intended to address . This includes synthesizing studies that help to:

• Place relevant works in the context of their contribution to understanding the case study being investigated . This would involve summarizing studies that have used a similar subject of analysis to investigate the research problem. If there is literature using the same or a very similar case to study, you need to explain why duplicating past research is important [e.g., conditions have changed; prior studies were conducted long ago, etc.].
• Describe the relationship each work has to the others under consideration that informs the reader why this case is applicable . Your literature review should include a description of any works that support using the case to investigate the research problem and the underlying research questions.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research using the case study . If applicable, review any research that has examined the research problem using a different research design. Explain how your use of a case study design may reveal new knowledge or a new perspective or that can redirect research in an important new direction.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies . This refers to synthesizing any literature that points to unresolved issues of concern about the research problem and describing how the subject of analysis that forms the case study can help resolve these existing contradictions.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research . Your review should examine any literature that lays a foundation for understanding why your case study design and the subject of analysis around which you have designed your study may reveal a new way of approaching the research problem or offer a perspective that points to the need for additional research.
• Expose any gaps that exist in the literature that the case study could help to fill . Summarize any literature that not only shows how your subject of analysis contributes to understanding the research problem, but how your case contributes to a new way of understanding the problem that prior research has failed to do.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important!] . Collectively, your literature review should always place your case study within the larger domain of prior research about the problem. The overarching purpose of reviewing pertinent literature in a case study paper is to demonstrate that you have thoroughly identified and synthesized prior studies in relation to explaining the relevance of the case in addressing the research problem.

III.  Method

In this section, you explain why you selected a particular case [i.e., subject of analysis] and the strategy you used to identify and ultimately decide that your case was appropriate in addressing the research problem. The way you describe the methods used varies depending on the type of subject of analysis that constitutes your case study.

If your subject of analysis is an incident or event . In the social and behavioral sciences, the event or incident that represents the case to be studied is usually bounded by time and place, with a clear beginning and end and with an identifiable location or position relative to its surroundings. The subject of analysis can be a rare or critical event or it can focus on a typical or regular event. The purpose of studying a rare event is to illuminate new ways of thinking about the broader research problem or to test a hypothesis. Critical incident case studies must describe the method by which you identified the event and explain the process by which you determined the validity of this case to inform broader perspectives about the research problem or to reveal new findings. However, the event does not have to be a rare or uniquely significant to support new thinking about the research problem or to challenge an existing hypothesis. For example, Walo, Bull, and Breen conducted a case study to identify and evaluate the direct and indirect economic benefits and costs of a local sports event in the City of Lismore, New South Wales, Australia. The purpose of their study was to provide new insights from measuring the impact of a typical local sports event that prior studies could not measure well because they focused on large "mega-events." Whether the event is rare or not, the methods section should include an explanation of the following characteristics of the event: a) when did it take place; b) what were the underlying circumstances leading to the event; and, c) what were the consequences of the event in relation to the research problem.

If your subject of analysis is a person. Explain why you selected this particular individual to be studied and describe what experiences they have had that provide an opportunity to advance new understandings about the research problem. Mention any background about this person which might help the reader understand the significance of their experiences that make them worthy of study. This includes describing the relationships this person has had with other people, institutions, and/or events that support using them as the subject for a case study research paper. It is particularly important to differentiate the person as the subject of analysis from others and to succinctly explain how the person relates to examining the research problem [e.g., why is one politician in a particular local election used to show an increase in voter turnout from any other candidate running in the election]. Note that these issues apply to a specific group of people used as a case study unit of analysis [e.g., a classroom of students].

If your subject of analysis is a place. In general, a case study that investigates a place suggests a subject of analysis that is unique or special in some way and that this uniqueness can be used to build new understanding or knowledge about the research problem. A case study of a place must not only describe its various attributes relevant to the research problem [e.g., physical, social, historical, cultural, economic, political], but you must state the method by which you determined that this place will illuminate new understandings about the research problem. It is also important to articulate why a particular place as the case for study is being used if similar places also exist [i.e., if you are studying patterns of homeless encampments of veterans in open spaces, explain why you are studying Echo Park in Los Angeles rather than Griffith Park?]. If applicable, describe what type of human activity involving this place makes it a good choice to study [e.g., prior research suggests Echo Park has more homeless veterans].

If your subject of analysis is a phenomenon. A phenomenon refers to a fact, occurrence, or circumstance that can be studied or observed but with the cause or explanation to be in question. In this sense, a phenomenon that forms your subject of analysis can encompass anything that can be observed or presumed to exist but is not fully understood. In the social and behavioral sciences, the case usually focuses on human interaction within a complex physical, social, economic, cultural, or political system. For example, the phenomenon could be the observation that many vehicles used by ISIS fighters are small trucks with English language advertisements on them. The research problem could be that ISIS fighters are difficult to combat because they are highly mobile. The research questions could be how and by what means are these vehicles used by ISIS being supplied to the militants and how might supply lines to these vehicles be cut off? How might knowing the suppliers of these trucks reveal larger networks of collaborators and financial support? A case study of a phenomenon most often encompasses an in-depth analysis of a cause and effect that is grounded in an interactive relationship between people and their environment in some way.

NOTE:   The choice of the case or set of cases to study cannot appear random. Evidence that supports the method by which you identified and chose your subject of analysis should clearly support investigation of the research problem and linked to key findings from your literature review. Be sure to cite any studies that helped you determine that the case you chose was appropriate for examining the problem.

IV.  Discussion

The main elements of your discussion section are generally the same as any research paper, but centered around interpreting and drawing conclusions about the key findings from your analysis of the case study. Note that a general social sciences research paper may contain a separate section to report findings. However, in a paper designed around a case study, it is common to combine a description of the results with the discussion about their implications. The objectives of your discussion section should include the following:

Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings Briefly reiterate the research problem you are investigating and explain why the subject of analysis around which you designed the case study were used. You should then describe the findings revealed from your study of the case using direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results. Highlight any findings that were unexpected or especially profound.

Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important Systematically explain the meaning of your case study findings and why you believe they are important. Begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most important or surprising finding first, then systematically review each finding. Be sure to thoroughly extrapolate what your analysis of the case can tell the reader about situations or conditions beyond the actual case that was studied while, at the same time, being careful not to misconstrue or conflate a finding that undermines the external validity of your conclusions.

Relate the Findings to Similar Studies No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your case study results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for choosing your subject of analysis. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your case study design and the subject of analysis differs from prior research about the topic.

Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings Remember that the purpose of social science research is to discover and not to prove. When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations revealed by the case study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. Be alert to what the in-depth analysis of the case may reveal about the research problem, including offering a contrarian perspective to what scholars have stated in prior research if that is how the findings can be interpreted from your case.

Acknowledge the Study's Limitations You can state the study's limitations in the conclusion section of your paper but describing the limitations of your subject of analysis in the discussion section provides an opportunity to identify the limitations and explain why they are not significant. This part of the discussion section should also note any unanswered questions or issues your case study could not address. More detailed information about how to document any limitations to your research can be found here .

Suggest Areas for Further Research Although your case study may offer important insights about the research problem, there are likely additional questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or findings that unexpectedly revealed themselves as a result of your in-depth analysis of the case. Be sure that the recommendations for further research are linked to the research problem and that you explain why your recommendations are valid in other contexts and based on the original assumptions of your study.

V.  Conclusion

As with any research paper, you should summarize your conclusion in clear, simple language; emphasize how the findings from your case study differs from or supports prior research and why. Do not simply reiterate the discussion section. Provide a synthesis of key findings presented in the paper to show how these converge to address the research problem. If you haven't already done so in the discussion section, be sure to document the limitations of your case study and any need for further research.

The function of your paper's conclusion is to: 1) reiterate the main argument supported by the findings from your case study; 2) state clearly the context, background, and necessity of pursuing the research problem using a case study design in relation to an issue, controversy, or a gap found from reviewing the literature; and, 3) provide a place to persuasively and succinctly restate the significance of your research problem, given that the reader has now been presented with in-depth information about the topic.

Consider the following points to help ensure your conclusion is appropriate:

• If the argument or purpose of your paper is complex, you may need to summarize these points for your reader.
• If prior to your conclusion, you have not yet explained the significance of your findings or if you are proceeding inductively, use the conclusion of your paper to describe your main points and explain their significance.
• Move from a detailed to a general level of consideration of the case study's findings that returns the topic to the context provided by the introduction or within a new context that emerges from your case study findings.

Note that, depending on the discipline you are writing in or the preferences of your professor, the concluding paragraph may contain your final reflections on the evidence presented as it applies to practice or on the essay's central research problem. However, the nature of being introspective about the subject of analysis you have investigated will depend on whether you are explicitly asked to express your observations in this way.

Problems to Avoid

Overgeneralization One of the goals of a case study is to lay a foundation for understanding broader trends and issues applied to similar circumstances. However, be careful when drawing conclusions from your case study. They must be evidence-based and grounded in the results of the study; otherwise, it is merely speculation. Looking at a prior example, it would be incorrect to state that a factor in improving girls access to education in Azerbaijan and the policy implications this may have for improving access in other Muslim nations is due to girls access to social media if there is no documentary evidence from your case study to indicate this. There may be anecdotal evidence that retention rates were better for girls who were engaged with social media, but this observation would only point to the need for further research and would not be a definitive finding if this was not a part of your original research agenda.

Failure to Document Limitations No case is going to reveal all that needs to be understood about a research problem. Therefore, just as you have to clearly state the limitations of a general research study , you must describe the specific limitations inherent in the subject of analysis. For example, the case of studying how women conceptualize the need for water conservation in a village in Uganda could have limited application in other cultural contexts or in areas where fresh water from rivers or lakes is plentiful and, therefore, conservation is understood more in terms of managing access rather than preserving access to a scarce resource.

Failure to Extrapolate All Possible Implications Just as you don't want to over-generalize from your case study findings, you also have to be thorough in the consideration of all possible outcomes or recommendations derived from your findings. If you do not, your reader may question the validity of your analysis, particularly if you failed to document an obvious outcome from your case study research. For example, in the case of studying the accident at the railroad crossing to evaluate where and what types of warning signals should be located, you failed to take into consideration speed limit signage as well as warning signals. When designing your case study, be sure you have thoroughly addressed all aspects of the problem and do not leave gaps in your analysis that leave the reader questioning the results.

Case Studies. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Gerring, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007; Merriam, Sharan B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education . Rev. ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998; Miller, Lisa L. “The Use of Case Studies in Law and Social Science Research.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14 (2018): TBD; Mills, Albert J., Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Putney, LeAnn Grogan. "Case Study." In Encyclopedia of Research Design , Neil J. Salkind, editor. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010), pp. 116-120; Simons, Helen. Case Study Research in Practice . London: SAGE Publications, 2009;  Kratochwill,  Thomas R. and Joel R. Levin, editors. Single-Case Research Design and Analysis: New Development for Psychology and Education .  Hilldsale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992; Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London : SAGE, 2010; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . 6th edition. Los Angeles, CA, SAGE Publications, 2014; Walo, Maree, Adrian Bull, and Helen Breen. “Achieving Economic Benefits at Local Events: A Case Study of a Local Sports Event.” Festival Management and Event Tourism 4 (1996): 95-106.

Writing Tip

At Least Five Misconceptions about Case Study Research

Social science case studies are often perceived as limited in their ability to create new knowledge because they are not randomly selected and findings cannot be generalized to larger populations. Flyvbjerg examines five misunderstandings about case study research and systematically "corrects" each one. To quote, these are:

Misunderstanding 1 :  General, theoretical [context-independent] knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical [context-dependent] knowledge. Misunderstanding 2 :  One cannot generalize on the basis of an individual case; therefore, the case study cannot contribute to scientific development. Misunderstanding 3 :  The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses; that is, in the first stage of a total research process, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building. Misunderstanding 4 :  The case study contains a bias toward verification, that is, a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions. Misunderstanding 5 :  It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories on the basis of specific case studies [p. 221].

While writing your paper, think introspectively about how you addressed these misconceptions because to do so can help you strengthen the validity and reliability of your research by clarifying issues of case selection, the testing and challenging of existing assumptions, the interpretation of key findings, and the summation of case outcomes. Think of a case study research paper as a complete, in-depth narrative about the specific properties and key characteristics of your subject of analysis applied to the research problem.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (April 2006): 219-245.

• << Previous: Writing a Case Analysis Paper
• Next: Writing a Field Report >>
• Last Updated: May 7, 2024 9:45 AM
• URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide/assignments

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

11 Case research

Case research—also called case study—is a method of intensively studying a phenomenon over time within its natural setting in one or a few sites. Multiple methods of data collection, such as interviews, observations, pre-recorded documents, and secondary data, may be employed and inferences about the phenomenon of interest tend to be rich, detailed, and contextualised. Case research can be employed in a positivist manner for the purpose of theory testing or in an interpretive manner for theory building. This method is more popular in business research than in other social science disciplines.

Case research has several unique strengths over competing research methods such as experiments and survey research. First, case research can be used for either theory building or theory testing, while positivist methods can be used for theory testing only. In interpretive case research, the constructs of interest need not be known in advance, but may emerge from the data as the research progresses. Second, the research questions can be modified during the research process if the original questions are found to be less relevant or salient. This is not possible in any positivist method after the data is collected. Third, case research can help derive richer, more contextualised, and more authentic interpretation of the phenomenon of interest than most other research methods by virtue of its ability to capture a rich array of contextual data. Fourth, the phenomenon of interest can be studied from the perspectives of multiple participants and using multiple levels of analysis (e.g., individual and organisational).

At the same time, case research also has some inherent weaknesses. Because it involves no experimental control, internal validity of inferences remain weak. Of course, this is a common problem for all research methods except experiments. However, as described later, the problem of controls may be addressed in case research using ‘natural controls’. Second, the quality of inferences derived from case research depends heavily on the integrative powers of the researcher. An experienced researcher may see concepts and patterns in case data that a novice researcher may miss. Hence, the findings are sometimes criticised as being subjective. Finally, because the inferences are heavily contextualised, it may be difficult to generalise inferences from case research to other contexts or other organisations.

It is important to recognise that case research is different from case descriptions such as Harvard case studies discussed in business classes. While case descriptions typically describe an organisational problem in rich detail with the goal of stimulating classroom discussion and critical thinking among students, or analysing how well an organisation handled a specific problem, case research is a formal research technique that involves a scientific method to derive explanations of organisational phenomena.

Case research is a difficult research method that requires advanced research skills on the part of the researcher, and is therefore often prone to error. Benbasat, Goldstein and Mead (1987) [1] describe five problems frequently encountered in case research studies. First, many case research studies start without specific research questions, and therefore end up without having any specific answers or insightful inferences. Second, case sites are often chosen based on access and convenience, rather than based on the fit with the research questions, and are therefore cannot adequately address the research questions of interest. Third, researchers often do not validate or triangulate data collected using multiple means, which may lead to biased interpretation based on responses from biased interviewees. Fourth, many studies provide very little details on how data was collected (e.g., what interview questions were used, which documents were examined, the organisational positions of each interviewee, etc.) or analysed, which may raise doubts about the reliability of the inferences. Finally, despite its strength as a longitudinal research method, many case research studies do not follow through a phenomenon in a longitudinal manner, and hence present only a cross-sectional and limited view of organisational processes and phenomena that are temporal in nature.

Key decisions in case research

Several key decisions must be made by a researcher when considering a case research method. First, is this the right method for the research questions being studied? The case research method is particularly appropriate for exploratory studies, for discovering relevant constructs in areas where theory building is in the formative stages, for studies where the experiences of participants and context of actions are critical, and for studies aimed at understanding complex, temporal processes (why and how) rather than factors or causes (what). This method is well-suited for studying complex organisational processes that involve multiple participants and interacting sequences of events, such as organisational change and large-scale technology implementation projects.

Second, what is the appropriate unit of analysis for a case research study? Since case research can simultaneously examine multiple units of analyses, the researcher must decide whether she wishes to study a phenomenon at the individual, group, or organisational level or at multiple levels. For instance, a study of group decision-making or group work may combine individual-level constructs such as individual participation in group activities with group-level constructs, such as group cohesion and group leadership, to derive richer understanding than can be achieved from a single level of analysis.

Third, should the researcher employ a single-case or multiple-case design? The single-case design is more appropriate at the outset of theory generation, if the situation is unique or extreme, if it is revelatory (i.e., the situation was previously inaccessible for scientific investigation), or if it represents a critical or contrary case for testing a well-formulated theory. The multiple-case design is more appropriate for theory testing, for establishing generalisability of inferences, and for developing richer and more nuanced interpretations of a phenomenon. Yin (1984) [2] recommends the use of multiple case sites with replication logic, viewing each case site as similar to one experimental study, and following rules of scientific rigor similar to that used in positivist research.

Fourth, what sites should be chosen for case research? Given the contextualised nature of inferences derived from case research, site selection is a particularly critical issue because selecting the wrong site may lead to the wrong inferences. If the goal of the research is to test theories or examine generalisability of inferences, then dissimilar case sites should be selected to increase variance in observations. For instance, if the goal of the research is to understand the process of technology implementation in firms, a mix of large, mid-sized, and small firms should be selected to examine whether the technology implementation process differs with firm size. Site selection should not be opportunistic or based on convenience, but rather based on the fit with research questions though a process called ‘theoretical sampling’.

Fifth, what techniques of data collection should be used in case research? Although interview (either open-ended/unstructured or focused/structured) is by far the most popular data collection technique for case research, interview data can be supplemented or corroborated with other techniques such as direct observation (e.g., attending executive meetings, briefings, and planning sessions), documentation (e.g., internal reports, presentations, and memoranda, as well as external accounts such as newspaper reports), archival records (e.g., organisational charts, financial records, etc.), and physical artefacts (e.g., devices, outputs, tools). Furthermore, the researcher should triangulate or validate observed data by comparing responses between interviewees.

Conducting case research

Most case research studies tend to be interpretive in nature. Interpretive case research is an inductive technique where evidence collected from one or more case sites is systematically analysed and synthesised to allow concepts and patterns to emerge for the purpose of building new theories or expanding existing ones. Eisenhardt (1989) [3] proposed a ‘roadmap’ for building theories from case research—a slightly modified version of which is described below. For positivist case research, some of the following stages may need to be rearranged or modified, however sampling, data collection, and data analytic techniques should generally remain the same.

Define research questions. Like any other scientific research, case research must also start with defining research questions that are theoretically and practically interesting, and identifying some intuitive expectations about possible answers to those research questions or preliminary constructs to guide initial case design. In positivist case research, the preliminary constructs are based on theory, while no such theories or hypotheses should be considered ex ante in interpretive research. These research questions and constructs may be changed in interpretive case research later on, if needed, but not in positivist case research.

Select case sites. The researcher should use a process of ‘theoretical sampling’—not random sampling—to identify case sites. In this approach, case sites are chosen based on theoretical rather than statistical considerations—for instance, to replicate previous cases, to extend preliminary theories, or to fill theoretical categories or polar types. Care should be taken to ensure that the selected sites fit the nature of research questions, minimise extraneous variance or noise due to firm size, industry effects, and so forth, and maximise variance in the dependent variables of interest. For instance, if the goal of the research is to examine how some firms innovate better than others, the researcher should select firms of similar size within the same industry to reduce industry or size effects, and select some more innovative and some less innovative firms to increase variation in firm innovation. Instead of cold-calling or writing to a potential site, it is better to contact someone at executive level inside each firm who has the authority to approve the project, or someone who can identify a person of authority. During initial conversations, the researcher should describe the nature and purpose of the project, any potential benefits to the case site, how the collected data will be used, the people involved in data collection (other researchers, research assistants, etc.), desired interviewees, and the amount of time, effort, and expense required of the sponsoring organisation. The researcher must also assure confidentiality, privacy, and anonymity of both the firm and the individual respondents.

Create instruments and protocols. Since the primary mode of data collection in case research is interviews, an interview protocol should be designed to guide the interview process. This is essentially a list of questions to be asked. Questions may be open-ended (unstructured) or closed-ended (structured) or a combination of both. The interview protocol must be strictly followed, and the interviewer must not change the order of questions or skip any question during the interview process, although some deviations are allowed to probe further into a respondent’s comments if they are ambiguous or interesting. The interviewer must maintain a neutral tone, and not lead respondents in any specific direction—for example, by agreeing or disagreeing with any response. More detailed interviewing techniques are discussed in the chapter on surveys. In addition, additional sources of data—such as internal documents and memorandums, annual reports, financial statements, newspaper articles, and direct observations—should be sought to supplement and validate interview data.

Select respondents. Select interview respondents at different organisational levels, departments, and positions to obtain divergent perspectives on the phenomenon of interest. A random sampling of interviewees is most preferable, however a snowball sample is acceptable, as long as a diversity of perspectives is represented in the sample. Interviewees must be selected based on their personal involvement with the phenomenon under investigation and their ability and willingness to answer the researcher’s questions accurately and adequately, and not based on convenience or access.

Start data collection . It is usually a good idea to electronically record interviews for future reference. However, such recording must only be done with the interviewee’s consent. Even when interviews are being recorded, the interviewer should take notes to capture important comments or critical observations, behavioural responses (e.g., the respondent’s body language), and the researcher’s personal impressions about the respondent and his/her comments. After each interview is completed, the entire interview should be transcribed verbatim into a text document for analysis.

Conduct within-case data analysis. Data analysis may follow or overlap with data collection. Overlapping data collection and analysis has the advantage of adjusting the data collection process based on themes emerging from data analysis, or to further probe into these themes. Data analysis is done in two stages. In the first stage (within-case analysis), the researcher should examine emergent concepts separately at each case site and patterns between these concepts to generate an initial theory of the problem of interest. The researcher can use interview data subjectively to ‘make sense’ of the research problem in conjunction with using his/her personal observations or experience at the case site. Alternatively, a coding strategy such as Glaser and Strauss’ (1967) [4] grounded theory approach, using techniques such as open coding, axial coding, and selective coding, may be used to derive a chain of evidence and inferences. These techniques are discussed in detail in a later chapter. Homegrown techniques, such as graphical representation of data (e.g., network diagram) or sequence analysis (for longitudinal data) may also be used. Note that there is no predefined way of analysing the various types of case data, and the data analytic techniques can be modified to fit the nature of the research project.

Conduct cross-case analysis. Multi-site case research requires cross-case analysis as the second stage of data analysis. In such analysis, the researcher should look for similar concepts and patterns between different case sites, ignoring contextual differences that may lead to idiosyncratic conclusions. Such patterns may be used for validating the initial theory, or for refining it—by adding or dropping concepts and relationships—to develop a more inclusive and generalisable theory. This analysis may take several forms. For instance, the researcher may select categories (e.g., firm size, industry, etc.) and look for within-group similarities and between-group differences (e.g., high versus low performers, innovators versus laggards). Alternatively, they can compare firms in a pairwise manner listing similarities and differences across pairs of firms.

Build and test hypotheses. Tenative hypotheses are constructed based on emergent concepts and themes that are generalisable across case sites. These hypotheses should be compared iteratively with observed evidence to see if they fit the observed data, and if not, the constructs or relationships should be refined. Also the researcher should compare the emergent constructs and hypotheses with those reported in the prior literature to make a case for their internal validity and generalisability. Conflicting findings must not be rejected, but rather reconciled using creative thinking to generate greater insight into the emergent theory. When further iterations between theory and data yield no new insights or changes in the existing theory, ‘theoretical saturation’ is reached and the theory building process is complete.

Write case research report. In writing the report, the researcher should describe very clearly the detailed process used for sampling, data collection, data analysis, and hypotheses development, so that readers can independently assess the reasonableness, strength, and consistency of the reported inferences. A high level of clarity in research methods is needed to ensure that the findings are not biased by the researcher’s preconceptions.

Interpretive case research exemplar

Perhaps the best way to learn about interpretive case research is to examine an illustrative example. One such example is Eisenhardt’s (1989) [5] study of how executives make decisions in high-velocity environments (HVE). Readers are advised to read the original paper published in Academy of Management Journal before reading the synopsis in this chapter. In this study, Eisenhardt examined how executive teams in some HVE firms make fast decisions, while those in other firms cannot, and whether faster decisions improve or worsen firm performance in such environments. HVE was defined as one where demand, competition, and technology changes so rapidly and discontinuously that the information available is often inaccurate, unavailable or obsolete. The implicit assumptions were thatit is hard to make fast decisions with inadequate information in HVE, and fast decisions may not be efficient and may result in poor firm performance.

Reviewing the prior literature on executive decision-making, Eisenhardt found several patterns, although none of these patterns were specific to high-velocity environments. The literature suggested that in the interest of expediency, firms that make faster decisions obtain input from fewer sources, consider fewer alternatives, make limited analysis, restrict user participation in decision-making, centralise decision-making authority, and have limited internal conflicts. However, Eisenhardt contended that these views may not necessarily explain how decision makers make decisions in high-velocity environments, where decisions must be made quickly and with incomplete information, while maintaining high decision quality.

To examine this phenomenon, Eisenhardt conducted an inductive study of eight firms in the personal computing industry. The personal computing industry was undergoing dramatic changes in technology with the introduction of the UNIX operating system, RISC architecture, and 64KB random access memory in the 1980s, increased competition with the entry of IBM into the personal computing business, and growing customer demand with double-digit demand growth, and therefore fit the profile of the high-velocity environment. This was a multiple case design with replication logic, where each case was expected to confirm or disconfirm inferences from other cases. Case sites were selected based on their access and proximity to the researcher, however, all of these firms operated in the high-velocity personal computing industry in California’s Silicon Valley area. The collocation of firms in the same industry and the same area ruled out any ‘noise’ or variance in dependent variables (decision speed or performance) attributable to industry or geographic differences.

The study employed an embedded design with multiple levels of analysis: decision (comparing multiple strategic decisions within each firm), executive teams (comparing different teams responsible for strategic decisions), and the firm (overall firm performance). Data was collected from five sources:

Initial interviews with Chief Executive Officers . CEOs were asked questions about their firm’s competitive strategy, distinctive competencies, major competitors, performance, and recent/ongoing major strategic decisions. Based on these interviews, several strategic decisions were selected in each firm for further investigation. Four criteria were used to select decisions: the decisions must involve the firm’s strategic positioning, the decisions must have high stakes, the decisions must involve multiple functions, and the decisions must be representative of strategic decision-making process in that firm.

Interviews with divisional heads . Each divisional head was asked sixteen open-ended questions, ranging from their firm’s competitive strategy, functional strategy, top management team members, frequency and nature of interaction with team, typical decision-making processes, how each of the decisions were made, and how long it took them to make those decisions. Interviews lasted between one and a half and two hours, and sometimes extended to four hours. To focus on facts and actual events rather than respondents’ perceptions or interpretations, a ‘courtroom’ style questioning was employed, such as ‘When did this happen?’, ‘What did you do?’, etc. Interviews were conducted by two people, and the data was validated by cross-checking facts and impressions made by the interviewer and notetaker. All interview data was recorded, however notes were also taken during each interview, which ended with the interviewer’s overall impressions. Using a ‘24-hour rule’, detailed field notes were completed within 24 hours of the interview, so that some data or impressions were not lost to recall.

Questionnaires . Executive team members at each firm were asked tocomplete a survey questionnaire that captured quantitative data on the extent of conflict and power distribution in their firm.

Secondary data . Industry reports and internal documents such as demographics of the executive teams responsible for strategic decisions, financial performance of firms, and so forth, were examined.

Personal observation . Lastly, the researcher attended a one-day strategy session and a weekly executive meeting at two firms in her sample.

Data analysis involved a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques. Quantitative data on conflict and power were analysed for patterns across firms/decisions. Qualitative interview data was combined into decision climate profiles, using profile traits (e.g., impatience) mentioned by more than one executive. For within-case analysis, decision stories were created for each strategic decision by combining executive accounts of the key decision events into a timeline. For cross-case analysis, pairs of firms were compared for similarities and differences, categorised along variables of interest such as decision speed and firm performance. Based on these analyses, tentative constructs and propositions were derived inductively from each decision story within firm categories. Each decision case was revisited to confirm the proposed relationships. The inferred propositions were compared with findings from the existing literature to examine differences, and to generate new insights from the case findings. Finally, the validated propositions were synthesised into an inductive theory of strategic decision-making by firms in high-velocity environments.

Inferences derived from this multiple case research contradicted several decision-making patterns expected from the existing literature. First, fast decision-makers in high-velocity environments used more information, and not less information as suggested by the previous literature. However, these decision-makers used more real-time information—an insight not available from prior research—which helped them identify and respond to problems, opportunities, and changing circumstances faster. Second, fast decision-makers examined more—not fewer—alternatives. However, they considered these multiple alternatives in a simultaneous manner, while slower decision-makers examined fewer alternatives in a sequential manner. Third, fast decision-makers did not centralise decision-making or restrict inputs from others as the literature suggested. Rather, these firms used a two-tiered decision process in which experienced counsellors were asked for inputs in the first stage, followed by a rapid comparison and decision selection in the second stage. Fourth, fast decision-makers did not have less conflict—as expected from the literature—but employed better conflict resolution techniques to reduce conflict and improve decision-making speed. Finally, fast decision-makers exhibited superior firm performance by virtue of their built-in cognitive, emotional, and political processes that led to rapid closure of major decisions.

Positivist case research exemplar

Case research can also be used in a positivist manner to test theories or hypotheses. Such studies are rare, but Markus (1983) [6] provides an exemplary illustration in her study of technology implementation at the pseudonymous Golden Triangle Company (GTC). The goal of this study was to understand why a newly implemented financial information system (FIS)—intended to improve the productivity and performance of accountants at GTC—was supported by accountants at GTC’s corporate headquarters, but resisted by divisional accountants at GTC branches. Given the uniqueness of the phenomenon of interest, this was a single-case research study.

To explore the reasons behind user resistance of FIS, Markus posited three alternative explanations:

System-determined theory : The resistance was caused by factors related to an inadequate system, such as its technical deficiencies, poor ergonomic design, or lack of user friendliness.

People-determined theory : The resistance was caused by factors internal to users, such as the accountants’ cognitive styles or personality traits that were incompatible with using the system.

Interaction theory : The resistance was not caused not by factors intrinsic to the system or the people, but by the interaction between the two set of factors. Specifically, interaction theory suggested that the FIS engendered a redistribution of intra-organisational power, and accountants who lost organisational status, relevance, or power as a result of FIS implementation resisted the system while those gaining power favoured it.

In order to test the three theories, Markus predicted alternative outcomes expected from each theoretical explanation and analysed the extent to which those predictions matched with her observations at GTC. For instance, the system-determined theory suggested that since user resistance was caused by an inadequate system, fixing the technical problems of the system would eliminate resistance. The computer running the FIS system was subsequently upgraded with a more powerful operating system, online processing (from initial batch processing, which delayed immediate processing of accounting information), and a simplified software for new account creation by managers. One year after these changes were made, the resistant users were still resisting the system and felt that it should be replaced. Hence, the system-determined theory was rejected.

The people-determined theory predicted that replacing individual resistors or co-opting them with less resistant users would reduce their resistance toward the FIS. Subsequently, GTC started a job rotation and mobility policy, moving accountants in and out of the resistant divisions, but resistance not only persisted, but in some cases increased. In one instance, an accountant who was one of the system’s designers and advocates when he worked for corporate accounting started resisting the system after he was moved to the divisional controller’s office. Failure to realise the predictions of the people-determined theory led to the rejection of this theory.

Finally, the interaction theory predicted that neither changing the system nor the people (i.e., user education or job rotation policies) would reduce resistance until the power imbalance and redistribution from the pre-implementation phase was addressed. Before FIS implementation, divisional accountants at GTC felt that they owned all accounting data related to their divisional operations. They maintained this data in thick, manual ledger books, controlled others’ access to the data, and could reconcile unusual accounting events before releasing those reports. Corporate accountants relied heavily on divisional accountants for access to the divisional data for corporate reporting and consolidation. Because the FIS system automatically collected all data at the source and consolidated it into a single corporate database, it obviated the need for divisional accountants, loosened their control and autonomy over their division’s accounting data, and making their job somewhat irrelevant. Corporate accountants could now query the database and access divisional data directly without going through the divisional accountants, analyse and compare the performance of individual divisions, and report unusual patterns and activities to the executive committee, resulting in further erosion of the divisions’ power. Though Markus did not empirically test this theory, her observations about the redistribution of organisational power, coupled with the rejection of the two alternative theories, led to the justification of interaction theory.

Comparisons with traditional research

Positivist case research, aimed at hypotheses testing, is often criticised by natural science researchers as lacking in controlled observations, controlled deductions, replicability, and generalisability of findings—the traditional principles of positivist research. However, these criticisms can be overcome through appropriate case research designs. For instance, the problem of controlled observations refers to the difficulty of obtaining experimental or statistical control in case research. However, case researchers can compensate for such lack of controls by employing ’natural controls’. This natural control in Markus’ (1983) study was the corporate accountant who was one of the system advocates initially, but started resisting it once he moved to the controlling division. In this instance, the change in his behaviour may be attributed to his new divisional position. However, such natural controls cannot be anticipated in advance, and case researchers may overlook them unless they are proactively looking for such controls. Incidentally, natural controls are also used in natural science disciplines such as astronomy, geology, and human biology—for example, waiting for comets to pass close enough to the earth in order to make inferences about comets and their composition.

Third, the problem of replicability refers to the difficulty of observing the same phenomenon considering the uniqueness and idiosyncrasy of a given case site. However, using Markus’ three theories as an illustration, a different researcher can test the same theories at a different case site, where three different predictions may emerge based on the idiosyncratic nature of the new case site, and the three resulting predictions may be tested accordingly. In other words, it is possible to replicate the inferences of case research, even if the case research site or context may not be replicable.

Fourth, case research tends to examine unique and non-replicable phenomena that may not be generalised to other settings. Generalisability in natural sciences is established through additional studies. Likewise, additional case studies conducted in different contexts with different predictions can establish generalisability of findings if such findings are observed to be consistent across studies.

Lastly, British philosopher Karl Popper described four requirements of scientific theories: theories should be falsifiable, they should be logically consistent, they should have adequate predictive ability, and they should provide better explanation than rival theories. In case research, the first three requirements can be improved by increasing the degrees of freedom of observed findings—for example, by increasing the number of case sites, the number of alternative predictions, and the number of levels of analysis examined. This was accomplished in Markus’ study by examining the behaviour of multiple groups (divisional accountants and corporate accountants) and providing multiple (three) rival explanations. Popper’s fourth condition was accomplished in this study when one hypothesis was found to match observed evidence better than the two rival hypotheses.

• Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly , 11(3), 369–386. ↵
• Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods . London: Sage Publications. ↵
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case research. Academy of Management Review , 14(4), 532–550 ↵
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . New York: Aldine Pub Co. ↵
• Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal , 32(3), 543–576. ↵
• Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics and MIS implementations. Communications of the ACM , 26(6), 430–444. ↵

Social Science Research: Principles, Methods and Practices (Revised edition) Copyright © 2019 by Anol Bhattacherjee is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• First Online: 27 October 2022

Cite this chapter

• R. M. Channaveer 4 &
• Rajendra Baikady 5  

2536 Accesses

1 Citations

This chapter reviews the strengths and limitations of case study as a research method in social sciences. It provides an account of an evidence base to justify why a case study is best suitable for some research questions and why not for some other research questions. Case study designing around the research context, defining the structure and modality, conducting the study, collecting the data through triangulation mode, analysing the data, and interpreting the data and theory building at the end give a holistic view of it. In addition, the chapter also focuses on the types of case study and when and where to use case study as a research method in social science research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Ang, C. S., Lee, K. F., & Dipolog-Ubanan, G. F. (2019). Determinants of first-year student identity and satisfaction in higher education: A quantitative case study. SAGE Open, 9 (2), 215824401984668. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019846689

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2015). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report . Published. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573

Bhatta, T. P. (2018). Case study research, philosophical position and theory building: A methodological discussion. Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology, 12 , 72–79. https://doi.org/10.3126/dsaj.v12i0.22182

Article   Google Scholar  

Bromley, P. D. (1990). Academic contributions to psychological counselling. A philosophy of science for the study of individual cases. Counselling Psychology Quarterly , 3 (3), 299–307.

Google Scholar  

Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11 (1), 1–9.

Grässel, E., & Schirmer, B. (2006). The use of volunteers to support family carers of dementia patients: Results of a prospective longitudinal study investigating expectations towards and experience with training and professional support. Zeitschrift Fur Gerontologie Und Geriatrie, 39 (3), 217–226.

Greenwood, D., & Lowenthal, D. (2005). Case study as a means of researching social work and improving practitioner education. Journal of Social Work Practice, 19 (2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650530500144782

Gülseçen, S., & Kubat, A. (2006). Teaching ICT to teacher candidates using PBL: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 9 (2), 96–106.

Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (2000). Case study and generalization. Case study method , 98–115.

Hamera, J., Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). Performance ethnography . SAGE.

Hayes, N. (2000). Doing psychological research (p. 133). Open University Press.

Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017). Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations. In Forum qualitative sozialforschung/forum: Qualitative social research (Vol. 18, No. 1).

Iwakabe, S., & Gazzola, N. (2009). From single-case studies to practice-based knowledge: Aggregating and synthesizing case studies. Psychotherapy Research, 19 (4–5), 601–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300802688494

Johnson, M. P. (2006). Decision models for the location of community corrections centers. Environment and Planning b: Planning and Design, 33 (3), 393–412. https://doi.org/10.1068/b3125

Kaarbo, J., & Beasley, R. K. (1999). A practical guide to the comparative case study method in political psychology. Political Psychology, 20 (2), 369–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895x.00149

Lovell, G. I. (2006). Justice excused: The deployment of law in everyday political encounters. Law Society Review, 40 (2), 283–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2006.00265.x

McDonough, S., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research methods as part of English language teacher education. English Language Teacher Education and Development, 3 (1), 84–96.

Meredith, J. (1998). Building operations management theory through case and field research. Journal of Operations Management, 16 (4), 441–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0272-6963(98)00023-0

Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (Eds.). (2009). Encyclopedia of case study research . Sage Publications.

Ochieng, P. A. (2009). An analysis of the strengths and limitation of qualitative and quantitative research paradigms. Problems of Education in the 21st Century , 13 , 13.

Page, E. B., Webb, E. J., Campell, D. T., Schwart, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. American Educational Research Journal, 3 (4), 317. https://doi.org/10.2307/1162043

Rashid, Y., Rashid, A., Warraich, M. A., Sabir, S. S., & Waseem, A. (2019). Case study method: A step-by-step guide for business researchers. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18 , 160940691986242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919862424

Ridder, H. G. (2017). The theory contribution of case study research designs. Business Research, 10 (2), 281–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-017-0045-z

Sadeghi Moghadam, M. R., Ghasemnia Arabi, N., & Khoshsima, G. (2021). A Review of case study method in operations management research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20 , 160940692110100. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211010088

Sommer, B. B., & Sommer, R. (1997). A practical guide to behavioral research: Tools and techniques . Oxford University Press.

Stake, R. E. (2010). Qualitative research: Studying how things work .

Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research . Sage Publications.

Stoecker, R. (1991). Evaluating and rethinking the case study. The Sociological Review, 39 (1), 88–112.

Suryani, A. (2013). Comparing case study and ethnography as qualitative research approaches .

Taylor, S., & Berridge, V. (2006). Medicinal plants and malaria: An historical case study of research at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in the twentieth century. Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 100 (8), 707–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trstmh.2005.11.017

Tellis, W. (1997). Introduction to case study. The Qualitative Report . Published. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/1997.2024

Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific research in education . National Academy Press Publications Sales Office.

Widdowson, M. D. J. (2011). Case study research methodology. International Journal of Transactional Analysis Research, 2 (1), 25–34.

Yin, R. K. (2004). The case study anthology . Sage.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Design and methods. Case Study Research , 3 (9.2).

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publishing.

Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods . Sage Publications Beverly Hills.

Yin, R. (1993). Applications of case study research . Sage Publishing.

Zainal, Z. (2003). An investigation into the effects of discipline-specific knowledge, proficiency and genre on reading comprehension and strategies of Malaysia ESP Students. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. University of Reading , 1 (1).

Zeisel, J. (1984). Inquiry by design: Tools for environment-behaviour research (No. 5). CUP archive.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Social Work, Central University of Karnataka, Kadaganchi, India

R. M. Channaveer

Department of Social Work, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

Rajendra Baikady

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. M. Channaveer .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Centre for Family and Child Studies, Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

M. Rezaul Islam

Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Niaz Ahmed Khan

Department of Social Work, School of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Channaveer, R.M., Baikady, R. (2022). Case Study. In: Islam, M.R., Khan, N.A., Baikady, R. (eds) Principles of Social Research Methodology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_21

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_21

Published : 27 October 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-5219-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-5441-2

eBook Packages : Social Sciences

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Conducting Case Study Research in Sociology

Steve Debenport / Getty Images

• Key Concepts
• Major Sociologists
• News & Issues
• Research, Samples, and Statistics
• Recommended Reading
• Archaeology

A case study is a research method that relies on a single case rather than a population or sample. When researchers focus on a single case, they can make detailed observations over a long period of time, something that cannot be done with large samples without costing a lot of money. Case studies are also useful in the early stages of research when the goal is to explore ideas, test, and perfect measurement instruments, and to prepare for a larger study. The case study research method is popular not just within ​the field of sociology, but also within the fields of anthropology, psychology, education, political science, clinical science, social work, and administrative science.

Overview of the Case Study Research Method

A case study is unique within the social sciences for its focus of study on a single entity, which can be a person, group or organization, event, action, or situation. It is also unique in that, as a focus of research, a case is chosen for specific reasons, rather than randomly , as is usually done when conducting empirical research. Often, when researchers use the case study method, they focus on a case that is exceptional in some way because it is possible to learn a lot about social relationships and social forces when studying those things that deviate from norms. In doing so, a researcher is often able, through their study, to test the validity of the social theory, or to create new theories using the grounded theory method .

The first case studies in the social sciences were likely conducted by Pierre Guillaume Frédéric Le Play, a 19th-century French sociologist and economist who studied family budgets. The method has been used in sociology, psychology, and anthropology since the early 20th century.

Within sociology, case studies are typically conducted with qualitative research methods . They are considered micro rather than macro in nature , and one cannot necessarily generalize the findings of a case study to other situations. However, this is not a limitation of the method, but a strength. Through a case study based on ethnographic observation and interviews, among other methods, sociologists can illuminate otherwise hard to see and understand social relations, structures, and processes. In doing so, the findings of case studies often stimulate further research.

Types and Forms of Case Studies

There are three primary types of case studies: key cases, outlier cases, and local knowledge cases.

• Key cases are those which are chosen because the researcher has ​a particular interest in it or the circumstances surrounding it.
• Outlier cases are those that are chosen because the case stands out from other events, organizations, or situations, for some reason, and social scientists recognize that we can learn a lot from those things that differ from the norm .
• Finally, a researcher may decide to conduct a local knowledge case study when they already have amassed a usable amount of information about a given topic, person, organization, or event, and so is well-poised to conduct a study of it.

Within these types, a case study may take four different forms: illustrative, exploratory, cumulative, and critical.

• Illustrative case studies are descriptive in nature and designed to shed light on a particular situation, set of circumstances, and the social relations and processes that are embedded in them. They are useful in bringing to light something about which most people are not aware of.
• Exploratory case studies are also often known as pilot studies . This type of case study is typically used when a researcher wants to identify research questions and methods of study for a large, complex study. They are useful for clarifying the research process, which can help a researcher make the best use of time and resources in the larger study that will follow it.
• Cumulative case studies are those in which a researcher pulls together already completed case studies on a particular topic. They are useful in helping researchers to make generalizations from studies that have something in common.
• Critical instance case studies are conducted when a researcher wants to understand what happened with a unique event and/or to challenge commonly held assumptions about it that may be faulty due to a lack of critical understanding.

Whatever type and form of case study you decide to conduct, it's important to first identify the purpose, goals, and approach for conducting methodologically sound research.

• An Overview of Qualitative Research Methods
• Understanding Secondary Data and How to Use It in Research
• Definition of Idiographic and Nomothetic
• Pilot Study in Research
• What Is Ethnography?
• How to Conduct a Sociology Research Interview
• The Sociology of the Internet and Digital Sociology
• What Is Participant Observation Research?
• Understanding Purposive Sampling
• The Different Types of Sampling Designs in Sociology
• Units of Analysis as Related to Sociology
• What Is Naturalistic Observation? Definition and Examples
• Social Surveys: Questionnaires, Interviews, and Telephone Polls
• Anthropology vs. Sociology: What's the Difference?
• Deductive Versus Inductive Reasoning
• How to Understand Interpretive Sociology

On the site

Belfer center studies in international security.

• political science

Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences

by Alexander L. George and Andrew Bennett

ISBN: 9780262572224

Pub date: April 15, 2005

• Publisher: The MIT Press

352 pp. , 6 x 9 in ,

ISBN: 9780262072571

Pub date: April 22, 2005

ISBN: 9780262262897

eTextbook rental

4 months: $26.50, 12 months: $37.10.

• 9780262572224
• Published: April 2005
• 9780262072571
• 9780262262897
• MIT Press Bookstore
• Penguin Random House
• Barnes and Noble
• Bookshop.org
• Books a Million

Other Retailers:

• Amazon.co.uk
• Waterstones
• Description

The use of case studies to build and test theories in political science and the other social sciences has increased in recent years. Many scholars have argued that the social sciences rely too heavily on quantitative research and formal models and have attempted to develop and refine rigorous methods for using case studies. This text presents a comprehensive analysis of research methods using case studies and examines the place of case studies in social science methodology. It argues that case studies, statistical methods, and formal models are complementary rather than competitive.

The book explains how to design case study research that will produce results useful to policymakers and emphasizes the importance of developing policy-relevant theories. It offers three major contributions to case study methodology: an emphasis on the importance of within-case analysis, a detailed discussion of process tracing, and development of the concept of typological theories. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences will be particularly useful to graduate students and scholars in social science methodology and the philosophy of science, as well as to those designing new research projects, and will contribute greatly to the broader debate about scientific methods.

Alexander L. George was Graham H. Stuart Professor of Political Science Emeritus at Stanford University and the author or coauthor of many books, most recently Presidential Personality and Performance (1998).

Andrew Bennett is Associate Professor of Government at Georgetown University and the author of Condemned to Repetition? The Rise, Fall, and Reprise of Soviet-Russian Military Interventionism, 1973-1996 (MIT Press, 1999).

In this book, George and Bennett explain how research methods such as process tracing and comparative case studies are designed, carried out, and used as the basis for theory development in social science. They provide an invaluable research guide for any scholar interested in the case study approach. But the book is much more than an account of how to do case study research. The authors also offer a sophisticated discussion of the philosophy of science that will be useful to anyone interested in the place of case-study methods in broader debates about social science methodology, and they give a discerning analysis of policy-relevant theory that is sure to draw the attention of a research community increasingly concerned about the social and political relevance of modern social science. In scope, clarity, and erudition, this book sets a new standard not only in the analysis of case study methods, but also in the study of social science methods more broadly. David Dessler, Associate Professor of Government, College of William & Mary

This book combines clear and concise instructions on how to do qualitative research with sophisticated but accessible epistemological reasons for that advice. The volume provides step-by-step templates on ways to design research, compare across cases, congruence test and process trace, and use typological theories. This guidance is illustrated with dozens of concrete examples. Almost no other methodology text comes close to matching the authors' top-to-bottom synthesis of philosophy of science and practical advice. Colin Elman, Executive Director, Consortium on Qualitative Research Methods, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Arizona State University

This landmark study offers to scholars of all methodological persuasions a philosophically informed, theoretically nuanced, and methodologically detailed treatment of case study analysis. With this book Alexander George and Andrew Bennett help all of us in improving our research, teaching, and disciplinary debates. Peter J. Katzenstein, Walter S. Carpenter, Jr., Professor of International Studies, Cornell University

Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences makes an indispensable contribution to the growing literature on qualitative methods in the social sciences. It provides a definitive analysis of case study methods and research designs, anchors those methods in contemporary philosophy of science, and argues that case study, statistical, and formal approaches can and should be mutually reinforcing in the development and testing of social theories. Jack S. Levy, Board of Governors' Professor, Rutgers University

Today, more and more social scientists recognize the importance of cases in social and political research and are looking for new ways to make their research more case oriented. George and Bennett show how in this important new work. The beauty of their approach is their careful integration of theory and method and their conviction that the pursuit of empirical knowledge is profoundly theory dependent. Charles Ragin, Professor of Sociology, University of Arizona

Andrew Bennett and Alexander George have written an immensely helpful practical guide to the case method. It offers sharp insight on scientific inference and very useful how-to guidance on doing case studies. Graduate students in social science: don't leave home without it! Stephen Van Evera, Professor of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The history of social science shows that well-designed case studies can be both a fertile source of new theories and a powerful tool for testing them. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences raises our understanding of case study methodology to a new level of rigor and sophistication. George and Bennett provide a careful analysis of the virtues and pitfalls of comparative case study research and offer valuable advice for any scholar engaged in qualitative research. The more widely this book is read, the better future social science will be. Stephen M. Walt, Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

This is an extraordinarily valuable book—a guide written with the practitioner in mind, very sophisticated in its approach to the subject, but loaded with practical advice. George and Bennett show how systematic, rigorous, and above all meaningful case study work is to be done. This is the sort of book scholars—and not just graduate students—will want to come back to over and over again. Marc Trachtenberg, Professor of Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles

Additional Material

Sample Chapter

Related Books

• Technical Support
• Find My Rep

You are here

Case Studies for Ethics in Academic Research in the Social Sciences

• Leisa Reinecke Flynn - The University of Southern Mississippi, USA
• Ronald E. Goldsmith - Florida State University, USA
• Description

Discuss and learn about the ethical choices faced in academic research in the social sciences

This book provides a basis for class discussion about the responsible conduct of social science research. These 16 brief research ethics cases describe situations in which ethical dilemmas arise and present students with the opportunity to think through the different implications for researchers. The cases emphasize different types of ethical dilemmas involving faculty, students, participants, and stakeholders. Included are the original cases, complete with learning objectives, teaching notes, and questions for discussion.

"…the cases presented are exceptionally well thought-out and presented at an appropriate level for graduate students." - T. Gregory Barrett , University of Arkansas

"This book fills a gap in the literature…The broad range of topics covers many issues of concern to all social scientists." - Sue Ann Taylor , American University

See what’s new to this edition by selecting the Features tab on this page. Should you need additional information or have questions regarding the HEOA information provided for this title, including what is new to this edition, please email [email protected] . Please include your name, contact information, and the name of the title for which you would like more information. For information on the HEOA, please go to http://ed.gov/policy/highered/leg/hea08/index.html .

For assistance with your order: Please email us at [email protected] or connect with your SAGE representative.

SAGE 2455 Teller Road Thousand Oaks, CA 91320 www.sagepub.com

“The authors do a great job of providing very thought-provoking cases covering a broad array of ethical issues in a variety of social science research settings.”

“These thorough case studies provide an effective gateway for entering into class discussions that can reveal contemporary approaches and understandings of the ethical issues involved in the conduct and publication of social science research. I think the cases presented are exceptionally well thought-out and presented at an appropriate level for graduate students.”

“This book fills a gap in the literature. It is readable. It is a good teaching tool. The broad range of topics covers many issues of concern to all social scientists. Topics overlooked in most textbooks are included here (e.g., consulting, misdeeds, mentor/student relationships, data management, conflict of interests). The case study approach is an excellent way of adding the material to courses on ethics, research methods, or professional practice. The questions provide an opportunity for critical thinking and debate.”

KEY FEATURES:

• The first case book to focus exclusively on ethical dilemmas within the world of social science academia
• Presents brief original cases (including learning objectives, teaching notes, and discussion questions)
• Includes coverage of the protection of human subjects, mentor relationships, promotion and tenure, and peer review

Sample Materials & Chapters

ch 4 & 5

For instructors

Select a purchasing option.

This title is also available on SAGE Research Methods , the ultimate digital methods library. If your library doesn’t have access, ask your librarian to start a trial .

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Emotions
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music and Media
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Oncology
• Medical Toxicology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Cognitive Psychology
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business and Government
• Business and Technology
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Politics and Law
• Public Administration
• Public Policy
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

7 From Case Studies to Social Science: A Strategy for Political Research

Robert H. Bates Eaton Professor of the Science of Government, Harvard University

• Published: 02 September 2009
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This article presents a strategy for political research. It first explores the ways people comprehend and briefly discusses the forms of comprehension. The next section introduces the author's fieldwork in the coffee zones of East Africa. This reveals that the first step of the strategy is immersion, and the second is a movement from insight to explanation, which is marked by the production of theory. Finally, it shows that the resultant explanation may be logically coherent, faithful to the original intuition, and consistent with the observations that inspired it.

In writing this essay, I have several audiences in mind: area specialists, comparativists, and those drawn to the use of game theory in political research. To encompass these diverse audiences, I cast this article as an exploration of the ways in which we comprehend. One theme of this chapter is that comprehension implies several different things:

Apprehension, or verstehen .

Explanation.

Confirmation.

I shall briefly address each form of comprehension and demonstrate its role in the process of political research.

A second theme of this chapter is that comprehension, explanation, and confirmation interact; the product of the one influences the production of the other. Fieldwork and formal modeling; interpretation and statistical inference; deductive reasoning and empirical estimation—these emerge from the discussion as complementary activities.

In support of these arguments, I draw upon some of my own research into the role of agriculture in the political economy of development.

1 Forms of Comprehension

The first form of comprehension is what I call apprehension and others verstehen . It is formed through experience, mobilizes intuition, and yields insights that lay the foundations for causal argument.

1.1 Apprehension

Importantly for social scientists, not only do we possess intellects, capable of abstraction and reasoning, but also social intelligence, capable of sympathy and insight. To explain political outcomes, we must employ both endowments.

Phrased in common language, we must “scope out” situations, see “where people are coming from,” and “decode” their verbal expressions and body language. In the words of one political scientist, we must “soak and poke,” or immerse ourselves in the lives of those we study ( Fenno 1990 ). Anthropologists embrace this method: thus their use of ethnography (e.g. Amit 2000 ; Brizuela 2000 ) and their stress on interpretative methods ( Geertz 1993 ). So too do historians, as they delve into the material, social, and cultural worlds of those they study. 1

As with other forms of intelligence, social intelligence can—and must—be trained. It requires immersion. In some instances, this immersion comes naturally: those who study their “own” polities tend to be well attuned to their own cultures. But even in such instances, a more sophisticated understanding can be acquired through the use of ethnographic methods. To illustrate, consider the “new institutionalism,” one of the most important innovations in the contemporary study of politics. A major variant of this approach emerged from the “Rikerian‐side” of the Department of Political Science at the University of Rochester, with its emphasis on formal theory. But those who pioneered the approach were also students of Richard Fenno, who instilled in them an intimate knowledge of the folkways and byways of the committee system—knowledge he acquired from fieldwork on the United States Congress ( Fenno 1966 ).

Fenno's field research targets a political arena, but one lodged within a culture of which he himself is a member. Immersion is even more necessary for those who study politics in cultures other than our own. We “foreigners” must virtually be trained in the same manner as have the adults of that culture. We must be infused with the collective memories and taught the shorthand allusions that inform the controversies that animate the politics of those that dwell within it.

The argument thus far constitutes a defense of “soft” approaches to learning, variously labeled intuition, insight, or verstehen . These approaches target the particular, be it a village, a committee, or a specific event. They are often counterpoised against “systematic” forms of understanding that seek general and therefore more abstract accounts. But rather than constituting rivals, the two approaches are complements.

The argument, like the research process, proceeds in stages. The first step comes in the field itself, when the researcher starts to find that she is less frequently surprised. Behavior that once seemed inexplicable now appears ordinary; fewer interactions jar or unsettle. These changes suggest that the researcher is beginning to understand. The second step takes place as the researcher begins to separate from the field, both physically and emotionally. At that moment she begins to move from apprehension to explanation.

While moving toward explanation, the comprehension acquired during fieldwork continues to play a significant role. It informs judgement and sharpens intuition. Phrased crudely, it provides a “bullshit meter”—something useful for all academics and perhaps essential for graduate students. The study of politics is no less immune to the pathologies of discourse than are other academic fields, whether in the form of polemical exaggeration or scientific pretension. The best corrective is a confident mastery of a body of evidence and a sense of authority derived from having “been there.” Such grounding yields an ability to discriminate between arguments that offer traction and those that are merely clever. It provides a means for discriminating between the trendy and substantial, and between those who simply want to score in debates and those who seek to contribute to knowledge.

1.2 Explanation 2

The movement from apprehension to comprehension is marked by the recoding of what has been learned into an account that instills a sense of “ therefore .” The researcher begins to apportion the things now known to be true between causes or consequences and to develop lines of logic to link them. 3 To illustrate, consider one form of explanation: that derived from game theory. 4

Some games—indeed, some highly important ones—have been constructed solely to advance a theoretical argument. The prisoner's dilemma, for example, highlights the self‐defeating properties of rationality in choice and the distinction between individual and social rationality ( Barry and Hardin 1982 ). But game theory is also employed to model, i.e. to capture the logic that structures human interaction. Such explanations can and should be shaped by the understandings achieved through fieldwork and by the materials mobilized in thick descriptions. Grounded in the realities as experienced by other human beings, explanations move the researcher toward a sense of “therefore.” The “therefore” to which game theory gives rise is a recognition that the behavior one seeks to explain is what one must of necessity expect, given one's understanding of the political setting.

Peopling this setting are actors with preferences and expectations who can make choices but who also face constraints. A key feature of a game is the presence and influence of other actors; the decision makers are not the atomistic actors of market economics. These actors are locked in patterns of interaction, so that the outcomes they achieve are the product not only of their own decisions but also of the conduct of others.

What is the identity of the actors? What are the values that inform their decisions? Given the stations they occupy, to what outcomes might they reasonably aspire? What ambitions might they seek to fulfill? What expectations do they hold, particularly of the conduct of others? If based upon the theory of games, the movement from apprehension to explanation requires that these questions be answered. This mode of explanation therefore demands a level of intimacy with the subject similar to that achieved by an ethnographer who has immersed herself in the life of “her” village or by a historian who has worked through the family papers of a politician or the archives of a bureau chief.

In game theory, the logic of explanation appeals to rationality in choice. The actions observed have been chosen strategically, i.e. knowing the sequence that will be followed and anticipating the behavior of others along the path of play. To account for the choices made, the analyst must demonstrate that the actor could credibly expect these choices to yield the best of the outcomes attainable, given what the actor could control, the constraints under which she labored, and the information then available. The recreation of the world in which the actor is choosing, of how she operates within it, of the sequence of actions, and of beliefs about the consequences of her decisions provides the necessary data. The data may best come from observation, reading, interviewing, and thereby acquiring an intimate knowledge of the key players and the strategic environment that they inhabit.

The thick description provided by anthropologists, sociologists, and historians thus provides the underpinnings for the abstract, mathematical logic that moves the researcher from apprehension to explanation. Knowledge of key features of political life is essential to its recoding in the form of game. The theory of games provides a means of extracting explanations from such knowledge. Once the analyst has constructed the game, she then can begin to comprehend why outcomes occurred, i.e. why people behaved in the fashion she observed. Once formally modeled, the strategic situation captured by the game may yield equilibria; and these equilibria contain the choices that should be expected to prevail, if the model correctly captures the incentives that drive choices in the strategic setting.

In arguing for complementarities between abstract and qualitative methods, it is useful to point out that the kinds of reasoning employed in the process of “explanation” also contribute to the process of “apprehension.” The assumption of rationality provides a source of empathy that enables the analyst to occupy the position of those whose behavior she seeks to understand.

The assumption of rationality imposes no requirements on the content of the values or preferences of the people being studied; in many instances they will possess values and aspirations far different from those of the analyst. But latent in the assumption is an acceptance of the possibility that were the analyst herself embedded in the structures and constraints that define the strategic setting, she too, if rational, would have made the same choices and suffered the same consequences as did those whose behavior she seeks to comprehend. In some settings, the result is confrontation with the question: “could I have possibly behaved with such humanity?” In others, it is the recognition that, “yes, in such a situation, I too might have killed.” The premise of rationality thus transforms the relationship between the analyst and those being studied, imbricating it with sympathetic identification. It enhances the capacity to apprehend.

Many in the social sciences favor interpretation over explanation. Shunning the use of deduction and logic, they instead offer evocative accounts in which comprehension is achieved by appealing to preferences and mental states. Basing explanations on individual values is equivalent to asserting that a person behaves the way he does because that is the kind of person that he is. If the choice is irrational, then so too must he be. An advantage of game theory is that it offers a way of avoiding such tautology. In situations of strategic interdependence, people may easily become trapped: strategic interaction may yield outcomes that no rational individual would desire. Assuming that it is a harsh fate that we seek to explain, the researcher can then seek to identify the reasons people fail to transcend it. Given that the people are rational and capable of behaving in a sophisticated manner, why, then, do they continue to suffer? Driven by this question, the researcher will move from a study of the individuals and their preferences to a study of the game form, and focus on the forces that generate perverse results as equilibrium outcomes.

This discussion is of particular importance to those who study the politics of violence or underdevelopment. Observation suggests that many who are engaged in fighting or living in poverty are neither thugs nor incompetents but are nonetheless living in misery. The challenge posed is thus to isolate the features that divorce the qualities of the individuals from the properties of the lives they lead. In contrast to the common perception that game theory emphasizes the role of choice, it in fact becomes most valuable, perhaps, when used to explore the forces that constrain human behavior.

1.3 Conviction

Thus far two forms of comprehension have been explored. The first is apprehension. The second—explanation—establishes the logical links that render the behavior one seeks to explain a necessary outcome. A major point of this essay is that the two forms of understanding are complements rather than substitutes: to endorse the one form of comprehension is to underscore as well the importance of the other.

The process of comprehension cannot terminate at explanation, however. More needs to be achieved before the researcher can accord credence to her account or elicit conviction from others. The account must also find confirmation. It must yield outcomes that are consistent with the data and, in particular, data other than that from which it was first derived.

To address the process of confirmation, we move from the world of the ethnographer and formal theorist to the world of the methodologist. Two methodologies warrant special attention: the making of “small‐N” comparisons—the controlled use of case studies—and the use of “large‐N” methods—the statistical analysis of quantitative data. 5

In addressing the process of confirmation, it is useful to marshal an example. Doing so allows us to revisit the relationship between immersion and explanation and to understand when a research program achieves a resting point: the point of conviction, where the researcher comes to believe an explanation to be true and when she is able to demonstrate its validity to others.

2 By Way of Illustration

From the mid‐1970s to the late 1980s, I inhabited the world of coffee. I begin with a discussion of fieldwork I conducted in the coffee zones of East Africa and the search for explanations of the economic behavior of the peasants in that region.

2.1 Introduction to the Field

The district of Meru runs down the north‐eastern slopes of Mount Kenya; that of Mengo straddles Kampala, the capital of Uganda. In the course of my research into coffee production in East Africa, I found, as have others, that many farmers failed to produce what they technically could produce—given their access to land, labor, and capital—had they been the maximizers of profits. In addition, I found the kinds of tensions often recorded in studies of peasant communities (e.g. Redfield 1960 ; Wolff 1966 ; Scott 1976 ): fear of neighbors, jealousy, and a commitment to sharing, be it of beer or food, time or companionship, or of hardship or an unexpected windfall.

Many had looked at such behavior and posited cultural roots for it. Writing in the 1980s, Goran Hyden ( Hyden 1981 ), for example, attributed to villagers in East Africa an “economy of affection” in which leisure is highly prized and the benefits of companionship valued more highly than private gains. Those who fail to abide by the norms of the community, by this argument, are sanctioned and become the objects of gossip, rumor‐mongering, and, quite possibly, violence.

Appeals to culture provide a possible explanation for the behavior of the coffee growers. “Soaking and poking,” however, I encountered reason to believe that the behavior of the coffee growers represented a choice. Rather than being driven by cultural norms and therefore inflexible, their behavior represented, I came to believe, a strategic response to the forces about them, and was therefore susceptible to change.

In both Kenya and Uganda coffee production takes place within a thicket of public institutions: cooperative societies, agricultural banks, government departments, and research centers. Among the most powerful of these is the coffee board: a monopsonist that purchased coffee from farmers at a price that it set. To the coffee growers, the coffee board was the tax man. In conversations in homesteads or over beer, many growers, I learned, felt were they to produce more, they would simply be more heavily taxed.

Experience in the field thus suggested an alternative to a “cultural” understanding of the peasantry in eastern Africa. A strong preference for leisure could indeed dissuade farmers from profit maximization. But it appeared more plausible that their behavior represented a strategy: in the face of the behavior they anticipated from the government and their peers, it was reasonable for farmers to choose leisure over productive activity.

2.2 The “Small‐N” Road to Conviction

I now faced the task of convincing myself that the explanation “worked.” Fortunately, for me at least, both Kenya and Uganda had recently undergone changes in political regimes. I therefore could employ temporal comparisons to test my argument. In Kenya, power had shifted from Jomo Kenyatta, who was from the coffee‐growing regions, to Daniel Arap Moi, who was not. In Uganda, a military invasion had driven Idi Amin into exile. I therefore had the opportunity to use data from political shocks to test my ideas about the behavior of farmers.

Jomo Kenyatta had been a friend of the coffee farmer. While president, he had allied with GEMA—a powerful brotherhood of wealthy persons from the Gikuyu, Embu, and Meru communities ( Widner 1992 ) within the Central Province of Kenya. Many members of this elite not only possessed coffee estates but also occupied offices in the agencies that governed the coffee industry. Because the interests of those in power so closely aligned with those of the small producers, the latter believed that the former would act in good faith.

When Kenyatta died in 1978, Daniel Arap Moi became president. Coming from Rift Valley Province, Moi did not belong to GEMA; indeed, he feared it. In an effort to weaken the political power of the Central Province, he labeled GEMA “tribal” and disbanded the organization. Placing political hatchet‐men in key legal positions, he used the power of the state to attack, rather than to support, the agencies that superintended the production of coffee ( Bates 1997 ). When I conducted my research in Meru, I therefore encountered an industry that had been shorn of political protection. From my research I learned that the transfer of power had marked the beginning of the decline—both economic and political—of coffee production. An industry that had prospered under Kenyatta began to stagnate under Moi. And farmers that had once aggressively sought to maximize chose instead to “make do.”

Uganda too had experienced a change of presidents: Milton Obote, backed by Tanzania's armed forces and an alliance of other politicians from Uganda, had driven Idi Amin from the State House into exile. As they positioned themselves to compete for power in the new political order, several members of this alliance had recruited their own armies. Into a world in which villagers already feared the encroachment of their neighbors, there now circulated an abundant supply of weapons. When I arrived in the field, Mengo had become militarized. From the maelstrom of conflict in Mengo I emerged convinced that African coffee growers not only chose between leisure and income, as cultural accounts would have it. They also chose between income maximization and military activity: if prosperous, one has to be prepared to fight in order to defend one's property. There were few signs of the economy of affection in Mengo. 6

At the start of my fieldwork in eastern Africa, I therefore found reason to doubt “cultural” explanations of the behavior of villagers. While such explanations might account for the reluctance of coffee producers to maximize their incomes, they implied that such behavior was invariant over time. A theory that viewed their behavior as the product of choice implied that what was a best response under one state of the world might well not be under another, and their conduct would therefore change. As the world about the coffee growers changed, I found, so too had their behavior. Changing from the “accumulators” 7 of the Kenyatta years to the sullen satisficers of those under Moi, those in Kenya demonstrated that they could indeed change the way in which they managed their farms.

The peasants of Mengo also changed their behavior and in so doing challenged the cultural account. Once characterized as practitioners of the economy of affection, they became violent. They became attackers and defenders, opportunists and heroes, patriots and traitors, as their villages were swept into the currents of the war that lasted from the overthrow of Idi Amin to the installation of Yoweri Museveni.

Having been encouraged through conversation and conviviality to conceive of farmers as rational actors, I could conceive of the games they played with the government and with those about them. I could use the logic of games to infer how, behaving rationally, they would choose, given their beliefs about the conduct of others. In the world they occupied, backward induction would lead the farmers to consume leisure rather than expend costly effort in the production of coffee, and thus account for their economic choices. In a world of peace, it led them to adhere to the “economy of affection.” In a world at war, their best response was to fight. I could thus comprehend their political behavior as well. By taking advantage of change over time, I was able to make comparisons that provided evidence supportive of my account.

But the evidence did not yet satisfy. For one, the data employed to test the explanation were drawn from the same sample as had been used to construct it. Moreover, if the explanation were powerful, then there should be additional opportunities for confirmation. For if powerful, the explanation should generate additional implications which would be amenable to testing. I therefore changed my location in the world of coffee and I changed the topic of my research. Moving from Africa to Latin America, I focused on the politics of policy making rather than on the economics of farming. 8

3 Moving out of Sample

To my surprise, I found that while coffee was produced in Colombia by small farmers, the government of Colombia did not treat coffee producers in a predatory manner. In contrast to the conduct of governments in Amin's Uganda, Moi's Kenya, and other portions of Africa, the government of Colombia instead offered farmers low taxes and high‐quality services and helped the industry to maximize its export earnings. Peasant producers were treated as if powerful, not marginal in Colombia's political economy.

Retaining the premise of rationality in choice, I attempted to account for this difference by taking counsel from relevant theories. Some (e.g. Olson 1971 ) addressed the politics of interest groups; others (e.g. Downs 1957 ) the politics of party competition. Both moved from citizen preferences to public policy outcomes, basing their reasoning on rationality in choice and the incentives that shape strategic choices in political settings. In Africa in the 1970s and 1980s, few governments tolerated “multipartyism:” most were single‐party or military regimes. In this authoritarian environment, organized interests dominated the policy process. In Colombia, by contrast, two major parties competed for votes and governments secured power by winning electoral majorities. By the logic of collective action, should policy result from competition among organized interests, farmers—being numerous and disorganized—should lose out. In the context of electoral politics, numbers become an advantage; and should other conditions prevail (see below), they could become politically pivotal and so gain a political advantage. The comparison of policy making in Africa and Latin America thus provided a test of the rational choice approach by providing a test of the theories of policy making to which it gives rise.

What I had found throughout Africa was a systematic pattern of political expropriation; the explanation appeared to lie in the logic of interest groups. The core of the political economy of most African states consisted of the government, urbanbased industry, and organized labor; peasant agriculture occupied the periphery. The first set of interests was concentrated geographically, which lowered the costs of organization; the second was dispersed and thus faced higher costs of organization. Urban‐based industries tended to be economically concentrated as well, with a few large firms dominating the market; by contrast, the agricultural industry remained virtually atomistic in composition and no single producer could reasonably aspire to influence prices. While urban‐based firms possessed incentives to organize, for farmers, the incentives were weak (see Olson 1971 and Bates 1981 ).

What I encountered in Colombia, however, was the politics of party competition. The logic governing this process would be the logic of majority rule in spatial settings, which implied that if properly located in the political space that defined electoral politics, peasants could extract favorable policies from candidates competing for office.

My intuition thus suggested that the roots of policy differences lay in the structure of political institutions. Whether that intuition would yield an explanation depended, among other things, on the structure of issue space in Colombia and on the location of coffee growers within it. To explore this possibility, I turned to archival sources. I reviewed the issues that divided the two parties: the nature of property rights, the position of the Catholic Church, and the power of the central government. Positions on these issues proved to be correlated, I found, rendering the problem one‐dimensional and giving rise to the possibility of equilibrium outcomes. 9 Politicians from the coffee zones, I further noted, had repeatedly proven willing to break from the left wing of the Conservative Party to join governments from the right wing of the Liberal Party—and vice versa—thus making and breaking governments. The structure of party competition in Colombia thus appeared to render coffee farmers pivotal. Politicians ambitious for office would indeed possess strong incentives to advocate policies designed to secure their backing. While the politics of interest groups may have reduced the power of farmers in Africa, in Colombia, at least, the politics of electoral competition magnified it.

Drawing new data from outside of the original sample and confronting the logic of rational choice in a domain other than that in which I had first applied it, I gained increased confidence in my explanation of the behavior of East Africa's peasants. But to convince others, I recognized, I needed more: I needed data that would enable me to control statistically for the impact of variables that I might have been unable to control when making “small‐N” comparisons. I therefore began to look for “large‐N” data that would yield unbiased tests of my ideas and ones in which I could have high levels of confidence.

3.1 The “Large‐N” Road to Conviction

From the late 1940s to the mid‐1970s, party competition in Colombia ceased, first yielding to military rule and then to a national front in which the parties shared power at every level—and in every branch—of government. In the mid‐1970s, party competition resumed.

In Colombia, as in Africa, coffee exports are taxed. But in Colombia, unlike in Africa, a major portion of the tax is rebated to the coffee producers who employ it to build roads and to provide electricity, schools, and clinics in the coffee zones. The percentage rebated to the coffee farmers varied over time, however. Using time series data from 1939–84, I was able to relate the percentage rebated to the structure of political competition. To a degree significantly greater than would be likely by chance, I found, when governments were chosen as a result of party competition, the percentage of the revenue which coffee growers were able to retain increased on average over 12 percentage points; when they were not—as when the military held power—the percentage fell by over 20 percentage points. By controlling for other possible determinants of revenue collection and the kinds of errors to which time series data, by their nature, can give rise, I was able to test my argument linking political institutions to government policies toward agriculture.

Armed with the lessons drawn from the Colombian case, I then returned to the study of Africa. There I joined a team of researchers and gathered data on government policies and political institutions for forty‐six African nations over a twentysix‐year period (1970–95). Included in these data were measures of policy choice. Governments that to a high degree substituted public bureaucracies for private markets we labeled the creators of “control regimes;” the policies of those that refrained from such intervention we labeled “symptom free.” The data on political institutions recorded whether the governments were based on no‐party, single‐party, or competitive‐party systems.

Over the full set of African cases for the period 1970–95 there was a close statistical association between the existence—or non‐existence—of political competition and the choice of policy regimes ( Table 7.1 ).

Because I was now employing statistical methods, I was able to control for the impact of unobserved variables. In contrast to small‐N investigations, by introducing fixed effects into a statistical model, I was able to eliminate the impact of features not captured in the model that might influence policy choice in one country but be absent in another. And by controlling for period effects, I was able to control for variables that would affect policy making in all countries and that varied with time: the debt crisis, for example, or the oil price shocks of the 1970s—or changes in the price of coffee.

Note : Z‐scores in parentheses. In computing standard errors, clustered by country.

My research had thus focused on public policy toward farmers. Immersion convinced me that coffee producers in eastern Africa were canny strategists. Based on this premise, I was able to account for their economic behavior and the political fate that befell them. To convince myself and others, however, I had to demonstrate that the logical implications of my account were consistent with observable data and, in particular, data other than that which gave rise to the original interpretation. Drawing from the experience of another continent, I was able to show that differences in political institutions indeed related to the fate of the coffee industry and in ways that the logic would suggest. By drawing data from the politics of the coffee industry, I was able to increase my confidence in my analysis of the economics of peasant production. And by moving from small‐N comparisons to data more amenable to statistical treatment, I was able to impart greater credibility to my account. 10

4 Conclusion

In this essay, I have sought to present a strategy for comparative research. At the beginning is immersion: a deep study of a time and place. The movement from insight to explanation is marked by the production of theory. The resultant explanation may be logically coherent, consistent with the observations that inspired it, and faithful to the original intuition. But to be convincing, the explanation has to be demonstrated. It has to find empirical confirmation.

To comprehend the political world about us, we therefore need to engage in qualitative research, to mobilize theory, to make small‐N comparisons, and to employ statistical methods. Each task provides an element of what we need to know in order to comprehend. Only when all have been deployed can our efforts come to rest, our intellects feeling satisfied.

Achen, C.   1986 . The Statistical Analysis of Quasi‐experiments . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Amit, V.   2000 . Constructing the Field: Ethnographic Fieldwork in the Contemporary World . London: Routledge.

Barry, B. M. , and Hardin, R.   1982 . Rational Man and Irrational Society? An Introduction and Sourcebook . Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Bates, R. H.   1981 . Markets and States in Tropical Africa . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

——  1997 . Open Economy Politics . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

——  Greif, A. et al. 1998 . Analytic Narratives . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

—— —— et al. 2002 . Organizing violence.   Journal of Conflict Resolution , 46 (5): 599–628. 10.1177/002200202236166

Braudel, F.   1980 . On History . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brizuela, B. M.   2000 . Acts of Inquiry in Qualitative Research . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard College.

Dixit, A. K. , and Skeath, S.   2004 . Games of Strategy . New York: W. W. Norton.

Downs, A.   1957 . An Economic Theory of Democracy . New York: Harper and Row.

Eckstein, H.   1975 . Case study and theory in political science. In Handbook of Sociology , ed. N. Smelser . Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

Fenno, R. F.   1966 . The Power of the Purse: Appropriations Politics in Congress . Boston: Little Brown.

——  1990 . Watching Politicians: Essays on Participant Observation . Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies University of California at Berkeley.

Geddes, B.   2003 . Paradigms and Sand Castles . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Geertz, C.   1993 . The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays . London: Fontana Press.

George, A. L. , and Bennett, A.   1998 . Case Study and Theory Development . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Hyden, G.   1981 . No Shortcuts to Progress . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

King, G. , Keohane, R. , et al. 1994 . Designing Social Inquiry . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kitching, G.   1980 . Class and Economic Change in Kenya . London: Yale University Press.

McAdam, D. , Tarrow, S. , et al. 2001 . Dynamics of Contention . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Olson, M.   1971 . The Logic of Collective Action . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Przeworski, A. , and Teune, H.   1970 . The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry . Malabar, Fla.: R. E. Kreiger Publishing.

Redfield, R.   1960 . The Little Community, and Peasant Society and Culture . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Scott, J. C.   1976 . The Moral Economy of the Peasant . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sekon, J.   2003 . Revisiting Case Selection . Cambridge, Mass.: Department of Government, Harvard University, typescript.

Stinchcombe, A. L.   1968 . Constructing Social Theories . New York: Harcourt Brace & World.

Varshney, A. ed. 1993 . Beyond Urban Bias . London: Frank Cass and Company.

——  1995 . Democracy, Development and the Countryside . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wedeen. L.   2002 . Conceptualizing culture: new possibilities for political science.   American Political Science Review , 96: 713–28.

Widner, J.   1992 . The Rise of a Party State in Kenya: From “Harembe!” to “Nyayo.” : Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Wolff, E. R.   1966 . Peasants . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice‐Hall.

* This chapter builds upon the works of Eckstein 1975 ; Stinchcombe 1968 ; and Przeworski and Teune 1970 ; and the later contributions of George and Bennett 1998 ; King, Keohane, et al. 1994 ; and Geddes 2003 . Influential arguments by Achen 1986 and Sekon 2003 also shape the argument. To a great degree, the essay arises from discussions with Scott Ashworth while training graduate students in Gov. 3007 at Harvard University and with Avner Greif, Margaret Levi, Jean‐Laurent Rosenthal, and Barry Weingast while writing Analytic Narratives 1998. The author alone is to be blamed for its shortcomings.

The chapter was written with financial support from the National Science Foundation (Grant SES 9905568), the Carnegie Corporation, and the Center for International Development and the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs of Harvard University. I wrote it while a Moore Distinguished Scholar at the California Institute of Technology.

Presentations of earlier drafts were made at Duke University, Durham, NC, April 28, 2005, and at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington, May 5, 2005. I acknowledge with deep appreciation the extensive comments of Arun Agrawal, Carles Boix, Geoffrey Brennan, Michael McGinnis, Lesa Morrison, Roger Parks, Michael Schoon, Suzanne Shanahan, and Lihua Yang. The excellent editing of Patty Lezotte and David Price has been of great help.

Especially those of the annaliste school. I leave out the majority of modern social historians since, unlike Braudel 1980 they appear unwilling to entertain such additional steps as testing or modeling, as in the use of game theory.

This section represents an extension and critique of Wedeen (2002) .

Note that the argument calls for logical—indeed, nomothetic—accounts. It is not sufficient to point to causal mechanisms ( McAdam, Tarrow, et al. 2001 ) or to engage in “process tracing” ( George and Bennett 1998 ).

Among several excellent reviews, turn first to Dixit and Skeath (2004) .

The best treatments remain King, Keohane, et al. (1994) ; Przeworski and Teune (1970) ; and Geddes (2003) .

For a formalization of this argument, see Bates, Greif, et al. (2002) .

A phrase employed by local intellectuals to characterize prosperous peasants. See, for example, Kitching (1980) .

A major reason for this move was to seek respite from the violence I had encountered in post‐Amin Uganda. Moving to Colombia, I soon learned that violence was not an African problem; it was a development problem.

As a test, I presented this formulation to seminars attended by the most learned students of Colombian history. The stress was that of a doctoral examination; so too the sense of relief at having passed.

See also Varshney (1993 , 1995 ).

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Case study research in the social sciences

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Sociology, University of Helsinki, PO Box 18, 00014, University of Helsinki, Finland. Electronic address: [email protected].
• 2 Department of Philosophy, University of Bergen, Postboks 7805, 5020, Bergen, Norway. Electronic address: [email protected].
• PMID: 31818413
• DOI: 10.1016/j.shpsa.2019.10.003

In this paper, we offer an introduction to case study research in the social sciences. We begin with a discussion of the definition of case study research. Next, we point to various purposes that case study research may serve in the social sciences and then turn to outline the main philosophical issues raised by case study research. Finally, we briefly present the papers in this special issue.

Keywords: Case study design; Case study research; Evidence amalgamation; Explanation; Generalization; Social sciences.

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Publication types

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Writing a Case Study

• Purpose of Guide
• Design Flaws to Avoid
• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Glossary of Research Terms
• Narrowing a Topic Idea
• Broadening a Topic Idea
• Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
• Academic Writing Style
• Choosing a Title
• Making an Outline
• Paragraph Development
• Executive Summary
• The C.A.R.S. Model
• Background Information
• The Research Problem/Question
• Theoretical Framework
• Citation Tracking
• Content Alert Services
• Evaluating Sources
• Reading Research Effectively
• Primary Sources
• Secondary Sources
• Tiertiary Sources
• What Is Scholarly vs. Popular?
• Qualitative Methods
• Quantitative Methods
• Using Non-Textual Elements
• Limitations of the Study
• Common Grammar Mistakes
• Writing Concisely
• Avoiding Plagiarism
• Footnotes or Endnotes?
• Further Readings
• Annotated Bibliography
• Dealing with Nervousness
• Using Visual Aids
• Grading Someone Else's Paper
• Types of Structured Group Activities
• Group Project Survival Skills
• Multiple Book Review Essay
• Reviewing Collected Essays
• Writing a Case Study
• About Informed Consent
• Writing Field Notes
• Writing a Policy Memo
• Writing a Research Proposal
• Bibliography

The term case study refers to both a method of analysis and a specific research design for examining a problem, both of which are used in most circumstances to generalize across populations. This tab focuses on the latter--how to design and organize a research paper in the social sciences that analyzes a specific case.

A case study research paper examines a person, place, event, phenomenon, or other type of subject of analysis in order to extrapolate  key themes and results that help predict future trends, illuminate previously hidden issues that can be applied to practice, and/or provide a means for understanding an important research problem with greater clarity. A case study paper usually examines a single subject of analysis, but case study papers can also be designed as a comparative investigation that shows relationships between two or among more than two subjects. The methods used to study a case can rest within a quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method investigative paradigm.

Case Studies . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010 ; “What is a Case Study?” In Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London: SAGE, 2010.

How to Approach Writing a Case Study Research Paper

General information about how to choose a topic to investigate can be found under the " Choosing a Research Problem " tab in this writing guide. Review this page because it may help you identify a subject of analysis that can be investigated using a single case study design.

However, identifying a case to investigate involves more than choosing the research problem . A case study encompasses a problem contextualized around the application of in-depth analysis, interpretation, and discussion, often resulting in specific recommendations for action or for improving existing conditions. As Seawright and Gerring note, practical considerations such as time and access to information can influence case selection, but these issues should not be the sole factors used in describing the methodological justification for identifying a particular case to study. Given this, selecting a case includes considering the following:

• Does the case represent an unusual or atypical example of a research problem that requires more in-depth analysis? Cases often represent a topic that rests on the fringes of prior investigations because the case may provide new ways of understanding the research problem. For example, if the research problem is to identify strategies to improve policies that support girl's access to secondary education in predominantly Muslim nations, you could consider using Azerbaijan as a case study rather than selecting a more obvious nation in the Middle East. Doing so may reveal important new insights into recommending how governments in other predominantly Muslim nations can formulate policies that support improved access to education for girls.
• Does the case provide important insight or illuminate a previously hidden problem? In-depth analysis of a case can be based on the hypothesis that the case study will reveal trends or issues that have not been exposed in prior research or will reveal new and important implications for practice. For example, anecdotal evidence may suggest drug use among homeless veterans is related to their patterns of travel throughout the day. Assuming prior studies have not looked at individual travel choices as a way to study access to illicit drug use, a case study that observes a homeless veteran could reveal how issues of personal mobility choices facilitate regular access to illicit drugs. Note that it is important to conduct a thorough literature review to ensure that your assumption about the need to reveal new insights or previously hidden problems is valid and evidence-based.
• Does the case challenge and offer a counter-point to prevailing assumptions? Over time, research on any given topic can fall into a trap of developing assumptions based on outdated studies that are still applied to new or changing conditions or the idea that something should simply be accepted as "common sense," even though the issue has not been thoroughly tested in practice. A case may offer you an opportunity to gather evidence that challenges prevailing assumptions about a research problem and provide a new set of recommendations applied to practice that have not been tested previously. For example, perhaps there has been a long practice among scholars to apply a particular theory in explaining the relationship between two subjects of analysis. Your case could challenge this assumption by applying an innovative theoretical framework [perhaps borrowed from another discipline] to the study a case in order to explore whether this approach offers new ways of understanding the research problem. Taking a contrarian stance is one of the most important ways that new knowledge and understanding develops from existing literature.
• Does the case provide an opportunity to pursue action leading to the resolution of a problem? Another way to think about choosing a case to study is to consider how the results from investigating a particular case may result in findings that reveal ways in which to resolve an existing or emerging problem. For example, studying the case of an unforeseen incident, such as a fatal accident at a railroad crossing, can reveal hidden issues that could be applied to preventative measures that contribute to reducing the chance of accidents in the future. In this example, a case study investigating the accident could lead to a better understanding of where to strategically locate additional signals at other railroad crossings in order to better warn drivers of an approaching train, particularly when visibility is hindered by heavy rain, fog, or at night.
• Does the case offer a new direction in future research? A case study can be used as a tool for exploratory research that points to a need for further examination of the research problem. A case can be used when there are few studies that help predict an outcome or that establish a clear understanding about how best to proceed in addressing a problem. For example, after conducting a thorough literature review [very important!], you discover that little research exists showing the ways in which women contribute to promoting water conservation in rural communities of Uganda. A case study of how women contribute to saving water in a particular village can lay the foundation for understanding the need for more thorough research that documents how women in their roles as cooks and family caregivers think about water as a valuable resource within their community throughout rural regions of east Africa. The case could also point to the need for scholars to apply feminist theories of work and family to the issue of water conservation.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. “Building Theories from Case Study Research.” Academy of Management Review 14 (October 1989): 532-550; Emmel, Nick. Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2013; Gerring, John. “What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?” American Political Science Review 98 (May 2004): 341-354; Mills, Albert J. , Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Seawright, Jason and John Gerring. "Case Selection Techniques in Case Study Research." Political Research Quarterly 61 (June 2008): 294-308.

Structure and Writing Style

The purpose of a paper in the social sciences designed around a case study is to thoroughly investigate a subject of analysis in order to reveal a new understanding about the research problem and, in so doing, contributing new knowledge to what is already known from previous studies. In applied social sciences disciplines [e.g., education, social work, public administration, etc.], case studies may also be used to reveal best practices, highlight key programs, or investigate interesting aspects of professional work. In general, the structure of a case study research paper is not all that different from a standard college-level research paper. However, there are subtle differences you should be aware of. Here are the key elements to organizing and writing a case study research paper.

I.  Introduction

As with any research paper, your introduction should serve as a roadmap for your readers to ascertain the scope and purpose of your study . The introduction to a case study research paper, however, should not only describe the research problem and its significance, but you should also succinctly describe why the case is being used and how it relates to addressing the problem. The two elements should be linked. With this in mind, a good introduction answers these four questions:

• What was I studying? Describe the research problem and describe the subject of analysis you have chosen to address the problem. Explain how they are linked and what elements of the case will help to expand knowledge and understanding about the problem.
• Why was this topic important to investigate? Describe the significance of the research problem and state why a case study design and the subject of analysis that the paper is designed around is appropriate in addressing the problem.
• What did we know about this topic before I did this study? Provide background that helps lead the reader into the more in-depth literature review to follow. If applicable, summarize prior case study research applied to the research problem and why it fails to adequately address the research problem. Describe why your case will be useful. If no prior case studies have been used to address the research problem, explain why you have selected this subject of analysis.
• How will this study advance new knowledge or new ways of understanding? Explain why your case study will be suitable in helping to expand knowledge and understanding about the research problem.

Each of these questions should be addressed in no more than a few paragraphs. Exceptions to this can be when you are addressing a complex research problem or subject of analysis that requires more in-depth background information.

II.  Literature Review

The literature review for a case study research paper is generally structured the same as it is for any college-level research paper. The difference, however, is that the literature review is focused on providing background information and  enabling historical interpretation of the subject of analysis in relation to the research problem the case is intended to address . This includes synthesizing studies that help to:

• Place relevant works in the context of their contribution to understanding the case study being investigated . This would include summarizing studies that have used a similar subject of analysis to investigate the research problem. If there is literature using the same or a very similar case to study, you need to explain why duplicating past research is important [e.g., conditions have changed; prior studies were conducted long ago, etc.].
• Describe the relationship each work has to the others under consideration that informs the reader why this case is applicable . Your literature review should include a description of any works that support using the case to study the research problem and the underlying research questions.
• Identify new ways to interpret prior research using the case study . If applicable, review any research that has examined the research problem using a different research design. Explain how your case study design may reveal new knowledge or a new perspective or that can redirect research in an important new direction.
• Resolve conflicts amongst seemingly contradictory previous studies . This refers to synthesizing any literature that points to unresolved issues of concern about the research problem and describing how the subject of analysis that forms the case study can help resolve these existing contradictions.
• Point the way in fulfilling a need for additional research . Your review should examine any literature that lays a foundation for understanding why your case study design and the subject of analysis around which you have designed your study may reveal a new way of approaching the research problem or offer a perspective that points to the need for additional research.
• Expose any gaps that exist in the literature that the case study could help to fill . Summarize any literature that not only shows how your subject of analysis contributes to understanding the research problem, but how your case contributes to a new way of understanding the problem that prior research has failed to do.
• Locate your own research within the context of existing literature [very important!] . Collectively, your literature review should always place your case study within the larger domain of prior research about the problem. The overarching purpose of reviewing pertinent literature in a case study paper is to demonstrate that you have thoroughly identified and synthesized prior studies in the context of explaining the relevance of the case in addressing the research problem.

III.  Method

In this section, you explain why you selected a particular subject of analysis to study and the strategy you used to identify and ultimately decide that your case was appropriate in addressing the research problem. The way you describe the methods used varies depending on the type of subject of analysis that frames your case study.

If your subject of analysis is an incident or event . In the social and behavioral sciences, the event or incident that represents the case to be studied is usually bounded by time and place, with a clear beginning and end and with an identifiable location or position relative to its surroundings. The subject of analysis can be a rare or critical event or it can focus on a typical or regular event. The purpose of studying a rare event is to illuminate new ways of thinking about the broader research problem or to test a hypothesis. Critical incident case studies must describe the method by which you identified the event and explain the process by which you determined the validity of this case to inform broader perspectives about the research problem or to reveal new findings. However, the event does not have to be a rare or uniquely significant to support new thinking about the research problem or to challenge an existing hypothesis. For example, Walo, Bull, and Breen conducted a case study to identify and evaluate the direct and indirect economic benefits and costs of a local sports event in the City of Lismore, New South Wales, Australia. The purpose of their study was to provide new insights from measuring the impact of a typical local sports event that prior studies could not measure well because they focused on large "mega-events." Whether the event is rare or not, the methods section should include an explanation of the following characteristics of the event: a) when did it take place; b) what were the underlying circumstances leading to the event; c) what were the consequences of the event.

If your subject of analysis is a person. Explain why you selected this particular individual to be studied and describe what experience he or she has had that provides an opportunity to advance new understandings about the research problem. Mention any background about this person which might help the reader understand the significance of his/her experiences that make them worthy of study. This includes describing the relationships this person has had with other people, institutions, and/or events that support using him or her as the subject for a case study research paper. It is particularly important to differentiate the person as the subject of analysis from others and to succinctly explain how the person relates to examining the research problem.

If your subject of analysis is a place. In general, a case study that investigates a place suggests a subject of analysis that is unique or special in some way and that this uniqueness can be used to build new understanding or knowledge about the research problem. A case study of a place must not only describe its various attributes relevant to the research problem [e.g., physical, social, cultural, economic, political, etc.], but you must state the method by which you determined that this place will illuminate new understandings about the research problem. It is also important to articulate why a particular place as the case for study is being used if similar places also exist [i.e., if you are studying patterns of homeless encampments of veterans in open spaces, why study Echo Park in Los Angeles rather than Griffith Park?]. If applicable, describe what type of human activity involving this place makes it a good choice to study [e.g., prior research reveals Echo Park has more homeless veterans].

If your subject of analysis is a phenomenon. A phenomenon refers to a fact, occurrence, or circumstance that can be studied or observed but with the cause or explanation to be in question. In this sense, a phenomenon that forms your subject of analysis can encompass anything that can be observed or presumed to exist but is not fully understood. In the social and behavioral sciences, the case usually focuses on human interaction within a complex physical, social, economic, cultural, or political system. For example, the phenomenon could be the observation that many vehicles used by ISIS fighters are small trucks with English language advertisements on them. The research problem could be that ISIS fighters are difficult to combat because they are highly mobile. The research questions could be how and by what means are these vehicles used by ISIS being supplied to the militants and how might supply lines to these vehicles be cut? How might knowing the suppliers of these trucks from overseas reveal larger networks of collaborators and financial support? A case study of a phenomenon most often encompasses an in-depth analysis of a cause and effect that is grounded in an interactive relationship between people and their environment in some way.

NOTE:   The choice of the case or set of cases to study cannot appear random. Evidence that supports the method by which you identified and chose your subject of analysis should be linked to the findings from the literature review. Be sure to cite any prior studies that helped you determine that the case you chose was appropriate for investigating the research problem.

IV.  Discussion

The main elements of your discussion section are generally the same as any research paper, but centered around interpreting and drawing conclusions about the key findings from your case study. Note that a general social sciences research paper may contain a separate section to report findings. However, in a paper designed around a case study, it is more common to combine a description of the findings with the discussion about their implications. The objectives of your discussion section should include the following:

Reiterate the Research Problem/State the Major Findings Briefly reiterate the research problem you are investigating and explain why the subject of analysis around which you designed the case study were used. You should then describe the findings revealed from your study of the case using direct, declarative, and succinct proclamation of the study results. Highlight any findings that were unexpected or especially profound.

Explain the Meaning of the Findings and Why They are Important Systematically explain the meaning of your case study findings and why you believe they are important. Begin this part of the section by repeating what you consider to be your most important or surprising finding first, then systematically review each finding. Be sure to thoroughly extrapolate what your analysis of the case can tell the reader about situations or conditions beyond the actual case that was studied while, at the same time, being careful not to misconstrue or conflate a finding that undermines the external validity of your conclusions.

Relate the Findings to Similar Studies No study in the social sciences is so novel or possesses such a restricted focus that it has absolutely no relation to previously published research. The discussion section should relate your case study results to those found in other studies, particularly if questions raised from prior studies served as the motivation for choosing your subject of analysis. This is important because comparing and contrasting the findings of other studies helps to support the overall importance of your results and it highlights how and in what ways your case study design and the subject of analysis differs from prior research about the topic.

Consider Alternative Explanations of the Findings It is important to remember that the purpose of social science research is to discover and not to prove. When writing the discussion section, you should carefully consider all possible explanations for the case study results, rather than just those that fit your hypothesis or prior assumptions and biases. Be alert to what the in-depth analysis of the case may reveal about the research problem, including offering a contrarian perspective to what scholars have stated in prior research.

Acknowledge the Study's Limitations You can state the study's limitations in the conclusion section of your paper but describing the limitations of your subject of analysis in the discussion section provides an opportunity to identify the limitations and explain why they are not significant. This part of the discussion section should also note any unanswered questions or issues your case study could not address. More detailed information about how to document any limitations to your research can be found here .

Suggest Areas for Further Research Although your case study may offer important insights about the research problem, there are likely additional questions related to the problem that remain unanswered or findings that unexpectedly revealed themselves as a result of your in-depth analysis of the case. Be sure that the recommendations for further research are linked to the research problem and that you explain why your recommendations are valid in other contexts and based on the original assumptions of your study.

V.  Conclusion

As with any research paper, you should summarize your conclusion in clear, simple language; emphasize how the findings from your case study differs from or supports prior research and why. Do not simply reiterate the discussion section. Provide a synthesis of key findings presented in the paper to show how these converge to address the research problem. If you haven't already done so in the discussion section, be sure to document the limitations of your case study and needs for further research.

The function of your paper's conclusion is to: 1)  restate the main argument supported by the findings from the analysis of your case; 2) clearly state the context, background, and necessity of pursuing the research problem using a case study design in relation to an issue, controversy, or a gap found from reviewing the literature; and, 3) provide a place for you to persuasively and succinctly restate the significance of your research problem, given that the reader has now been presented with in-depth information about the topic.

Consider the following points to help ensure your conclusion is appropriate:

• If the argument or purpose of your paper is complex, you may need to summarize these points for your reader.
• If prior to your conclusion, you have not yet explained the significance of your findings or if you are proceeding inductively, use the conclusion of your paper to describe your main points and explain their significance.
• Move from a detailed to a general level of consideration of the case study's findings that returns the topic to the context provided by the introduction or within a new context that emerges from your case study findings.

Note that, depending on the discipline you are writing in and your professor's preferences, the concluding paragraph may contain your final reflections on the evidence presented applied to practice or on the essay's central research problem. However, the nature of being introspective about the subject of analysis you have investigated will depend on whether you are explicitly asked to express your observations in this way.

Problems to Avoid

Overgeneralization One of the goals of a case study is to lay a foundation for understanding broader trends and issues applied to similar circumstances. However, be careful when drawing conclusions from your case study. They must be evidence-based and grounded in the results of the study; otherwise, it is merely speculation. Looking at a prior example, it would be incorrect to state that a factor in improving girls access to education in Azerbaijan and the policy implications this may have for improving access in other Muslim nations is due to girls access to social media if there is no documentary evidence from your case study to indicate this. There may be anecdotal evidence that retention rates were better for girls who were on social media, but this observation would only point to the need for further research and would not be a definitive finding if this was not a part of your original research agenda.

Failure to Document Limitations No case is going to reveal all that needs to be understood about a research problem. Therefore, just as you have to clearly state the limitations of a general research study , you must describe the specific limitations inherent in the subject of analysis. For example, the case of studying how women conceptualize the need for water conservation in a village in Uganda could have limited application in other cultural contexts or in areas where fresh water from rivers or lakes is plentiful and, therefore, conservation is understood differently than preserving access to a scarce resource.

Failure to Extrapolate All Possible Implications Just as you don't want to over-generalize from your case study findings, you also have to be thorough in the consideration of all possible outcomes or recommendations derived from your findings. If you do not, your reader may question the validity of your analysis, particularly if you failed to document an obvious outcome from your case study research. For example, in the case of studying the accident at the railroad crossing to evaluate where and what types of warning signals should be located, you failed to take into consideration speed limit signage as well as warning signals. When designing your case study, be sure you have thoroughly addressed all aspects of the problem and do not leave gaps in your analysis.

Case Studies . Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Gerring, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007; Merriam, Sharan B. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education . Rev. ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1998; Miller, Lisa L. “The Use of Case Studies in Law and Social Science Research.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14 (2018): TBD; Mills, Albert J., Gabrielle Durepos, and Eiden Wiebe, editors. Encyclopedia of Case Study Research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010; Putney, LeAnn Grogan. "Case Study." In Encyclopedia of Research Design , Neil J. Salkind, editor. (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2010), pp. 116-120; Simons, Helen. Case Study Research in Practice . London: SAGE Publications, 2009;  Kratochwill,  Thomas R. and Joel R. Levin, editors. Single-Case Research Design and Analysis: New Development for Psychology and Education .  Hilldsale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992; Swanborn, Peter G. Case Study Research: What, Why and How? London : SAGE, 2010; Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods . 6th edition. Los Angeles, CA, SAGE Publications, 2014; Walo, Maree, Adrian Bull, and Helen Breen. “Achieving Economic Benefits at Local Events: A Case Study of a Local Sports Event.” Festival Management and Event Tourism 4 (1996): 95-106.

Writing Tip

At Least Five Misconceptions about Case Study Research

Social science case studies are often perceived as limited in their ability to create new knowledge because they are not randomly selected and findings cannot be generalized to larger populations. Flyvbjerg examines five misunderstandings about case study research and systematically "corrects" each one. To quote, these are:

Misunderstanding 1 :  General, theoretical [context-independent knowledge is more valuable than concrete, practical (context-dependent) knowledge. Misunderstanding 2 :  One cannot generalize on the basis of an individual case; therefore, the case study cannot contribute to scientific development. Misunderstanding 3 :  The case study is most useful for generating hypotheses; that is, in the first stage of a total research process, whereas other methods are more suitable for hypotheses testing and theory building. Misunderstanding 4 :  The case study contains a bias toward verification, that is, a tendency to confirm the researcher’s preconceived notions. Misunderstanding 5 :  It is often difficult to summarize and develop general propositions and theories on the basis of specific case studies [p. 221].

While writing your paper, think introspectively about how you addressed these misconceptions because to do so can help you strengthen the validity and reliability of your research by clarifying issues of case selection, the testing and challenging of existing assumptions, the interpretation of key findings, and the summation of case outcomes. Think of a case study research paper as a complete, in-depth narrative about the specific properties and key characteristics of your subject of analysis applied to the research problem.

Flyvbjerg, Bent. “Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12 (April 2006): 219-245.

• << Previous: Reviewing Collected Essays
• Next: Writing a Field Report >>
• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2023 10:50 AM
• URL: https://libguides.pointloma.edu/ResearchPaper

Student Spotlight: Grayson Holt

Class Year : May 2024

Degree Program : Master of Social Work + Master of Arts in Bioethics & Medical Humanities

What made you choose this area of study?

I chose to pursue this course of study following my time working as an aide in an inpatient psychiatric unit. While I worked there, I was exposed to aspects of the human experience I had never seen in such a concentrated form. The people I worked with were suffering, and many of them were being held involuntarily. Additionally, the patients I worked with could be described as marginalized or on the borders of society, facing severe mental illness, substance abuse, homelessness and a variety of other challenges. Despite this, the people I worked with very rarely described themselves that way. During my time there, I was exposed to incredible resilience, hope, faith and the belief in a better tomorrow. By pursuing a master's of social work and a master of arts in bioethics and medical humanities , I believe I have best positioned myself to support the resiliency of the patients I serve while having the tools to engage with aspects of their lives, such as being unhoused, which is not inherently a medical problem but has clear health implications.

Why did you choose CWRU/the Mandel School?

I originally chose Case Western Reserve University for undergrad due to the wealth of opportunities I found in Cleveland and University Circle both professional and personal. When I visited campus, I was so impressed with the cultural hub that is University Circle that I immediately emailed Case Western Reserve’s admissions department and told them I would do whatever was needed to come to CWRU (I had been waitlisted at the time). It was a great decision as I have loved my time here, finding a home in Little Italy while receiving an incredible education.

Were you involved in activities outside of class? If so, what were they and why did you get involved?

Outside of class, I served as director of social work at CWRU's Student Run Health Clinic . I chose to pursue that role in order to ground my education on obstacles to receiving health care via hands-on clinical experience. With a mission to provide high quality care to underserved populations from Greater Cleveland communities, the clinic has taught me about the myriad of influences external to a clinical encounter that shape care.

What's your favorite thing about CWRU/the Mandel School or your favorite memory?

My favorite memory while at CWRU was walking in the Feast of the Assumption parade last year dressed in yellow, red, and blue and equipped with a battle axe as a Swiss Guard. I’ve lived in Little Italy for nearly four years now, and one of my central goals during my time here has been to immerse myself in its community. Part of why I cherish this memory is I believe it is important for students to know who they are living with, in part because I recognize not all long-term residents are fans of students living in Little Italy. Therefore, my obligation as a resident was heightened to get to know who I was living with to create meaningful relationships. My invitation to the parade was not only a fun and exciting opportunity, but also spoke to the value of these relationships.

As a graduating student, what's a piece of advice/encouragement you'd like to share with current students?

In my experience, part of what made these programs so engaging is you are allowed to be daring in the problems you are trying to address. As a student, it at times may feel as though you need years or decades of experience first before trying to tackle the most pressing challenges facing our society. While humility is hugely important, I’ve found that being bold in the challenges I’ve sought to address made my education and the connections I’ve created exponentially more exciting. Over my years here, I’ve been exploring challenges in access to mental health care, the case for restorative justice or reparations and their impact on health, and have written about the architectural design of health care settings. These are large questions, yet I encourage anyone starting the same program to not shy away from whatever their largest questions are.

What are your post graduation plans?

After graduation I will start an MD at Harvard Medical School with the ultimate goal of becoming a psychiatrist.