case study approach define

The Ultimate Guide to Qualitative Research - Part 1: The Basics

• Introduction and overview
• What is qualitative research?
• What is qualitative data?
• Examples of qualitative data
• Qualitative vs. quantitative research
• Mixed methods
• Qualitative research preparation
• Theoretical perspective
• Theoretical framework
• Literature reviews

Research question

• Conceptual framework
• Conceptual vs. theoretical framework

Data collection

• Qualitative research methods
• Focus groups
• Observational research

What is a case study?

Applications for case study research, what is a good case study, process of case study design, benefits and limitations of case studies.

• Ethnographical research
• Ethical considerations
• Confidentiality and privacy
• Power dynamics
• Reflexivity

Case studies

Case studies are essential to qualitative research , offering a lens through which researchers can investigate complex phenomena within their real-life contexts. This chapter explores the concept, purpose, applications, examples, and types of case studies and provides guidance on how to conduct case study research effectively.

Whereas quantitative methods look at phenomena at scale, case study research looks at a concept or phenomenon in considerable detail. While analyzing a single case can help understand one perspective regarding the object of research inquiry, analyzing multiple cases can help obtain a more holistic sense of the topic or issue. Let's provide a basic definition of a case study, then explore its characteristics and role in the qualitative research process.

Definition of a case study

A case study in qualitative research is a strategy of inquiry that involves an in-depth investigation of a phenomenon within its real-world context. It provides researchers with the opportunity to acquire an in-depth understanding of intricate details that might not be as apparent or accessible through other methods of research. The specific case or cases being studied can be a single person, group, or organization – demarcating what constitutes a relevant case worth studying depends on the researcher and their research question .

Among qualitative research methods , a case study relies on multiple sources of evidence, such as documents, artifacts, interviews , or observations , to present a complete and nuanced understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. The objective is to illuminate the readers' understanding of the phenomenon beyond its abstract statistical or theoretical explanations.

Characteristics of case studies

Case studies typically possess a number of distinct characteristics that set them apart from other research methods. These characteristics include a focus on holistic description and explanation, flexibility in the design and data collection methods, reliance on multiple sources of evidence, and emphasis on the context in which the phenomenon occurs.

Furthermore, case studies can often involve a longitudinal examination of the case, meaning they study the case over a period of time. These characteristics allow case studies to yield comprehensive, in-depth, and richly contextualized insights about the phenomenon of interest.

The role of case studies in research

Case studies hold a unique position in the broader landscape of research methods aimed at theory development. They are instrumental when the primary research interest is to gain an intensive, detailed understanding of a phenomenon in its real-life context.

In addition, case studies can serve different purposes within research - they can be used for exploratory, descriptive, or explanatory purposes, depending on the research question and objectives. This flexibility and depth make case studies a valuable tool in the toolkit of qualitative researchers.

Remember, a well-conducted case study can offer a rich, insightful contribution to both academic and practical knowledge through theory development or theory verification, thus enhancing our understanding of complex phenomena in their real-world contexts.

What is the purpose of a case study?

Case study research aims for a more comprehensive understanding of phenomena, requiring various research methods to gather information for qualitative analysis . Ultimately, a case study can allow the researcher to gain insight into a particular object of inquiry and develop a theoretical framework relevant to the research inquiry.

Why use case studies in qualitative research?

Using case studies as a research strategy depends mainly on the nature of the research question and the researcher's access to the data.

Conducting case study research provides a level of detail and contextual richness that other research methods might not offer. They are beneficial when there's a need to understand complex social phenomena within their natural contexts.

The explanatory, exploratory, and descriptive roles of case studies

Case studies can take on various roles depending on the research objectives. They can be exploratory when the research aims to discover new phenomena or define new research questions; they are descriptive when the objective is to depict a phenomenon within its context in a detailed manner; and they can be explanatory if the goal is to understand specific relationships within the studied context. Thus, the versatility of case studies allows researchers to approach their topic from different angles, offering multiple ways to uncover and interpret the data .

The impact of case studies on knowledge development

Case studies play a significant role in knowledge development across various disciplines. Analysis of cases provides an avenue for researchers to explore phenomena within their context based on the collected data.

This can result in the production of rich, practical insights that can be instrumental in both theory-building and practice. Case studies allow researchers to delve into the intricacies and complexities of real-life situations, uncovering insights that might otherwise remain hidden.

Types of case studies

In qualitative research , a case study is not a one-size-fits-all approach. Depending on the nature of the research question and the specific objectives of the study, researchers might choose to use different types of case studies. These types differ in their focus, methodology, and the level of detail they provide about the phenomenon under investigation.

Understanding these types is crucial for selecting the most appropriate approach for your research project and effectively achieving your research goals. Let's briefly look at the main types of case studies.

Exploratory case studies

Exploratory case studies are typically conducted to develop a theory or framework around an understudied phenomenon. They can also serve as a precursor to a larger-scale research project. Exploratory case studies are useful when a researcher wants to identify the key issues or questions which can spur more extensive study or be used to develop propositions for further research. These case studies are characterized by flexibility, allowing researchers to explore various aspects of a phenomenon as they emerge, which can also form the foundation for subsequent studies.

Descriptive case studies

Descriptive case studies aim to provide a complete and accurate representation of a phenomenon or event within its context. These case studies are often based on an established theoretical framework, which guides how data is collected and analyzed. The researcher is concerned with describing the phenomenon in detail, as it occurs naturally, without trying to influence or manipulate it.

Explanatory case studies

Explanatory case studies are focused on explanation - they seek to clarify how or why certain phenomena occur. Often used in complex, real-life situations, they can be particularly valuable in clarifying causal relationships among concepts and understanding the interplay between different factors within a specific context.

Intrinsic, instrumental, and collective case studies

These three categories of case studies focus on the nature and purpose of the study. An intrinsic case study is conducted when a researcher has an inherent interest in the case itself. Instrumental case studies are employed when the case is used to provide insight into a particular issue or phenomenon. A collective case study, on the other hand, involves studying multiple cases simultaneously to investigate some general phenomena.

Each type of case study serves a different purpose and has its own strengths and challenges. The selection of the type should be guided by the research question and objectives, as well as the context and constraints of the research.

The flexibility, depth, and contextual richness offered by case studies make this approach an excellent research method for various fields of study. They enable researchers to investigate real-world phenomena within their specific contexts, capturing nuances that other research methods might miss. Across numerous fields, case studies provide valuable insights into complex issues.

Critical information systems research

Case studies provide a detailed understanding of the role and impact of information systems in different contexts. They offer a platform to explore how information systems are designed, implemented, and used and how they interact with various social, economic, and political factors. Case studies in this field often focus on examining the intricate relationship between technology, organizational processes, and user behavior, helping to uncover insights that can inform better system design and implementation.

Health research

Health research is another field where case studies are highly valuable. They offer a way to explore patient experiences, healthcare delivery processes, and the impact of various interventions in a real-world context.

Case studies can provide a deep understanding of a patient's journey, giving insights into the intricacies of disease progression, treatment effects, and the psychosocial aspects of health and illness.

Asthma research studies

Specifically within medical research, studies on asthma often employ case studies to explore the individual and environmental factors that influence asthma development, management, and outcomes. A case study can provide rich, detailed data about individual patients' experiences, from the triggers and symptoms they experience to the effectiveness of various management strategies. This can be crucial for developing patient-centered asthma care approaches.

Other fields

Apart from the fields mentioned, case studies are also extensively used in business and management research, education research, and political sciences, among many others. They provide an opportunity to delve into the intricacies of real-world situations, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of various phenomena.

Case studies, with their depth and contextual focus, offer unique insights across these varied fields. They allow researchers to illuminate the complexities of real-life situations, contributing to both theory and practice.

Whatever field you're in, ATLAS.ti puts your data to work for you

Download a free trial of ATLAS.ti to turn your data into insights.

Understanding the key elements of case study design is crucial for conducting rigorous and impactful case study research. A well-structured design guides the researcher through the process, ensuring that the study is methodologically sound and its findings are reliable and valid. The main elements of case study design include the research question , propositions, units of analysis, and the logic linking the data to the propositions.

The research question is the foundation of any research study. A good research question guides the direction of the study and informs the selection of the case, the methods of collecting data, and the analysis techniques. A well-formulated research question in case study research is typically clear, focused, and complex enough to merit further detailed examination of the relevant case(s).

Propositions

Propositions, though not necessary in every case study, provide a direction by stating what we might expect to find in the data collected. They guide how data is collected and analyzed by helping researchers focus on specific aspects of the case. They are particularly important in explanatory case studies, which seek to understand the relationships among concepts within the studied phenomenon.

Units of analysis

The unit of analysis refers to the case, or the main entity or entities that are being analyzed in the study. In case study research, the unit of analysis can be an individual, a group, an organization, a decision, an event, or even a time period. It's crucial to clearly define the unit of analysis, as it shapes the qualitative data analysis process by allowing the researcher to analyze a particular case and synthesize analysis across multiple case studies to draw conclusions.

Argumentation

This refers to the inferential model that allows researchers to draw conclusions from the data. The researcher needs to ensure that there is a clear link between the data, the propositions (if any), and the conclusions drawn. This argumentation is what enables the researcher to make valid and credible inferences about the phenomenon under study.

Understanding and carefully considering these elements in the design phase of a case study can significantly enhance the quality of the research. It can help ensure that the study is methodologically sound and its findings contribute meaningful insights about the case.

Ready to jumpstart your research with ATLAS.ti?

Conceptualize your research project with our intuitive data analysis interface. Download a free trial today.

Conducting a case study involves several steps, from defining the research question and selecting the case to collecting and analyzing data . This section outlines these key stages, providing a practical guide on how to conduct case study research.

Defining the research question

The first step in case study research is defining a clear, focused research question. This question should guide the entire research process, from case selection to analysis. It's crucial to ensure that the research question is suitable for a case study approach. Typically, such questions are exploratory or descriptive in nature and focus on understanding a phenomenon within its real-life context.

Selecting and defining the case

The selection of the case should be based on the research question and the objectives of the study. It involves choosing a unique example or a set of examples that provide rich, in-depth data about the phenomenon under investigation. After selecting the case, it's crucial to define it clearly, setting the boundaries of the case, including the time period and the specific context.

Previous research can help guide the case study design. When considering a case study, an example of a case could be taken from previous case study research and used to define cases in a new research inquiry. Considering recently published examples can help understand how to select and define cases effectively.

Developing a detailed case study protocol

A case study protocol outlines the procedures and general rules to be followed during the case study. This includes the data collection methods to be used, the sources of data, and the procedures for analysis. Having a detailed case study protocol ensures consistency and reliability in the study.

The protocol should also consider how to work with the people involved in the research context to grant the research team access to collecting data. As mentioned in previous sections of this guide, establishing rapport is an essential component of qualitative research as it shapes the overall potential for collecting and analyzing data.

Collecting data

Gathering data in case study research often involves multiple sources of evidence, including documents, archival records, interviews, observations, and physical artifacts. This allows for a comprehensive understanding of the case. The process for gathering data should be systematic and carefully documented to ensure the reliability and validity of the study.

Analyzing and interpreting data

The next step is analyzing the data. This involves organizing the data , categorizing it into themes or patterns , and interpreting these patterns to answer the research question. The analysis might also involve comparing the findings with prior research or theoretical propositions.

Writing the case study report

The final step is writing the case study report . This should provide a detailed description of the case, the data, the analysis process, and the findings. The report should be clear, organized, and carefully written to ensure that the reader can understand the case and the conclusions drawn from it.

Each of these steps is crucial in ensuring that the case study research is rigorous, reliable, and provides valuable insights about the case.

The type, depth, and quality of data in your study can significantly influence the validity and utility of the study. In case study research, data is usually collected from multiple sources to provide a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the case. This section will outline the various methods of collecting data used in case study research and discuss considerations for ensuring the quality of the data.

Interviews are a common method of gathering data in case study research. They can provide rich, in-depth data about the perspectives, experiences, and interpretations of the individuals involved in the case. Interviews can be structured , semi-structured , or unstructured , depending on the research question and the degree of flexibility needed.

Observations

Observations involve the researcher observing the case in its natural setting, providing first-hand information about the case and its context. Observations can provide data that might not be revealed in interviews or documents, such as non-verbal cues or contextual information.

Documents and artifacts

Documents and archival records provide a valuable source of data in case study research. They can include reports, letters, memos, meeting minutes, email correspondence, and various public and private documents related to the case.

These records can provide historical context, corroborate evidence from other sources, and offer insights into the case that might not be apparent from interviews or observations.

Physical artifacts refer to any physical evidence related to the case, such as tools, products, or physical environments. These artifacts can provide tangible insights into the case, complementing the data gathered from other sources.

Ensuring the quality of data collection

Determining the quality of data in case study research requires careful planning and execution. It's crucial to ensure that the data is reliable, accurate, and relevant to the research question. This involves selecting appropriate methods of collecting data, properly training interviewers or observers, and systematically recording and storing the data. It also includes considering ethical issues related to collecting and handling data, such as obtaining informed consent and ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of the participants.

Data analysis

Analyzing case study research involves making sense of the rich, detailed data to answer the research question. This process can be challenging due to the volume and complexity of case study data. However, a systematic and rigorous approach to analysis can ensure that the findings are credible and meaningful. This section outlines the main steps and considerations in analyzing data in case study research.

Organizing the data

The first step in the analysis is organizing the data. This involves sorting the data into manageable sections, often according to the data source or the theme. This step can also involve transcribing interviews, digitizing physical artifacts, or organizing observational data.

Categorizing and coding the data

Once the data is organized, the next step is to categorize or code the data. This involves identifying common themes, patterns, or concepts in the data and assigning codes to relevant data segments. Coding can be done manually or with the help of software tools, and in either case, qualitative analysis software can greatly facilitate the entire coding process. Coding helps to reduce the data to a set of themes or categories that can be more easily analyzed.

Identifying patterns and themes

After coding the data, the researcher looks for patterns or themes in the coded data. This involves comparing and contrasting the codes and looking for relationships or patterns among them. The identified patterns and themes should help answer the research question.

Interpreting the data

Once patterns and themes have been identified, the next step is to interpret these findings. This involves explaining what the patterns or themes mean in the context of the research question and the case. This interpretation should be grounded in the data, but it can also involve drawing on theoretical concepts or prior research.

Verification of the data

The last step in the analysis is verification. This involves checking the accuracy and consistency of the analysis process and confirming that the findings are supported by the data. This can involve re-checking the original data, checking the consistency of codes, or seeking feedback from research participants or peers.

Like any research method , case study research has its strengths and limitations. Researchers must be aware of these, as they can influence the design, conduct, and interpretation of the study.

Understanding the strengths and limitations of case study research can also guide researchers in deciding whether this approach is suitable for their research question . This section outlines some of the key strengths and limitations of case study research.

Benefits include the following:

• Rich, detailed data: One of the main strengths of case study research is that it can generate rich, detailed data about the case. This can provide a deep understanding of the case and its context, which can be valuable in exploring complex phenomena.
• Flexibility: Case study research is flexible in terms of design , data collection , and analysis . A sufficient degree of flexibility allows the researcher to adapt the study according to the case and the emerging findings.
• Real-world context: Case study research involves studying the case in its real-world context, which can provide valuable insights into the interplay between the case and its context.
• Multiple sources of evidence: Case study research often involves collecting data from multiple sources , which can enhance the robustness and validity of the findings.

On the other hand, researchers should consider the following limitations:

• Generalizability: A common criticism of case study research is that its findings might not be generalizable to other cases due to the specificity and uniqueness of each case.
• Time and resource intensive: Case study research can be time and resource intensive due to the depth of the investigation and the amount of collected data.
• Complexity of analysis: The rich, detailed data generated in case study research can make analyzing the data challenging.
• Subjectivity: Given the nature of case study research, there may be a higher degree of subjectivity in interpreting the data , so researchers need to reflect on this and transparently convey to audiences how the research was conducted.

Being aware of these strengths and limitations can help researchers design and conduct case study research effectively and interpret and report the findings appropriately.

Ready to analyze your data with ATLAS.ti?

See how our intuitive software can draw key insights from your data with a free trial today.

• Privacy Policy

Home » Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

A case study is a research method that involves an in-depth examination and analysis of a particular phenomenon or case, such as an individual, organization, community, event, or situation.

It is a qualitative research approach that aims to provide a detailed and comprehensive understanding of the case being studied. Case studies typically involve multiple sources of data, including interviews, observations, documents, and artifacts, which are analyzed using various techniques, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, and grounded theory. The findings of a case study are often used to develop theories, inform policy or practice, or generate new research questions.

Types of Case Study

Types and Methods of Case Study are as follows:

Single-Case Study

A single-case study is an in-depth analysis of a single case. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to understand a specific phenomenon in detail.

For Example , A researcher might conduct a single-case study on a particular individual to understand their experiences with a particular health condition or a specific organization to explore their management practices. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of a single-case study are often used to generate new research questions, develop theories, or inform policy or practice.

Multiple-Case Study

A multiple-case study involves the analysis of several cases that are similar in nature. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to identify similarities and differences between the cases.

For Example, a researcher might conduct a multiple-case study on several companies to explore the factors that contribute to their success or failure. The researcher collects data from each case, compares and contrasts the findings, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as comparative analysis or pattern-matching. The findings of a multiple-case study can be used to develop theories, inform policy or practice, or generate new research questions.

Exploratory Case Study

An exploratory case study is used to explore a new or understudied phenomenon. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to generate hypotheses or theories about the phenomenon.

For Example, a researcher might conduct an exploratory case study on a new technology to understand its potential impact on society. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as grounded theory or content analysis. The findings of an exploratory case study can be used to generate new research questions, develop theories, or inform policy or practice.

Descriptive Case Study

A descriptive case study is used to describe a particular phenomenon in detail. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to provide a comprehensive account of the phenomenon.

For Example, a researcher might conduct a descriptive case study on a particular community to understand its social and economic characteristics. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of a descriptive case study can be used to inform policy or practice or generate new research questions.

Instrumental Case Study

An instrumental case study is used to understand a particular phenomenon that is instrumental in achieving a particular goal. This type of case study is useful when the researcher wants to understand the role of the phenomenon in achieving the goal.

For Example, a researcher might conduct an instrumental case study on a particular policy to understand its impact on achieving a particular goal, such as reducing poverty. The researcher collects data from multiple sources, such as interviews, observations, and documents, and uses various techniques to analyze the data, such as content analysis or thematic analysis. The findings of an instrumental case study can be used to inform policy or practice or generate new research questions.

Case Study Data Collection Methods

Here are some common data collection methods for case studies:

Interviews involve asking questions to individuals who have knowledge or experience relevant to the case study. Interviews can be structured (where the same questions are asked to all participants) or unstructured (where the interviewer follows up on the responses with further questions). Interviews can be conducted in person, over the phone, or through video conferencing.

Observations

Observations involve watching and recording the behavior and activities of individuals or groups relevant to the case study. Observations can be participant (where the researcher actively participates in the activities) or non-participant (where the researcher observes from a distance). Observations can be recorded using notes, audio or video recordings, or photographs.

Documents can be used as a source of information for case studies. Documents can include reports, memos, emails, letters, and other written materials related to the case study. Documents can be collected from the case study participants or from public sources.

Surveys involve asking a set of questions to a sample of individuals relevant to the case study. Surveys can be administered in person, over the phone, through mail or email, or online. Surveys can be used to gather information on attitudes, opinions, or behaviors related to the case study.

Artifacts are physical objects relevant to the case study. Artifacts can include tools, equipment, products, or other objects that provide insights into the case study phenomenon.

How to conduct Case Study Research

Conducting a case study research involves several steps that need to be followed to ensure the quality and rigor of the study. Here are the steps to conduct case study research:

• Define the research questions: The first step in conducting a case study research is to define the research questions. The research questions should be specific, measurable, and relevant to the case study phenomenon under investigation.
• Select the case: The next step is to select the case or cases to be studied. The case should be relevant to the research questions and should provide rich and diverse data that can be used to answer the research questions.
• Collect data: Data can be collected using various methods, such as interviews, observations, documents, surveys, and artifacts. The data collection method should be selected based on the research questions and the nature of the case study phenomenon.
• Analyze the data: The data collected from the case study should be analyzed using various techniques, such as content analysis, thematic analysis, or grounded theory. The analysis should be guided by the research questions and should aim to provide insights and conclusions relevant to the research questions.
• Draw conclusions: The conclusions drawn from the case study should be based on the data analysis and should be relevant to the research questions. The conclusions should be supported by evidence and should be clearly stated.
• Validate the findings: The findings of the case study should be validated by reviewing the data and the analysis with participants or other experts in the field. This helps to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings.
• Write the report: The final step is to write the report of the case study research. The report should provide a clear description of the case study phenomenon, the research questions, the data collection methods, the data analysis, the findings, and the conclusions. The report should be written in a clear and concise manner and should follow the guidelines for academic writing.

Examples of Case Study

Here are some examples of case study research:

• The Hawthorne Studies : Conducted between 1924 and 1932, the Hawthorne Studies were a series of case studies conducted by Elton Mayo and his colleagues to examine the impact of work environment on employee productivity. The studies were conducted at the Hawthorne Works plant of the Western Electric Company in Chicago and included interviews, observations, and experiments.
• The Stanford Prison Experiment: Conducted in 1971, the Stanford Prison Experiment was a case study conducted by Philip Zimbardo to examine the psychological effects of power and authority. The study involved simulating a prison environment and assigning participants to the role of guards or prisoners. The study was controversial due to the ethical issues it raised.
• The Challenger Disaster: The Challenger Disaster was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion in 1986. The study included interviews, observations, and analysis of data to identify the technical, organizational, and cultural factors that contributed to the disaster.
• The Enron Scandal: The Enron Scandal was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the Enron Corporation’s bankruptcy in 2001. The study included interviews, analysis of financial data, and review of documents to identify the accounting practices, corporate culture, and ethical issues that led to the company’s downfall.
• The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster : The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster was a case study conducted to examine the causes of the nuclear accident that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan in 2011. The study included interviews, analysis of data, and review of documents to identify the technical, organizational, and cultural factors that contributed to the disaster.

Application of Case Study

Case studies have a wide range of applications across various fields and industries. Here are some examples:

Business and Management

Case studies are widely used in business and management to examine real-life situations and develop problem-solving skills. Case studies can help students and professionals to develop a deep understanding of business concepts, theories, and best practices.

Case studies are used in healthcare to examine patient care, treatment options, and outcomes. Case studies can help healthcare professionals to develop critical thinking skills, diagnose complex medical conditions, and develop effective treatment plans.

Case studies are used in education to examine teaching and learning practices. Case studies can help educators to develop effective teaching strategies, evaluate student progress, and identify areas for improvement.

Social Sciences

Case studies are widely used in social sciences to examine human behavior, social phenomena, and cultural practices. Case studies can help researchers to develop theories, test hypotheses, and gain insights into complex social issues.

Law and Ethics

Case studies are used in law and ethics to examine legal and ethical dilemmas. Case studies can help lawyers, policymakers, and ethical professionals to develop critical thinking skills, analyze complex cases, and make informed decisions.

Purpose of Case Study

The purpose of a case study is to provide a detailed analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. A case study is a qualitative research method that involves the in-depth exploration and analysis of a particular case, which can be an individual, group, organization, event, or community.

The primary purpose of a case study is to generate a comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the case, including its history, context, and dynamics. Case studies can help researchers to identify and examine the underlying factors, processes, and mechanisms that contribute to the case and its outcomes. This can help to develop a more accurate and detailed understanding of the case, which can inform future research, practice, or policy.

Case studies can also serve other purposes, including:

• Illustrating a theory or concept: Case studies can be used to illustrate and explain theoretical concepts and frameworks, providing concrete examples of how they can be applied in real-life situations.
• Developing hypotheses: Case studies can help to generate hypotheses about the causal relationships between different factors and outcomes, which can be tested through further research.
• Providing insight into complex issues: Case studies can provide insights into complex and multifaceted issues, which may be difficult to understand through other research methods.
• Informing practice or policy: Case studies can be used to inform practice or policy by identifying best practices, lessons learned, or areas for improvement.

Advantages of Case Study Research

There are several advantages of case study research, including:

• In-depth exploration: Case study research allows for a detailed exploration and analysis of a specific phenomenon, issue, or problem in its real-life context. This can provide a comprehensive understanding of the case and its dynamics, which may not be possible through other research methods.
• Rich data: Case study research can generate rich and detailed data, including qualitative data such as interviews, observations, and documents. This can provide a nuanced understanding of the case and its complexity.
• Holistic perspective: Case study research allows for a holistic perspective of the case, taking into account the various factors, processes, and mechanisms that contribute to the case and its outcomes. This can help to develop a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the case.
• Theory development: Case study research can help to develop and refine theories and concepts by providing empirical evidence and concrete examples of how they can be applied in real-life situations.
• Practical application: Case study research can inform practice or policy by identifying best practices, lessons learned, or areas for improvement.
• Contextualization: Case study research takes into account the specific context in which the case is situated, which can help to understand how the case is influenced by the social, cultural, and historical factors of its environment.

Limitations of Case Study Research

There are several limitations of case study research, including:

• Limited generalizability : Case studies are typically focused on a single case or a small number of cases, which limits the generalizability of the findings. The unique characteristics of the case may not be applicable to other contexts or populations, which may limit the external validity of the research.
• Biased sampling: Case studies may rely on purposive or convenience sampling, which can introduce bias into the sample selection process. This may limit the representativeness of the sample and the generalizability of the findings.
• Subjectivity: Case studies rely on the interpretation of the researcher, which can introduce subjectivity into the analysis. The researcher’s own biases, assumptions, and perspectives may influence the findings, which may limit the objectivity of the research.
• Limited control: Case studies are typically conducted in naturalistic settings, which limits the control that the researcher has over the environment and the variables being studied. This may limit the ability to establish causal relationships between variables.
• Time-consuming: Case studies can be time-consuming to conduct, as they typically involve a detailed exploration and analysis of a specific case. This may limit the feasibility of conducting multiple case studies or conducting case studies in a timely manner.
• Resource-intensive: Case studies may require significant resources, including time, funding, and expertise. This may limit the ability of researchers to conduct case studies in resource-constrained settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

Quantitative Research – Methods, Types and...

Qualitative Research Methods

Explanatory Research – Types, Methods, Guide

Survey Research – Types, Methods, Examples

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods

Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods

Published on 5 May 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 30 January 2023.

A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organisation, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research.

A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods , but quantitative methods are sometimes also used. Case studies are good for describing , comparing, evaluating, and understanding different aspects of a research problem .

Table of contents

When to do a case study, step 1: select a case, step 2: build a theoretical framework, step 3: collect your data, step 4: describe and analyse the case.

A case study is an appropriate research design when you want to gain concrete, contextual, in-depth knowledge about a specific real-world subject. It allows you to explore the key characteristics, meanings, and implications of the case.

Case studies are often a good choice in a thesis or dissertation . They keep your project focused and manageable when you don’t have the time or resources to do large-scale research.

You might use just one complex case study where you explore a single subject in depth, or conduct multiple case studies to compare and illuminate different aspects of your research problem.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Once you have developed your problem statement and research questions , you should be ready to choose the specific case that you want to focus on. A good case study should have the potential to:

• Provide new or unexpected insights into the subject
• Challenge or complicate existing assumptions and theories
• Propose practical courses of action to resolve a problem
• Open up new directions for future research

Unlike quantitative or experimental research, a strong case study does not require a random or representative sample. In fact, case studies often deliberately focus on unusual, neglected, or outlying cases which may shed new light on the research problem.

If you find yourself aiming to simultaneously investigate and solve an issue, consider conducting action research . As its name suggests, action research conducts research and takes action at the same time, and is highly iterative and flexible. 

However, you can also choose a more common or representative case to exemplify a particular category, experience, or phenomenon.

While case studies focus more on concrete details than general theories, they should usually have some connection with theory in the field. This way the case study is not just an isolated description, but is integrated into existing knowledge about the topic. It might aim to:

• Exemplify a theory by showing how it explains the case under investigation
• Expand on a theory by uncovering new concepts and ideas that need to be incorporated
• Challenge a theory by exploring an outlier case that doesn’t fit with established assumptions

To ensure that your analysis of the case has a solid academic grounding, you should conduct a literature review of sources related to the topic and develop a theoretical framework . This means identifying key concepts and theories to guide your analysis and interpretation.

There are many different research methods you can use to collect data on your subject. Case studies tend to focus on qualitative data using methods such as interviews, observations, and analysis of primary and secondary sources (e.g., newspaper articles, photographs, official records). Sometimes a case study will also collect quantitative data .

The aim is to gain as thorough an understanding as possible of the case and its context.

In writing up the case study, you need to bring together all the relevant aspects to give as complete a picture as possible of the subject.

How you report your findings depends on the type of research you are doing. Some case studies are structured like a standard scientific paper or thesis, with separate sections or chapters for the methods , results , and discussion .

Others are written in a more narrative style, aiming to explore the case from various angles and analyse its meanings and implications (for example, by using textual analysis or discourse analysis ).

In all cases, though, make sure to give contextual details about the case, connect it back to the literature and theory, and discuss how it fits into wider patterns or debates.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, January 30). Case Study | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved 14 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/case-studies/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, correlational research | guide, design & examples, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, descriptive research design | definition, methods & examples.

Case Study Research Method in Psychology

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Case studies are in-depth investigations of a person, group, event, or community. Typically, data is gathered from various sources using several methods (e.g., observations & interviews).

The case study research method originated in clinical medicine (the case history, i.e., the patient’s personal history). In psychology, case studies are often confined to the study of a particular individual.

The information is mainly biographical and relates to events in the individual’s past (i.e., retrospective), as well as to significant events that are currently occurring in his or her everyday life.

The case study is not a research method, but researchers select methods of data collection and analysis that will generate material suitable for case studies.

Freud (1909a, 1909b) conducted very detailed investigations into the private lives of his patients in an attempt to both understand and help them overcome their illnesses.

This makes it clear that the case study is a method that should only be used by a psychologist, therapist, or psychiatrist, i.e., someone with a professional qualification.

There is an ethical issue of competence. Only someone qualified to diagnose and treat a person can conduct a formal case study relating to atypical (i.e., abnormal) behavior or atypical development.

 Famous Case Studies

• Anna O – One of the most famous case studies, documenting psychoanalyst Josef Breuer’s treatment of “Anna O” (real name Bertha Pappenheim) for hysteria in the late 1800s using early psychoanalytic theory.
• Little Hans – A child psychoanalysis case study published by Sigmund Freud in 1909 analyzing his five-year-old patient Herbert Graf’s house phobia as related to the Oedipus complex.
• Bruce/Brenda – Gender identity case of the boy (Bruce) whose botched circumcision led psychologist John Money to advise gender reassignment and raise him as a girl (Brenda) in the 1960s.
• Genie Wiley – Linguistics/psychological development case of the victim of extreme isolation abuse who was studied in 1970s California for effects of early language deprivation on acquiring speech later in life.
• Phineas Gage – One of the most famous neuropsychology case studies analyzes personality changes in railroad worker Phineas Gage after an 1848 brain injury involving a tamping iron piercing his skull.

Clinical Case Studies

• Studying the effectiveness of psychotherapy approaches with an individual patient
• Assessing and treating mental illnesses like depression, anxiety disorders, PTSD
• Neuropsychological cases investigating brain injuries or disorders

Child Psychology Case Studies

• Studying psychological development from birth through adolescence
• Cases of learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorders, ADHD
• Effects of trauma, abuse, deprivation on development

Types of Case Studies

• Explanatory case studies : Used to explore causation in order to find underlying principles. Helpful for doing qualitative analysis to explain presumed causal links.
• Exploratory case studies : Used to explore situations where an intervention being evaluated has no clear set of outcomes. It helps define questions and hypotheses for future research.
• Descriptive case studies : Describe an intervention or phenomenon and the real-life context in which it occurred. It is helpful for illustrating certain topics within an evaluation.
• Multiple-case studies : Used to explore differences between cases and replicate findings across cases. Helpful for comparing and contrasting specific cases.
• Intrinsic : Used to gain a better understanding of a particular case. Helpful for capturing the complexity of a single case.
• Collective : Used to explore a general phenomenon using multiple case studies. Helpful for jointly studying a group of cases in order to inquire into the phenomenon.

Where Do You Find Data for a Case Study?

There are several places to find data for a case study. The key is to gather data from multiple sources to get a complete picture of the case and corroborate facts or findings through triangulation of evidence. Most of this information is likely qualitative (i.e., verbal description rather than measurement), but the psychologist might also collect numerical data.

1. Primary sources

• Interviews – Interviewing key people related to the case to get their perspectives and insights. The interview is an extremely effective procedure for obtaining information about an individual, and it may be used to collect comments from the person’s friends, parents, employer, workmates, and others who have a good knowledge of the person, as well as to obtain facts from the person him or herself.
• Observations – Observing behaviors, interactions, processes, etc., related to the case as they unfold in real-time.
• Documents & Records – Reviewing private documents, diaries, public records, correspondence, meeting minutes, etc., relevant to the case.

2. Secondary sources

• News/Media – News coverage of events related to the case study.
• Academic articles – Journal articles, dissertations etc. that discuss the case.
• Government reports – Official data and records related to the case context.
• Books/films – Books, documentaries or films discussing the case.

3. Archival records

Searching historical archives, museum collections and databases to find relevant documents, visual/audio records related to the case history and context.

Public archives like newspapers, organizational records, photographic collections could all include potentially relevant pieces of information to shed light on attitudes, cultural perspectives, common practices and historical contexts related to psychology.

4. Organizational records

Organizational records offer the advantage of often having large datasets collected over time that can reveal or confirm psychological insights.

Of course, privacy and ethical concerns regarding confidential data must be navigated carefully.

However, with proper protocols, organizational records can provide invaluable context and empirical depth to qualitative case studies exploring the intersection of psychology and organizations.

• Organizational/industrial psychology research : Organizational records like employee surveys, turnover/retention data, policies, incident reports etc. may provide insight into topics like job satisfaction, workplace culture and dynamics, leadership issues, employee behaviors etc.
• Clinical psychology : Therapists/hospitals may grant access to anonymized medical records to study aspects like assessments, diagnoses, treatment plans etc. This could shed light on clinical practices.
• School psychology : Studies could utilize anonymized student records like test scores, grades, disciplinary issues, and counseling referrals to study child development, learning barriers, effectiveness of support programs, and more.

How do I Write a Case Study in Psychology?

Follow specified case study guidelines provided by a journal or your psychology tutor. General components of clinical case studies include: background, symptoms, assessments, diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Interpreting the information means the researcher decides what to include or leave out. A good case study should always clarify which information is the factual description and which is an inference or the researcher’s opinion.

1. Introduction

• Provide background on the case context and why it is of interest, presenting background information like demographics, relevant history, and presenting problem.
• Compare briefly to similar published cases if applicable. Clearly state the focus/importance of the case.

2. Case Presentation

• Describe the presenting problem in detail, including symptoms, duration,and impact on daily life.
• Include client demographics like age and gender, information about social relationships, and mental health history.
• Describe all physical, emotional, and/or sensory symptoms reported by the client.
• Use patient quotes to describe the initial complaint verbatim. Follow with full-sentence summaries of relevant history details gathered, including key components that led to a working diagnosis.
• Summarize clinical exam results, namely orthopedic/neurological tests, imaging, lab tests, etc. Note actual results rather than subjective conclusions. Provide images if clearly reproducible/anonymized.
• Clearly state the working diagnosis or clinical impression before transitioning to management.

3. Management and Outcome

• Indicate the total duration of care and number of treatments given over what timeframe. Use specific names/descriptions for any therapies/interventions applied.
• Present the results of the intervention,including any quantitative or qualitative data collected.
• For outcomes, utilize visual analog scales for pain, medication usage logs, etc., if possible. Include patient self-reports of improvement/worsening of symptoms. Note the reason for discharge/end of care.

4. Discussion

• Analyze the case, exploring contributing factors, limitations of the study, and connections to existing research.
• Analyze the effectiveness of the intervention,considering factors like participant adherence, limitations of the study, and potential alternative explanations for the results.
• Identify any questions raised in the case analysis and relate insights to established theories and current research if applicable. Avoid definitive claims about physiological explanations.
• Offer clinical implications, and suggest future research directions.

5. Additional Items

• Thank specific assistants for writing support only. No patient acknowledgments.
• References should directly support any key claims or quotes included.
• Use tables/figures/images only if substantially informative. Include permissions and legends/explanatory notes.
• Provides detailed (rich qualitative) information.
• Provides insight for further research.
• Permitting investigation of otherwise impractical (or unethical) situations.

Case studies allow a researcher to investigate a topic in far more detail than might be possible if they were trying to deal with a large number of research participants (nomothetic approach) with the aim of ‘averaging’.

Because of their in-depth, multi-sided approach, case studies often shed light on aspects of human thinking and behavior that would be unethical or impractical to study in other ways.

Research that only looks into the measurable aspects of human behavior is not likely to give us insights into the subjective dimension of experience, which is important to psychoanalytic and humanistic psychologists.

Case studies are often used in exploratory research. They can help us generate new ideas (that might be tested by other methods). They are an important way of illustrating theories and can help show how different aspects of a person’s life are related to each other.

The method is, therefore, important for psychologists who adopt a holistic point of view (i.e., humanistic psychologists ).

Limitations

• Lacking scientific rigor and providing little basis for generalization of results to the wider population.
• Researchers’ own subjective feelings may influence the case study (researcher bias).
• Difficult to replicate.
• Time-consuming and expensive.
• The volume of data, together with the time restrictions in place, impacted the depth of analysis that was possible within the available resources.

Because a case study deals with only one person/event/group, we can never be sure if the case study investigated is representative of the wider body of “similar” instances. This means the conclusions drawn from a particular case may not be transferable to other settings.

Because case studies are based on the analysis of qualitative (i.e., descriptive) data , a lot depends on the psychologist’s interpretation of the information she has acquired.

This means that there is a lot of scope for Anna O , and it could be that the subjective opinions of the psychologist intrude in the assessment of what the data means.

For example, Freud has been criticized for producing case studies in which the information was sometimes distorted to fit particular behavioral theories (e.g., Little Hans ).

This is also true of Money’s interpretation of the Bruce/Brenda case study (Diamond, 1997) when he ignored evidence that went against his theory.

Breuer, J., & Freud, S. (1895).  Studies on hysteria . Standard Edition 2: London.

Curtiss, S. (1981). Genie: The case of a modern wild child .

Diamond, M., & Sigmundson, K. (1997). Sex Reassignment at Birth: Long-term Review and Clinical Implications. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine , 151(3), 298-304

Freud, S. (1909a). Analysis of a phobia of a five year old boy. In The Pelican Freud Library (1977), Vol 8, Case Histories 1, pages 169-306

Freud, S. (1909b). Bemerkungen über einen Fall von Zwangsneurose (Der “Rattenmann”). Jb. psychoanal. psychopathol. Forsch ., I, p. 357-421; GW, VII, p. 379-463; Notes upon a case of obsessional neurosis, SE , 10: 151-318.

Harlow J. M. (1848). Passage of an iron rod through the head.  Boston Medical and Surgical Journal, 39 , 389–393.

Harlow, J. M. (1868).  Recovery from the Passage of an Iron Bar through the Head .  Publications of the Massachusetts Medical Society. 2  (3), 327-347.

Money, J., & Ehrhardt, A. A. (1972).  Man & Woman, Boy & Girl : The Differentiation and Dimorphism of Gender Identity from Conception to Maturity. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Money, J., & Tucker, P. (1975). Sexual signatures: On being a man or a woman.

Further Information

• Case Study Approach
• Case Study Method
• Enhancing the Quality of Case Studies in Health Services Research
• “We do things together” A case study of “couplehood” in dementia
• Using mixed methods for evaluating an integrative approach to cancer care: a case study

Related Articles

Research Methodology

What Is a Focus Group?

Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology

What Is Internal Validity In Research?

Research Methodology , Statistics

What Is Face Validity In Research? Importance & How To Measure

Criterion Validity: Definition & Examples

Convergent Validity: Definition and Examples

• 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 History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• 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 Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• 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 Acquisition
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• 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 Religion
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• 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 Science
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• 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 Politics
• Law and Society
• 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 Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• 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
• 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 Ethics
• 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 Security
• Computer Games
• 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 Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• 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 Strategy
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• 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 Systems
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• 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 Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• 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 >

51 The Case Study: What it is and What it Does

John Gerring is Professor of Political Science, Boston University.

• Published: 05 September 2013
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This article presents a reconstructed definition of the case study approach to research. This definition emphasizes comparative politics, which has been closely linked to this method since its creation. The article uses this definition as a basis to explore a series of contrasts between cross-case study and case study research. This article attempts to provide better understanding of this persisting methodological debate as a matter of tradeoffs, which may also contribute to destroying the boundaries that have separated these rival genres within the subfield of comparative politics.

Two centuries after Le Play’s pioneering work, the various disciplines of the social sciences continue to produce a vast number of case studies, many of which have entered the pantheon of classic works. Judging by the large volume of recent scholarly output the case study research design plays a central role in anthropology, archeology, business, education, history, medicine, political science, psychology, social work, and sociology (Gerring 2007 a , ch. 1 ). Even in economics and political economy, fields not usually noted for their receptiveness to case-based work, there has been something of a renaissance. Recent studies of economic growth have turned to case studies of unusual countries such as Botswana, Korea, and Mauritius. 1 Debates on the relationship between trade and growth and the IMF and growth have likewise combined cross-national regression evidence with in-depth (quantitativ and qualitative) case analysis ( Srinivasan and Bhagwati 1999 ; Vreeland 2003 ). Work on ethnic politics and ethnic conflict has exploited within-country variation or small-N cross-country comparisons ( Abadie and Gardeazabal 2003 ; Chandra 2004 ; Posner 2004 ). By the standard of praxis, therefore, it would appear that the method of the case study is solidly ensconced, perhaps even thriving. Arguably, we are witnessing a movement away from a variable-centered approach to causality in the social sciences and towards a case-based approach.

Indeed, the statistical analysis of cross-case observational data has been subjected to increasing scrutiny in recent years. It no longer seems self-evident, even to nomothetically inclined scholars, that non-experimental data drawn from nation-states, cities, social movements, civil conflicts, or other complex phenomena should be treated in standard regression formats. The complaints are myriad, and oftreviewed. 2 They include: (a) the problem of arriving at an adequate specification of the causal model, given a plethora of plausible models, and the associated problem of modeling interactions among these covariates; (b) identification problems, which cannot always be corrected by instrumental variable techniques; (c) the problem of “extreme” counterfactuals, i.e. extrapolating or interpolating results from a general model where the extrapolations extend beyond the observable data points; (d) problems posed by influential cases; (e) the arbitrariness of standard significance tests; (f) the misleading precision of point estimates in the context of “curve-fitting” models; (g) the problem of finding an appropriate estimator and modeling temporal autocorrelation in pooled time series; (h) the difficulty of identifying causal mechanisms; and last, but certainly not least, (i) the ubiquitous problem of faulty data drawn from a variety of questionable sources. Most of these difficulties may be understood as the by-product of causal variables that offer limited variation through time and cases that are extremely heterogeneous.

A principal factor driving the general discontent with cross-case observational research is a new-found interest in experimental models of social scientific research. Following the pioneering work of Donald Campbell (1988 ; Cook and Campbell 1979 ) and Donald Rubin (1974) , methodologists have taken a hard look at the regression model and discovered something rather obvious but at the same time crucially important: this research bears only a faint relationship to the true experiment, for all the reasons noted above. The current excitement generated by matching estimators, natural experiments, and field experiments may be understood as a move toward a quasi-experimental, and frequently case-based analysis of causal relations. Arguably, this is because the experimental ideal is often better approximated by a small number of cases that are closely related to one another, or by a single case observed over time, than by a large sample of heterogeneous units.

A third factor militating towards case-based analysis is the development of a series of alternatives to the standard linear/additive model of cross-case analysis, thus establishing a more variegated set of tools to capture the complexity of social behavior (see Brady and Collier 2004 ). Charles Ragin and associates have shown us how to deal with situations where multiple causal paths lead to the same set of outcomes, a series of techniques known as Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) (“Symposium: Qualitative Comparative Analysis” 2004). Andrew Abbott has worked out a method that maps causal sequences across cases, known as optimal sequence matching ( Abbott 2001 ; Abbott and Forrest 1986 ; Abbott and Tsay 2000 ). Bear Braumoeller, Gary Goertz, Jack Levy, and Harvey Starr have defended the importance of necessary-condition arguments in the social sciences, and have shown how these arguments might be analyzed ( Braumoeller and Goertz 2000 ; Goertz 2003 ; Goertz and Levy forthcoming; Goertz and Starr 2003 ). James Fearon, Ned Lebow, Philip Tetlock, and others have explored the role of counterfactual thought experiments in the analysis of individual case histories ( Fearon 1991 ; Lebow 2000 ; Tetlock and Belkin 1996 ). Colin Elman has developed a typological method of analyzing cases ( Elman 2005 ). David Collier, Jack Goldstone, Peter Hall, James Mahoney, and Dietrich Rueschemeyer have worked to revitalize the comparative and comparative-historical methods ( Collier 1993 ; Goldstone 1997 ; Hall 2003 ; Mahoney and Rueschemeyer 2003 ). And scores of researchers have attacked the problem of how to convert the relevant details of a temporally constructed narrative into standardized formats so that cases can be meaningfully compared (Abell 1987 , 2004 ; Abbott 1992 ; Buthe 2002 ; Griffin 1993 ). While not all of these techniques are, strictly speaking, case study techniques—since they sometimes involve a large number of cases—they do move us closer to a case-based understanding of causation insofar as they preserve the texture and detail of individual cases, features that are often lost in large-N cross-case analysis.

A fourth factor concerns the recent marriage of rational choice tools with case study analysis, sometimes referred to as an “analytic narrative” ( Bates et al. 1998 ). Whether the technique is qualitative or quantitative, scholars equipped with economic models are turning, increasingly, to case studies in order to test the theoretical predictions of a general model, investigate causal mechanisms, and/or explain the features of a key case.

Finally, epistemological shifts in recent decades have enhanced the attractiveness of the case study format. The “positivist” model of explanation, which informed work in the social sciences through most of the twentieth century, tended to downplay the importance of causal mechanisms in the analysis of causal relations. Famously, Milton Friedman (1953) argued that the only criterion of a model was to be found in its accurate prediction of outcomes. The verisimilitude of the model, its accurate depiction of reality, was beside the point. In recent years, this explanatory trope has come under challenge from “realists,” who claim (among other things) that causal analysis should pay close attention to causal mechanisms (e.g. Bunge 1997 ; Little 1998 ). Within political science and sociology, the identification of a specific mechanism—a causal pathway—has come to be seen as integral to causal analysis, regardless of whether the model in question is formal or informal or whether the evidence is qualitative or quantitative ( Achen 2002 ; Elster 1998 ; George and Bennett 2005 ; Hedstrom and Swedberg 1998 ). Given this new-found (or at least newly self-conscious) interest in mechanisms, it is not surprising that social scientists would turn to case studies as a mode of causal investigation.

For all the reasons stated above, one might intuit that social science is moving towards a case-based understanding of causal relations. Yet, this movement, insofar as it exists, has scarcely been acknowledged, and would certainly be challenged by many close observers—including some of those cited in the foregoing passages.

The fact is that the case study research design is still viewed by most methodologists with extreme circumspection. A work that focuses its attention on a single example of a broader phenomenon is apt to be described as a “mere” case study, and is often identified with loosely framed and non-generalizable theories, biased case selection, informal and undisciplined research designs, weak empirical leverage (too many variables and too few cases), subjective conclusions, non-replicability, and causal determinism. To some, the term case study is an ambiguous designation covering a multitude of “inferential felonies.” 3

The quasi-mystical qualities associated with the case study persist to this day. In the field of psychology, a gulf separates “scientists” engaged in cross-case research and “practitioners” engaged in clinical research, usually focused on several cases ( Hersen and Barlow 1976 , 21). In the fields of political science and sociology, case study researchers are acknowledged to be on the “soft” side of hard disciplines. And across fields, the persisting case study orientations of anthropology, education, law, social work, and various other fields and subfields relegate them to the non-rigorous, non-systematic, non-scientific, non-positivist end of the academic spectrum.

The methodological status of the case study is still, officially, suspect. Even among its defenders there is confusion over the virtues and vices of this ambiguous research design. Practitioners continue to ply their trade but have difficulty articulating what it is they are doing, methodologically speaking. The case study survives in a curious methodological limbo.

This leads to a paradox: although much of what we know about the empirical world has been generated by case studies and case studies continue to constitute a large proportion of work generated by the social science disciplines, the case study method is poorly understood.

How can we make sense of the profound disjuncture between the acknowledged contributions of this genre to the various disciplines of social science and its maligned status within these disciplines? If case studies are methodologically flawed, why do they persist? Should they be rehabilitated, or suppressed? How fruitful is this style of research?

In this chapter, I provide a reconstructed definition of the case study approach to research with special emphasis on comparative politics, a field that has been closely identified with this method since its birth. Based on this definition, I then explore a series of contrasts between case study and cross-case study research. These contrasts are intended to illuminate the characteristic strengths and weaknesses (“affinities”) of these two research designs, not to vindicate one or the other. The effort of this chapter is to understand this persisting methodological debate as a matter of tradeoffs. Case studies and cross-case studies explore the world in different ways. Yet, properly constituted, there is no reason that case study results cannot be synthesized with results gained from cross-case analysis, and vice versa. My hope, therefore, is that this chapter will contribute to breaking down the boundaries that have separated these rival genres within the subfield of comparative politics.

1 Definitions

The key term of this chapter is, admittedly, a definitional morass. To refer to a work as a “case study” might mean: that its method is qualitative, small-N; that the research is holistic, thick (a more or less comprehensive examination of a phenomenon); that it utilizes a particular type of evidence (e.g. ethnographic, clinical, non-experimental, non-survey based, participant observation, process tracing, historical, textual, or field research); that its method of evidence gathering is naturalistic (a “real-life context”); that the research investigates the properties of a single observation; or that the research investigates the properties of a single phenomenon, instance, or example. Evidently, researchers have many things in mind when they talk about case study research. Confusion is compounded by the existence of a large number of near-synonyms—single unit, single subject, single case, N = 1, case based, case control, case history, case method, case record, case work, clinical research, and so forth. As a result of this profusion of terms and meanings, proponents and opponents of the case study marshal a wide range of arguments but do not seem any closer to agreement than when this debate was first broached several decades ago.

Can we reconstruct this concept in a clearer, more productive fashion? In order to do so we must understand how the key terms—case and case study—are situated within a neighborhood of related terms. In this crowded semantic field, each term is defined in relation to others. And in the context of a specific work or research terrain, they all take their meaning from a specific inference. (The reader should bear in mind that any change in the inference, and the meaning of all the key terms will probably change.) My attempt here will be to provide a single, determinate, definition of these key terms. Of course, researchers may choose to define these terms in many different ways. However, for purposes of methodological discussion it is helpful to enforce a uniform vocabulary.

Let us stipulate that a case connotes a spatially delimited phenomenon (a unit) observed at a single point in time or over some period of time. It comprises the sort of phenomena that an inference attempts to explain. Thus, in a study that attempts to explain certain features of nation-states, cases are comprised of nation-states (across some temporal frame). In a study that attempts to explain the behavior of individuals, individuals comprise the cases. And so forth. Each case may provide a single observation or multiple (within-case) observations.

For students of comparative politics, the archetypal case is the dominant political unit of our time, the nation-state. However, the study of smaller social and political units (regions, cities, villages, communities, social groups, families) or specific institutions (political parties, interest groups, businesses) is equally common in other subfields, and perhaps increasingly so in comparative politics. Whatever the chosen unit, the methodological issues attached to the case study have nothing to do with the size of the individual cases. A case may be created out of any phenomenon so long as it has identifiable boundaries and comprises the primary object of an inference.

Note that the spatial boundaries of a case are often more apparent than its temporal boundaries. We know, more or less, where a country begins and ends, even though we may have difficulty explaining when a country begins and ends. Yet, some temporal boundaries must be assumed. This is particularly important when cases consist of discrete events—crises, revolutions, legislative acts, and so forth—within a single unit. Occasionally, the temporal boundaries of a case are more obvious than its spatial boundaries. This is true when the phenomena under study are eventful but the unit undergoing the event is amorphous. For example, if one is studying terrorist attacks it may not be clear how the spatial unit of analysis should be understood, but the events themselves may be well bounded.

A case study may be understood as the intensive study of a single case for the purpose of understanding a larger class of cases (a population). Case study research may incorporate several cases. However, at a certain point it will no longer be possible to investigate those cases intensively. At the point where the emphasis of a study shifts from the individual case to a sample of cases we shall say that a study is cross-case . Evidently, the distinction between a case study and cross-case study is a continuum. The fewer cases there are, and the more intensively they are studied, the more a work merits the appellation case study. Even so, this proves to be a useful distinction, for much follows from it.

A few additional terms will now be formally defined.

An observation is the most basic element of any empirical endeavor. Conventionally, the number of observations in an analysis is referred to with the letter N . (Confusingly, N may also be used to designate the number of cases in a study, a usage that I shall try to avoid.) A single observation may be understood as containing several dimensions, each of which may be measured (across disparate observations) as a variable. Where the proposition is causal, these may be subdivided into dependent (Y) and independent (X) variables. The dependent variable refers to the outcome of an investigation. The independent variable refers to the explanatory (causal) factor, that which the outcome is supposedly dependent on.

Note that a case may consist of a single observation (N = 1). This would be true, for example, in a cross-sectional analysis of multiple cases. In a case study, however, the case under study always provides more than one observation. These may be constructed diachronically (by observing the case or some subset of within-case units through time) or synchronically (by observing within-case variation at a single point in time).

This is a clue to the fact that case studies and cross-case usually operate at different levels of analysis. The case study is typically focused on within-case variation (if there a cross-case component it is probably secondary). The cross-case study, as the name suggests, is typically focused on cross-case variation (if there is also within-case variation, it is secondary in importance). They have the same object in view—the explanation of a population of cases—but they go about this task differently.

A sample consists of whatever cases are subjected to formal analysis; they are the immediate subject of a study or case study. (Confusingly, the sample may also refer to the observations under study, and will be so used at various points in this narrative. But at present, we treat the sample as consisting of cases.) Technically, one might say that in a case study the sample consists of the case or cases that are subjected to intensive study. However, usually when one uses the term sample one is implying that the number of cases is rather large. Thus, “sample-based work” will be understood as referring to large-N cross-case methods—the opposite of case study work. Again, the only feature distinguishing the case study format from a sample-based (or “cross-case”) research design is the number of cases falling within the sample—one or a few versus many. Case studies, like large-N samples, seek to represent, in all ways relevant to the proposition at hand, a population of cases. A series of case studies might therefore be referred to as a sample if they are relatively brief and relatively numerous; it is a matter of emphasis and of degree. The more case studies one has, the less intensively each one is studied, and the more confident one is in their representativeness (of some broader population), the more likely one is to describe them as a sample rather than a series of case studies. For practical reasons—unless, that is, a study is extraordinarily long—the case study research format is usually limited to a dozen cases or less. A single case is not at all unusual.

The sample rests within a population of cases to which a given proposition refers. The population of an inference is thus equivalent to the breadth or scope of a proposition. (I use the terms proposition , hypothesis , inference , and argument interchangeably.) Note that most samples are not exhaustive; hence the use of the term sample, referring to sampling from a population. Occasionally, however, the sample equals the population of an inference; all potential cases are studied.

For those familiar with the rectangular form of a dataset it may be helpful to conceptualize observations as rows, variables as columns, and cases as either groups of observations or individual observations.

2 What is a Case Study Good For? Case Study versus Cross-case Analysis

I have argued that the case study approach to research is most usefully defined as the intensive study of a single unit or a small number of units (the cases), for the purpose of understanding a larger class of similar units (a population of cases). This is put forth as a minimal definition of the topic. 4 I now proceed to discuss the non -definitional attributes of the case study—attributes that are often, but not invariably, associated with the case study method. These will be understood as methodological affinities flowing from a minimal definition of the concept. 5

The case study research design exhibits characteristic strengths and weaknesses relative to its large-N cross-case cousin. These tradeoffs derive, first of all, from basic research goals such as (1) whether the study is oriented toward hypothesis generating or hypothesis testing, (2) whether internal or external validity is prioritized, (3) whether insight into causal mechanisms or causal effects is more valuable, and (4) whether the scope of the causal inference is deep or broad. These tradeoffs also hinge on the shape of the empirical universe, i.e. (5) whether the population of cases under study is heterogeneous or homogeneous, (6) whether the causal relationship of interest is strong or weak, (7) whether useful variation on key parameters within that population is rare or common, and (8) whether available data are concentrated or dispersed.

Along each of these dimensions, case study research has an affinity for the first factor and cross-case research has an affinity for the second, as summarized in Table 51.1 . To clarify, these tradeoffs represent methodological affinities , not invariant laws. Exceptions can be found to each one. Even so, these general tendencies are often noted in case study research and have been reproduced in multiple disciplines and subdisciplines over the course of many decades.

It should be stressed that each of these tradeoffs carries a ceteris paribus caveat. Case studies are more useful for generating new hypotheses, all other things being equal . The reader must bear in mind that many additional factors also rightly influence a writer’s choice of research design, and they may lean in the other direction. Ceteris are not always paribus. One should not jump to conclusions about the research design appropriate to a given setting without considering the entire range of issues involved—some of which may be more important than others.

3 Hypothesis: Generating versus Testing

Social science research involves a quest for new theories as well as a testing of existing theories; it is comprised of both “conjectures” and “refutations.” 6 Regrettably, social science methodology has focused almost exclusively on the latter. The conjectural element of social science is usually dismissed as a matter of guesswork, inspiration, or luck—a leap of faith, and hence a poor subject for methodological reflection. 7 Yet, it will readily be granted that many works of social science, including most of the acknowledged classics, are seminal rather than definitive. Their classic status derives from the introduction of a new idea or a new perspective that is subsequently subjected to more rigorous (and refutable) analysis. Indeed, it is difficult to devise a program of falsification the first time a new theory is proposed. Path-breaking research, almost by definition, is protean. Subsequent research on that topic tends to be more definitive insofar as its primary task is limited: to verify or falsify a pre-existing hypothesis. Thus, the world of social science may be usefully divided according to the predominant goal undertaken in a given study, either hypothesis generating or hypothesis testing . There are two moments of empirical research, a lightbulb moment and a skeptical moment, each of which is essential to the progress of a discipline. 8

Case studies enjoy a natural advantage in research of an exploratory nature. Several millennia ago, Hippocrates reported what were, arguably, the first case studies ever conducted. They were fourteen in number. 9 Darwin’s insights into the process of human evolution came after his travels to a few select locations, notably Easter Island. Freud’s revolutionary work on human psychology was constructed from a close observation of fewer than a dozen clinical cases. Piaget formulated his theory of human cognitive development while watching his own two children as they passed from childhood to adulthood. Lévi-Strauss’s structuralist theory of human cultures built on the analysis of several North and South American tribes. Douglass North’s neo-institutionalist theory of economic development was constructed largely through a close analysis of a handful of early developing states (primarily England, the Netherlands, and the United States). 10 Many other examples might be cited of seminal ideas that derived from the intensive study of a few key cases.

Evidently, the sheer number of examples of a given phenomenon does not, by itself, produce insight. It may only confuse. How many times did Newton observe apples fall before he recognized the nature of gravity? This is an apocryphal example, but it illustrates a central point: case studies may be more useful than cross-case studies when a subject is being encountered for the first time or is being considered in a fundamentally new way. After reviewing the case study approach to medical research, one researcher finds that although case reports are commonly regarded as the lowest or weakest form of evidence, they are nonetheless understood to comprise “the first line of evidence.” The hallmark of case reporting, according to Jan Vandenbroucke, “is to recognize the unexpected.” This is where discovery begins. 11

The advantages that case studies offer in work of an exploratory nature may also serve as impediments in work of a confirmatory/disconfirmatory nature. Let us briefly explore why this might be so. 12

Traditionally, scientific methodology has been defined by a segregation of conjecture and refutation. One should not be allowed to contaminate the other. 13 Yet, in the real world of social science, inspiration is often associated with perspiration. “Lightbulb” moments arise from a close engagement with the particular facts of a particular case. Inspiration is more likely to occur in the laboratory than in the shower.

The circular quality of conjecture and refutation is particularly apparent in case study research. Charles Ragin notes that case study research is all about “casing”—defining the topic, including the hypothesis(es) of primary interest, the outcome, and the set of cases that offer relevant information vis-à-vis the hypothesis. 14 A study of the French Revolution may be conceptualized as a study of revolution, of social revolution, of revolt, of political violence, and so forth. Each of these topics entails a different population and a different set of causal factors. A good deal of authorial intervention is necessary in the course of defining a case study topic, for there is a great deal of evidentiary leeway. Yet, the “subjectivity” of case study research allows for the generation of a great number of hypotheses, insights that might not be apparent to the cross-case researcher who works with a thinner set of empirical data across a large number of cases and with a more determinate (fixed) definition of cases, variables, and outcomes. It is the very fuzziness of case studies that grants them an advantage in research at the exploratory stage, for the single-case study allows one to test a multitude of hypotheses in a rough-and-ready way. Nor is this an entirely “conjectural” process. The relationships discovered among different elements of a single case have a prima facie causal connection: they are all at the scene of the crime. This is revelatory when one is at an early stage of analysis, for at that point there is no identifiable suspect and the crime itself may be difficult to discern. The fact that A , B , and C are present at the expected times and places (relative to some outcome of interest) is sufficient to establish them as independent variables. Proximal evidence is all that is required. Hence, the common identification of case studies as “plausibility probes,” “pilot studies,” “heuristic studies,” “exploratory” and “theory-building” exercises. 15

A large-N cross-study, by contrast, generally allows for the testing of only a few hypotheses but does so with a somewhat greater degree of confidence, as is appropriate to work whose primary purpose is to test an extant theory. There is less room for authorial intervention because evidence gathered from a cross-case research design can be interpreted in a limited number of ways. It is therefore more reliable. Another way of stating the point is to say that while case studies lean toward Type 1 errors (falsely rejecting the null hypothesis), cross-case studies lean toward Type 2 errors (failing to reject the false null hypothesis). This explains why case studies are more likely to be paradigm generating, while cross-case studies toil in the prosaic but highly structured field of normal science.

I do not mean to suggest that case studies never serve to confirm or disconfirm hypotheses. Evidence drawn from a single case may falsify a necessary or sufficient hypothesis, as discussed below. Additionally, case studies are often useful for the purpose of elucidating causal mechanisms, and this obviously affects the plausibility of an X/Y relationship. However, general theories rarely offer the kind of detailed and determinate predictions on within-case variation that would allow one to reject a hypothesis through pattern matching (without additional cross-case evidence). Theory testing is not the case study’s strong suit. The selection of “crucial” cases is at pains to overcome the fact that the cross-case N is minimal. Thus, one is unlikely to reject a hypothesis, or to consider it definitively proved, on the basis of the study of a single case.

Harry Eckstein himself acknowledges that his argument for case studies as a form of theory confirmation is largely hypothetical. At the time of writing, several decades ago, he could not point to any social science study where a crucial case study had performed the heroic role assigned to it. 16 I suspect that this is still more or less true. Indeed, it is true even of experimental case studies in the natural sciences. “We must recognize,” note Donald Campbell and Julian Stanley,

that continuous, multiple experimentation is more typical of science than once-and-for-all definitive experiments. The experiments we do today, if successful, will need replication and cross-validation at other times under other conditions before they can become an established part of science … [E]ven though we recognize experimentation as the basic language of proof … we should not expect that “crucial experiments” which pit opposing theories will be likely to have clear-cut outcomes. When one finds, for example, that competent observers advocate strongly divergent points of view, it seems likely on a priori grounds that both have observed something valid about the natural situation, and that both represent a part of the truth. The stronger the controversy, the more likely this is. Thus we might expect in such cases an experimental outcome with mixed results, or with the balance of truth varying subtly from experiment to experiment. The more mature focus…avoids crucial experiments and instead studies dimensional relationships and interactions along many degrees of the experimental variables. 17

A single case study is still a single shot—a single example of a larger phenomenon.

The tradeoff between hypothesis generating and hypothesis testing helps us to reconcile the enthusiasm of case study researchers and the skepticism of case study critics. They are both right, for the looseness of case study research is a boon to new conceptualizations just as it is a bane to falsification.

4 Validity: Internal versus External

Questions of validity are often distinguished according to those that are internal to the sample under study and those that are external (i.e. applying to a broader—unstudied—population). Cross-case research is always more representative of the population of interest than case study research, so long as some sensible procedure of case selection is followed (presumably some version of random sampling). Case study research suffers problems of representativeness because it includes, by definition, only a small number of cases of some more general phenomenon. Are the men chosen by Robert Lane typical of white, immigrant, working-class, American males? 18 Is Middletown representative of other cities in America? 19 These sorts of questions forever haunt case study research. This means that case study research is generally weaker with respect to external validity than its cross-case cousin.

The corresponding virtue of case study research is its internal validity. Often, though not invariably, it is easier to establish the veracity of a causal relationship pertaining to a single case (or a small number of cases) than for a larger set of cases. Case study researchers share the bias of experimentalists in this regard: they tend to be more disturbed by threats to within-sample validity than by threats to out-of-sample validity. Thus, it seems appropriate to regard the tradeoff between external and internal validity, like other tradeoffs, as intrinsic to the cross-case/single-case choice of research design.

5 Causal Insight: Causal Mechanisms versus Causal Effects

A third tradeoff concerns the sort of insight into causation that a researcher intends to achieve. Two goals may be usefully distinguished. The first concerns an estimate of the causal effect ; the second concerns the investigation of a causal mechanism (i.e. pathway from X to Y).

By causal effect I refer to two things: (a) the magnitude of a causal relationship (the expected effect on Y of a given change in X across a population of cases) and (b) the relative precision or uncertainty associated with that point estimate. Evidently, it is difficult to arrive at a reliable estimate of causal effects across a population of cases by looking at only a single case or a small number of cases. (The one exception would be an experiment in which a given case can be tested repeatedly, returning to a virgin condition after each test. But here one faces inevitable questions about the representativeness of that much-studied case.) 20 Thus, the estimate of a causal effect is almost always grounded in cross-case evidence.

It is now well established that causal arguments depend not only on measuring causal effects, but also on the identification of a causal mechanism. 21   X must be connected with Y in a plausible fashion; otherwise, it is unclear whether a pattern of covariation is truly causal in nature, or what the causal interaction might be. Moreover, without a clear understanding of the causal pathway(s) at work in a causal relationship it is impossible to accurately specify the model, to identify possible instruments for the regressor of interest (if there are problems of endogeneity), or to interpret the results. 22 Thus, causal mechanisms are presumed in every estimate of a mean (average) causal effect.

In the task of investigating causal mechanisms, cross-case studies are often not so illuminating. It has become a common criticism of large-N cross-national research—e.g. into the causes of growth, democracy, civil war, and other national-level outcomes—that such studies demonstrate correlations between inputs and outputs without clarifying the reasons for those correlations (i.e. clear causal pathways). We learn, for example, that infant mortality is strongly correlated with state failure; 23 but it is quite another matter to interpret this finding, which is consistent with a number of different causal mechanisms. Sudden increases in infant mortality might be the product of famine, of social unrest, of new disease vectors, of government repression, and of countless other factors, some of which might be expected to impact the stability of states, and others of which are more likely to be a result of state instability.

Case studies, if well constructed, may allow one to peer into the box of causality to locate the intermediate factors lying between some structural cause and its purported effect. Ideally, they allow one to “see” X and Y interact—Hume’s billiard ball crossing the table and hitting a second ball. 24 Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss point out that in fieldwork “general relations are often discovered in vivo ; that is, the field worker literally sees them occur.” 25 When studying decisional behavior case study research may offer insight into the intentions, the reasoning capabilities, and the information-processing procedures of the actors involved in a given setting. Thus, Dennis Chong uses in-depth interviews with a very small sample of respondents in order to better understand the process by which people reach decisions about civil liberties issues. Chong comments:

One of the advantages of the in-depth interview over the mass survey is that it records more fully how subjects arrive at their opinions. While we cannot actually observe the underlying mental process that gives rise to their responses, we can witness many of its outward manifestations. The way subjects ramble, hesitate, stumble, and meander as they formulate their answers tips us off to how they are thinking and reasoning through political issues. 26

Similarly, the investigation of a single case may allow one to test the causal implications of a theory, thus providing corroborating evidence for a causal argument. This is sometimes referred to as pattern matching ( Campbell 1988 ).

Dietrich Rueschemeyer and John Stephens offer an example of how an examination of causal mechanisms may call into question a general theory based on cross-case evidence. The thesis of interest concerns the role of British colonialism in fostering democracy among postcolonial regimes. In particular, the authors investigate the diffusion hypothesis, that democracy was enhanced by “the transfer of British governmental and representative institutions and the tutoring of the colonial people in the ways of British government.” On the basis of in-depth analysis of several cases the authors report:

We did find evidence of this diffusion effect in the British settler colonies of North America and the Antipodes; but in the West Indies, the historical record points to a different connection between British rule and democracy. There the British colonial administration opposed suffrage extension, and only the white elites were “tutored” in the representative institutions. But, critically, we argued on the basis of the contrast with Central America, British colonialism did prevent the local plantation elites from controlling the local state and responding to the labor rebellion of the 1930s with massive repression. Against the adamant opposition of that elite, the British colonial rulers responded with concessions which allowed for the growth of the party– union complexes rooted in the black middle and working classes, which formed the backbone of the later movement for democracy and independence. Thus, the narrative histories of these cases indicate that the robust statistical relation between British colonialism and democracy is produced only in part by diffusion. The interaction of class forces, state power, and colonial policy must be brought in to fully account for the statistical result. 27

Whether or not Rueschemeyer and Stephens are correct in their conclusions need not concern us here. What is critical, however, is that any attempt to deal with this question of causal mechanisms is heavily reliant on evidence drawn from case studies. In this instance, as in many others, the question of causal pathways is simply too difficult, requiring too many poorly measured or unmeasurable variables, to allow for accurate cross-sectional analysis. 28

To be sure, causal mechanisms do not always require explicit attention. They may be quite obvious. And in other circumstances, they may be amenable to cross-case investigation. For example, a sizeable literature addresses the causal relationship between trade openness and the welfare state. The usual empirical finding is that more open economies are associated with higher social welfare spending. The question then becomes why such a robust correlation exists. What are the plausible interconnections between trade openness and social welfare spending? One possible causal path, suggested by David Cameron, 29 is that increased trade openness leads to greater domestic economic vulnerability to external shocks (due, for instance, to changing terms of trade). If so, one should find a robust correlation between annual variations in a country’s terms of trade (a measure of economic vulnerability) and social welfare spending. As it happens, the correlation is not robust and this leads some commentators to doubt whether the putative causal mechanism proposed by David Cameron and many others is actually at work. 30 Thus, in instances where an intervening variable can be effectively operationalized across a large sample of cases it may be possible to test causal mechanisms without resorting to case study investigation. 31

Even so, the opportunities for investigating causal pathways are generally more apparent in a case study format. Consider the contrast between formulating a standardized survey for a large group of respondents and formulating an in-depth interview with a single subject or a small set of subjects, such as that undertaken by Dennis Chong in the previous example. In the latter situation, the researcher is able to probe into details that would be impossible to delve into, let alone anticipate, in a standardized survey. She may also be in a better position to make judgements as to the veracity and reliability of the respondent. Tracing causal mechanisms is about cultivating sensitivity to a local context. Often, these local contexts are essential to cross-case testing. Yet, the same factors that render case studies useful for micro-level investigation also make them less useful for measuring mean (average) causal effects. It is a classic tradeoff.

6 Scope of Proposition: Deep versus Broad

The utility of a case study mode of analysis is in part a product of the scope of the causal argument that a researcher wishes to prove or demonstrate. Arguments that strive for great breadth are usually in greater need of cross-case evidence; causal arguments restricted to a small set of cases can more plausibly subsist on the basis of a single-case study. The extensive/intensive tradeoff is fairly commonsensical. 32 A case study of France probably offers more useful evidence for an argument about Europe than for an argument about the whole world. Propositional breadth and evidentiary breadth generally go hand in hand.

Granted, there are a variety of ways in which single-case studies can credibly claim to provide evidence for causal propositions of broad reach—e.g. by choosing cases that are especially representative of the phenomenon under study (“typical” cases) or by choosing cases that represent the most difficult scenario for a given proposition and are thus biased against the attainment of certain results (“crucial” cases). Even so, a proposition with a narrow scope is more conducive to case study analysis than a proposition with a broad purview, all other things being equal. The breadth of an inference thus constitutes one factor, among many, in determining the utility of the case study mode of analysis. This is reflected in the hesitancy of many case study researchers to invoke determinate causal propositions with great reach—“covering laws,” in the idiom of philosophy of science.

By the same token, one of the primary virtues of the case study method is the depth of analysis that it offers. One may think of depth as referring to the detail, richness, completeness, wholeness, or the degree of variance in an outcome that is accounted for by an explanation. The case study researcher’s complaint about the thinness of cross-case analysis is well taken; such studies often have little to say about individual cases. Otherwise stated, cross-case studies are likely to explain only a small portion of the variance with respect to a given outcome. They approach that outcome at a very general level. Typically, a cross-case study aims only to explain the occurrence/non-occurrence of a revolution, while a case study might also strive to explain specific features of that event—why it occurred when it did and in the way that it did. Case studies are thus rightly identified with “holistic” analysis and with the “thick” description of events. 33

Whether to strive for breadth or depth is not a question that can be answered in any definitive way. All we can safely conclude is that researchers invariably face a choice between knowing more about less, or less about more. The case study method may be defended, as well as criticized, along these lines. 34 Indeed, arguments about the “contextual sensitivity” of case studies are perhaps more precisely (and fairly) understood as arguments about depth and breadth. The case study researcher who feels that cross-case research on a topic is insensitive to context is usually not arguing that nothing at all is consistent across the chosen cases. Rather, the case study researcher’s complaint is that much more could be said—accurately—about the phenomenon in question with a reduction in inferential scope. 35

Indeed, I believe that a number of traditional issues related to case study research can be understood as the product of this basic tradeoff. For example, case study research is often lauded for its holistic approach to the study of social phenomena in which behavior is observed in natural settings. Cross-case research, by contrast, is criticized for its construction of artificial research designs that decontextualize the realm of social behavior by employing abstract variables that seem to bear little relationship to the phenomena of interest. 36 These associated congratulations and critiques may be understood as a conscious choice on the part of case study researchers to privilege depth over breadth.

7 The Population of Cases: Heterogeneous versus Homogeneous

The choice between a case study and cross-case style of analysis is driven not only by the goals of the researcher, as reviewed above, but also by the shape of the empirical universe that the researcher is attempting to understand. Consider, for starters, that the logic of cross-case analysis is premised on some degree of cross-unit comparability (unit homogeneity). Cases must be similar to each other in whatever respects might affect the causal relationship that the writer is investigating, or such differences must be controlled for. Uncontrolled heterogeneity means that cases are “apples and oranges;” one cannot learn anything about underlying causal processes by comparing their histories. The underlying factors of interest mean different things in different contexts (conceptual stretching) or the X/Y relationship of interest is different in different contexts (unit heterogeneity).

Case study researchers are often suspicious of large-sample research, which, they suspect, contains heterogeneous cases whose differences cannot easily be modeled. “Variable-oriented” research is said to involve unrealistic “homogenizing assumptions.” 37 In the field of international relations, for example, it is common to classify cases according to whether they are deterrence failures or deterrence successes. However, Alexander George and Richard Smoke point out that “the separation of the dependent variable into only two subclasses, deterrence success and deterrence failure,” neglects the great variety of ways in which deterrence can fail. Deterrence, in their view, has many independent causal paths (causal equifinality), and these paths may be obscured when a study lumps heterogeneous cases into a common sample. 38

Another example, drawn from clinical work in psychology, concerns heterogeneity among a sample of individuals. Michel Hersen and David Barlow explain:

Descriptions of results from 50 cases provide a more convincing demonstration of the effectiveness of a given technique than separate descriptions of 50 individual cases. The major difficulty with this approach, however, is that the category in which these clients are classified most always becomes unmanageably heterogeneous. “Neurotics,” [for example], …may have less in common than any group of people one would choose randomly. When cases are described individually, however, a clinician stands a better chance of gleaning some important information, since specific problems and specific procedures are usually described in more detail. When one lumps cases together in broadly defined categories, individual case descriptions are lost and the ensuing report of percentage success becomes meaningless. 39

Under circumstances of extreme case heterogeneity, the researcher may decide that she is better off focusing on a single case or a small number of relatively homogeneous cases. Within-case evidence, or cross-case evidence drawn from a handful of most-similar cases, may be more useful than cross-case evidence, even though the ultimate interest of the investigator is in a broader population of cases. (Suppose one has a population of very heterogeneous cases, one or two of which undergo quasi-experimental transformations. Probably, one gains greater insight into causal patterns throughout the population by examining these cases in detail than by undertaking some large-N cross-case analysis.) By the same token, if the cases available for study are relatively homogeneous, then the methodological argument for cross-case analysis is correspondingly strong. The inclusion of additional cases is unlikely to compromise the results of the investigation because these additional cases are sufficiently similar to provide useful information.

The issue of population heterogeneity/homogeneity may be understood, therefore, as a tradeoff between N (observations) and K (variables). If, in the quest to explain a particular phenomenon, each potential case offers only one observation and also requires one control variable (to neutralize heterogeneities in the resulting sample), then one loses degrees of freedom with each additional case. There is no point in using cross-case analysis or in extending a two-case study to further cases. If, on the other hand, each additional case is relatively cheap—if no control variables are needed or if the additional case offers more than one useful observation (through time)—then a cross-case research design may be warranted. 40 To put the matter more simply, when adjacent cases are unit homogeneous the addition of more cases is easy, for there is no (or very little) heterogeneity to model. When adjacent cases are heterogeneous additional cases are expensive, for every added heterogeneous element must be correctly modeled, and each modeling adjustment requires a separate (and probably unverifiable) assumption. The more background assumptions are required in order to make a causal inference, the more tenuous that inference is; it is not simply a question of attaining statistical significance. The ceteris paribus assumption at the core of all causal analysis is brought into question. In any case, the argument between case study and cross-case research designs is not about causal complexity per se (in the sense in which this concept is usually employed), but rather about the tradeoff between N and K in a particular empirical realm, and about the ability to model case heterogeneity through statistical legerdemain. 41

Before concluding this discussion it is important to point out that researchers’ judgements about case comparability are not, strictly speaking, matters that can be empirically verified. To be sure, one can look—and ought to look—for empirical patterns among potential cases. If those patterns are strong then the assumption of case comparability seems reasonably secure, and if they are not then there are grounds for doubt. However, debates about case comparability usually concern borderline instances. Consider that many phenomena of interest to social scientists are not rigidly bounded. If one is studying democracies there is always the question of how to define a democracy, and therefore of determining how high or low the threshold for inclusion in the sample should be. Researchers have different ideas about this, and these ideas can hardly be tested in a rigorous fashion. Similarly, there are longstanding disputes about whether it makes sense to lump poor and rich societies together in a single sample, or whether these constitute distinct populations. Again, the borderline between poor and rich (or “developed” and “undeveloped”) is blurry, and the notion of hiving off one from the other for separate analysis questionable, and unresolvable on purely empirical grounds. There is no safe (or “conservative”) way to proceed. A final sticking point concerns the cultural/historical component of social phenomena. Many case study researchers feel that to compare societies with vastly different cultures and historical trajectories is meaningless. Yet, many cross-case researchers feel that to restrict one’s analytic focus to a single cultural or geographic region is highly arbitrary, and equally meaningless. In these situations, it is evidently the choice of the researcher how to understand case homogeneity/heterogeneity across the potential populations of an inference. Where do like cases end and unlike cases begin?

Because this issue is not, strictly speaking, empirical it may be referred to as an ontological element of research design. An ontology is a vision of the world as it really is, a more or less coherent set of assumptions about how the world works, a research Weltanschauung analogous to a Kuhnian paradigm. 42 While it seems odd to bring ontological issues into a discussion of social science methodology it may be granted that social science research is not a purely empirical endeavor. What one finds is contingent upon what one looks for, and what one looks for is to some extent contingent upon what one expects to find. Stereotypically, case study researchers tend to have a “lumpy” vision of the world; they see countries, communities, and persons as highly individualized phenomena. Cross-case researchers, by contrast, have a less differentiated vision of the world; they are more likely to believe that things are pretty much the same everywhere, at least as respects basic causal processes. These basic assumptions, or ontologies, drive many of the choices made by researchers when scoping out appropriate ground for research.

8 Causal Strength: Strong versus Weak

Regardless of whether the population is homogeneous or heterogeneous, causal relationships are easier to study if the causal effect is strong, rather than weak. Causal “strength,” as I use the term here, refers to the magnitude and consistency of X’s effect on Y across a population of cases. (It invokes both the shape of the evidence at hand and whatever priors might be relevant to an interpretation of that evidence.) Where X has a strong effect on Y it will be relatively easy to study this relationship. Weak relationships, by contrast, are often difficult to discern. This much is commonsensical, and applies to all research designs.

For our purposes, what is significant is that weak causal relationships are particularly opaque when encountered in a case study format. Thus, there is a methodological affinity between weak causal relationships and large-N cross-case analysis, and between strong causal relationships and case study analysis.

This point is clearest at the extremes. The strongest species of causal relationships may be referred to as deterministic , where X is assumed to be necessary and/or sufficient for Y’s occurrence. A necessary and sufficient cause accounts for all of the variation on Y. A sufficient cause accounts for all of the variation in certain instances of Y. A necessary cause accounts, by itself, for the absence of Y. In all three situations, the relationship is usually assumed to be perfectly consistent, i.e. invariant. There are no exceptions.

It should be clear why case study research designs have an easier time addressing causes of this type. Consider that a deterministic causal proposition can be dis proved with a single case. 43 For example, the reigning theory of political stability once stipulated that only in countries that were relatively homogeneous, or where existing heterogeneity was mitigated by cross-cutting cleavages, would social peace endure. 44 Arend Lijphart’s case study of the Netherlands, a country with reinforcing social cleavages and very little social conflict, disproved this deterministic theory on the basis of a single case. 45 (One may dispute whether the original theory is correctly understood as deterministic. However, if it is , then it has been decisively refuted by a single case study.) Proving an invariant causal argument generally requires more cases. However, it is not nearly as complicated as proving a probabilistic argument for the simple reason that one assumes invariant relationships; consequently, the single case under study carries more weight.

Magnitude and consistency—the two components of causal strength—are usually matters of degree. It follows that the more tenuous the connection between X and Y, the more difficult it will be to address in a case study format. This is because the causal mechanisms connecting X with Y are less likely to be detectable in a single case when the total impact is slight or highly irregular. It is no surprise, therefore, that the case study research design has, from the very beginning, been associated with causal arguments that are deterministic, while cross-case research has been associated with causal arguments that are assumed to be minimal in strength and “probabilistic” in consistency. 46 (Strictly speaking, causal magnitude and consistency are independent features of a causal relationship. However, because they tend to covary, and because we tend to conceptualize them in tandem, I treat them as components of a single dimension.)

Now, let us now consider an example drawn from the other extreme. There is generally assumed to be a weak relationship between regime type and economic performance. Democracy, if it has any effect on economic growth at all, probably has only a slight effect over the near-to-medium term, and this effect is probably characterized by many exceptions (cases that do not fit the general pattern). This is because many things other than democracy affect a country’s growth performance and because there may be a significant stochastic component in economic growth (factors that cannot be modeled in a general way). Because of the diffuse nature of this relationship it will probably be difficult to gain insight by looking at a single case. Weak relationships are difficult to observe in one instance. Note that even if there seems to be a strong relationship between democracy and economic growth in a given country it may be questioned whether this case is actually typical of the larger population of interest, given that we have already stipulated that the typical magnitude of this relationship is diminutive and irregular. Of course, the weakness of democracy’s presumed relationship to growth is also a handicap in cross-case analysis. A good deal of criticism has been directed toward studies of this type, where findings are rarely robust. 47 Even so, it seems clear that if there is a relationship between democracy and growth it is more likely to be perceptible in a large cross-case setting. The positive hypothesis, as well as the null hypothesis, is better approached in a sample rather than in a case.

9 Useful Variation: Rare versus Common

When analyzing causal relationships we must be concerned not only with the strength of an X/Y relationship but also with the distribution of evidence across available cases. Specifically, we must be concerned with the distribution of useful variation —understood as variation (temporal or spatial) on relevant parameters that might yield clues about a causal relationship. It follows that where useful variation is rare—i.e. limited to a few cases—the case study format recommends itself. Where, on the other hand, useful variation is common, a cross-case method of analysis may be more defensible.

Consider a phenomenon like social revolution, an outcome that occurs very rarely. The empirical distribution on this variable, if we count each country-year as an observation, consists of thousands of non-revolutions (0) and just a few revolutions (1). Intuitively, it seems clear that the few “revolutionary” cases are of great interest. We need to know as much as possible about them, for they exemplify all the variation that we have at our disposal. In this circumstance, a case study mode of analysis is difficult to avoid, though it might be combined with a large-N cross-case analysis. As it happens, many outcomes of interest to social scientists are quite rare, so the issue is by no means trivial. 48

By way of contrast, consider a phenomenon like turnover, understood as a situation where a ruling party or coalition is voted out of office. Turnover occurs within most democratic countries on a regular basis, so the distribution of observations on this variable (incumbency/turnover) is relatively even across the universe of country-years. There are lots of instances of both outcomes. Under these circumstances a cross-case research design seems plausible, for the variation across cases is regularly distributed.

Another sort of variation concerns that which might occur within a given case. Suppose that only one or two cases within a large population exhibit quasi-experimental qualities: the factor of special interest varies, and there is no corresponding change in other factors that might affect the outcome. Clearly, we are likely to learn a great deal from studying this particular case—perhaps a lot more than we might learn from studying hundreds of additional cases that deviate from the experimental ideal. But again, if many cases have this experimental quality, there is little point in restricting ourselves to a single example; a cross-case research design may be justified.

A final sort of variation concerns the characteristics exhibited by a case relative to a particular theory that is under investigation. Suppose that a case provides a “crucial” test for a theory: it fits that theory’s predictions so perfectly and so precisely that no other explanation could plausibly account for the performance of the case. If no other crucial cases present themselves, then an intensive study of this particular case is de rigueur. Of course, if many such cases lie within the population then it may be possible to study them all at once (with some sort of numeric reduction of the relevant parameters).

The general point here is that the distribution of useful variation across a population of cases matters a great deal in the choice between case study and cross-case research designs.

10 Data Availability: Concentrated versus Dispersed

I have left the most prosaic factor for last. Sometimes, one’s choice of research design is driven by the quality and quantity of information that is currently available, or could be easily gathered, on a given question. This is a practical matter, and is distinct from the actual (ontological) shape of the world. It concerns, rather, what we know about the former at a given point in time. 49 The question of evidence may be posed as follows: How much do we know about the cases at hand that might be relevant to the causal question of interest, and how precise, certain, and case comparable is that data? An evidence-rich environment is one where all relevant factors are measurable, where these measurements are relatively precise, where they are rendered in comparable terms across cases, and where one can be relatively confident that the information is, indeed, accurate. An evidence-poor environment is the opposite.

The question of available evidence impinges upon choices in research design when one considers its distribution across a population of cases. If relevant information is concentrated in a single case, or if it is contained in incommensurable formats across a population of cases, then a case study mode of analysis is almost unavoidable. If, on the other hand, it is evenly distributed across the population—i.e. we are equally well informed about all cases—and is case comparable, then there is little to recommend a narrow focus. (I employ data, evidence, and information as synonyms in this section.)

Consider the simplest sort of example, where information is truly limited to one or a few cases. Accurate historical data on infant mortality and other indices of human development are currently available for only a handful of countries (these include Chile, Egypt, India, Jamaica, Mauritius, Sri Lanka, the United States, and several European countries). 50 This data problem is not likely to be rectified in future years, as it is exceedingly difficult to measure infant mortality except by public or private records. Consequently, anyone studying this general subject is likely to rely heavily on these cases, where in-depth analysis is possible and profitable. Indeed, it is not clear whether any large-N cross-case analysis is possible prior to the twentieth century. Here, a case study format is virtually prescribed, and a cross-case format proscribed.

Other problems of evidence are more subtle. Let us dwell for the moment on the question of data comparability. In their study of social security spending, Mulligan, Gil, and Sala-i-Martin note that

although our spending and design numbers are of good quality, there are some missing observations and, even with all the observations, it is difficult to reduce the variety of elderly subsidies to one or two numbers. For this reason, case studies are an important part of our analysis, since those studies do not require numbers that are comparable across a large number of countries. Our case study analysis utilizes data from a variety of country-specific sources, so we do not have to reduce “social security” or “democracy” to one single number. 51

Here, the incommensurability of the evidence militates towards a case study format. In the event that the authors (or subsequent analysts) discover a coding system that provides reasonably valid cross-case measures of social security, democracy, and other relevant concepts then our state of knowledge about the subject is changed, and a cross-case research design is rendered more plausible.

Importantly, the state of evidence on a topic is never entirely fixed. Investigators may gather additional data, recode existing data, or discover new repositories of data. Thus, when discussing the question of evidence one must consider the quality and quantity of evidence that could be gathered on a given question, given sufficient time and resources. Here it is appropriate to observe that collecting new data, and correcting existing data, is usually easier in a case study format than in a large-N cross-case format. It will be difficult to rectify data problems if one’s cases number in the hundreds or thousands. There are simply too many data points to allow for this.

One might consider this issue in the context of recent work on democracy. There is general skepticism among scholars with respect to the viability of extant global indicators intended to capture this complex concept (e.g. by Freedom House and by the Polity IV data project). 52 Measurement error, aggregation problems, and questions of conceptual validity are rampant. When dealing with a single country or a single continent it is possible to overcome some of these faults by manually recoding the countries of interest. 53 The case study format often gives the researcher an opportunity to fact-check, to consult multiple sources, to go back to primary materials, and to overcome whatever biases may affect the secondary literature. Needless to say, this is not a feasible approach for an individual investigator if one’s project encompasses every country in the world. The best one can usually manage, under the circumstances, is some form of convergent validation (by which different indices of the same concept are compared) or small adjustments in the coding intended to correct for aggregation problems or measurement error. 54

For the same reason, the collection of original data is typically more difficult in cross-case analysis than in case study analysis, involving greater expense, greater difficulties in identifying and coding cases, learning foreign languages, traveling, and so forth. Whatever can be done for a set of cases can usually be done more easily for a single case.

It should be kept in mind that many of the countries of concern to anthropologists, economists, historians, political scientists, and sociologists are still terra incognita. Outside the OECD, and with the exception of a few large countries that have received careful attention from scholars (e.g. India, Brazil, China), most countries of the world are not well covered by the social science literature. Any statement that one might wish to make about, say, Botswana, will be difficult to verify if one has recourse only to secondary materials. And these—very limited—secondary sources are not necessarily of the most reliable sort. Thus, if one wishes to say something about political patterns obtaining in roughly 90 percent of the world’s countries and if one wishes to go beyond matters that can be captured in standard statistics collected by the World Bank and the IMF and other agencies (and these can also be very sketchy when lesser-studied countries are concerned) one is more or less obliged to conduct a case study. Of course, one could, in principle, gather similar information across all relevant cases. However, such an enterprise faces formidable logistical difficulties. Thus, for practical reasons, case studies are sometimes the most defensible alternative when the researcher is faced with an information-poor environment.

However, this point is easily turned on its head. Datasets are now available to study many problems of concern to the social sciences. Thus, it may not be necessary to collect original information for one’s book, article, or dissertation. Sometimes in-depth single-case analysis is more time consuming than cross-case analysis. If so, there is no informational advantage to a case study format. Indeed, it may be easier to utilize existing information for a cross-case analysis, particularly when a case study format imposes hurdles of its own—e.g. travel to distant climes, risk of personal injury, expense, and so forth. It is interesting to note that some observers consider case studies to be “relatively more expensive in time and resources.” 55

Whatever the specific logistical hurdles, it is a general truth that the shape of the evidence—that which is currently available and that which might feasibly be collected by an author—often has a strong influence on an investigator’s choice of research designs. Where the evidence for particular cases is richer and more accurate there is a strong prima facie argument for a case study format focused on those cases. Where, by contrast, the relevant evidence is equally good for all potential cases, and is comparable across those cases, there is no reason to shy away from cross-case analysis. Indeed, there may be little to gain from case study formats.

11 Conclusions

At the outset, I took note of the severe disjuncture that has opened up between an often-maligned methodology and a heavily practiced method. The case study is disrespected but nonetheless regularly employed. Indeed, it remains the workhorse of most disciplines and subfields in the social sciences. How, then, can one make sense of this schizophrenia between methodological theory and praxis?

The torment of the case study begins with its definitional penumbra. Frequently, this key term is conflated with a set of disparate methodological traits that are not definitionally entailed. My first objective, therefore, was to craft a narrower and more useful concept for purposes of methodological discussion. The case study, I argued, is best defined as an intensive study of a single case with an aim to generalize across a larger set of cases. It follows from this definition that case studies may be small-or large-N, qualitative or quantitative, experimental or observational, synchronic or diachronic. It also follows that the case study research design comports with any macrotheoretical framework or paradigm—e.g. behavioralism, rational choice, institutionalism, or interpretivism. It is not epistemologically distinct. What differentiates the case study from the cross-case study is simply its way of defining observations, not its analysis of those observations or its method of modeling causal relations. The case study research design constructs its observations from a single case or a small number of cases, while cross-case research designs construct observations across multiple cases. Cross-case and case study research operate, for the most part, at different levels of analysis.

The travails of the case study are not simply definitional. They are also rooted in an insufficient appreciation of the methodological tradeoffs that this method calls forth. At least eight characteristic strengths and weaknesses must be considered. Ceteris paribus, case studies are more useful when the strategy of research is exploratory rather than confirmatory/disconfirmatory, when internal validity is given preference over external validity, when insight into causal mechanisms is prioritized over insight into causal effects, when propositional depth is prized over breadth, when the population of interest is heterogeneous rather than homogeneous, when causal relationships are strong rather than weak, when useful information about key parameters is available only for a few cases, and when the available data are concentrated rather than dispersed.

Although I do not have the space to discuss other issues in this venue, it is worth mentioning that other considerations may also come into play in a researcher’s choice between a case study and cross-case study research format. However, these additional issues—e.g. causal complexity and the state of research on a topic—do not appear to have clear methodological affinities. They may augur one way, or the other.

My objective throughout this chapter is to restore a greater sense of meaning, purpose, and integrity to the case study method. It is hoped that by offering a narrower and more carefully bounded definition of this method the case study may be rescued from some of its most persistent ambiguities. And it is hoped that the characteristic strengths of this method, as well as its limitations, will be more apparent to producers and consumers of case study research. The case study is a useful tool for some research objectives, but not all.

Abadie, A. and Gardeazabal, J.   2003 . The economic costs of conflict: a case study of the Basque Country.   American Economic Review , 93: 113–32.

Google Scholar

Abbott, A.   1990 . Conceptions of time and events in social science methods: causal and narrative approaches. Historical Methods , 23 (4): 140–50.

—— 1992 . From causes to events: notes on narrative positivism. Sociological Methods and Research , 20 (4): 428–55.

—— 2001 . Time Matters: On Theory and Method . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

——and Forrest, J.   1986 . Optimal matching methods for historical sequences. Journal of Interdisciplinary History , 16 (3): 471–94.

——and Tsay, A.   2000 . Sequence analysis and optimal matching methods in sociology.   Sociological Methods and Research , 29: 3–33.

Abell, P.   1987 . The Syntax of Social Life: The Theory and Method of Comparative Narratives . Oxford: Clarendon Press.

—— 2004 . Narrative explanation: an alternative to variable-centered explanation?   Annual Review of Sociology , 30: 287–310.

Acemoglu, D. , Johnson, S. , and Robinson, J. A.   2003 . An African success story: Botswana. Pp. 80–122 in In Search of Prosperity: Analytic Narratives on Economic Growth , ed. D. Rodrik . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Achen, C. H.   1986 . The Statistical Analysis of Quasi-Experiments . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Google Preview

Achen, C. H.   2002 . Toward a new political methodology: microfoundations and ART. Annual Review of Political Science , 5: 423–50.

——and Snidal, D.   1989 . Rational deterrence theory and comparative case studies.   World Politics , 41: 143–69.

Alesina, A. , Glaeser, E. , and Sacerdote, B.   2001 . Why doesn’t the US have a European-style welfare state? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity , 2: 187–277.

Allen, W. S.   1965 . The Nazi Seizure of Power: The Experience of a Single German Town, 1930–1935 . New York: Watts.

Almond, G. A.   1956 . Comparative political systems.   Journal of Politics , 18: 391–409.

Angrist, J. D. and Krueger, A. B.   2001 . Instrumental variables and the search for identification: from supply and demand to natural experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives , 15 (4): 69–85.

Bates, R. H. , Greif, A. , Levi, M. , Rosenthal, J.-L. and Weingast, B.   1998 . Analytic Narratives . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bendix, R.   1963 . Concepts and generalizations in comparative sociological studies.   American Sociological Review , 28: 532–9.

Bentley, A.   1908 /1967. The Process of Government . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Blumer, H.   1969 . Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Bollen, K. A.   1993 . Liberal democracy: validity and method factors in cross-national measures. American Journal of Political Science , 37: 1207–30.

Bonoma, T. V.   1985 . Case research in marketing: opportunities, problems, and a process. Journal of Marketing Research , 22 (2): 199–208.

Bowman, K. , Lehoucq, F. , and Mahoney, J.   2005 . Measuring political democracy: case expertise, data adequacy, and Central America. Comparative Political Studies , 38 (8): 939–70.

Brady, H. E. and Collier, D. (eds). 2004 . Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards . Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.

Braumoeller, B. F. and Goertz, G.   2000 . The methodology of necessary conditions. American Journal of Political Science , 44 (3): 844–58.

Bunge, M.   1997 . Mechanism and explanation.   Philosophy of the Social Sciences , 27: 410–65.

Buthe, T.   2002 . Taking temporality seriously: modeling history and the use of narratives as evidence. American Political Science Review , 96 (3): 481–93.

Cameron, D.   1978 . The expansion of the public economy: a comparative analysis. American Political Science Review , 72 (4): 1243–61.

Campbell, D. T.   1988 . Methodology and Epistemology for Social Science , ed. E. S. Overman . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

——and Stanley, J.   1963 . Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Chandra, K.   2004 . Why Ethnic Parties Succeed: Patronage and Ethnic Headcounts in India . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chernoff, B. and Warner, A.   2002 . Sources of fast growth in Mauritius: 1960–2000. Center for International Development, Harvard University.

Chong, D.   1993 . How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Political Science , 37 (3): 867–99.

Coase, R. H.   1959 . The Federal Communications Commission.   Journal of Law and Economics , 2: 1–40.

—— 2000 . The acquisition of Fisher Body by General Motors.   Journal of Law and Economics , 43: 15–31.

Collier, D.   1993 . The comparative method. Pp. 105–19 in Political Science: The State of the Discipline II , ed. A. W. Finifter . Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.

Cook, T. and Campbell, D.   1979 . Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings . Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

De Soto, H.   1989 . The Other Path: The Invisible Revolution in the Third World . New York: Harper and Row.

Dessler, D.   1991 . Beyond correlations: toward a causal theory of war.   International Studies Quarterly , 35: 337–55.

Dion, D.   1998 . Evidence and inference in the comparative case study. Comparative Politics , 30: 127–45.

Eckstein, H.   1975 . Case studies and theory in political science. Pp. 79–133 in Handbook of Political Science , vii: Political Science: Scope and Theory , ed. F. I. Greenstein and N. W. Polsby . Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

—— 1975 /1992. Case studies and theory in political science. In Regarding Politics: Essays on Political Theory, Stability, and Change , by H. Eckstein . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Elman, C.   2005 . Explanatory typologies in qualitative studies of international politics. International Organization , 59 (2): 293–326.

Elster, J.   1998 . A plea for mechanisms. Pp. 45–73 in Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory , ed. P. Hedstrom and R. Swedberg . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fearon, J.   1991 . Counter factuals and hypothesis testing in political science.   World Politics , 43: 169–95.

Feng, Y.   2003 . Democracy, Governance, and Economic Performance: Theory and Evidence . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Freedman, D. A.   1991 . Statistical models and shoe leather.   Sociological Methodology , 21: 291–313.

Friedman, M.   1953 . The methodology of positive economics. Pp. 3–43 in Essays in Positive Economics , by M. Friedman . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Geddes, B.   1990 . How the cases you choose affect the answers you get: selection bias in comparative politics. Pp. 131–52 in Political Analysis , vol. ii, ed. J. A. Stimson . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

—— 2003 . Paradigms and Sand Castles: Theory Building and Research Design in Comparative Politics . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Geertz, C.   1973 . Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture. Pp. 3–30 in The Interpretation of Cultures , by C. Geertz . New York: Basic Books.

George, A. L. and Bennett, A.   2005 . Case Studies and Theory Development . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

——and Smoke, R.   1974 . Deterrence in American Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice . New York: Columbia University Press.

Gerring, J.   2001 . Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—— 2005 . Causation: a unified framework for the social sciences.   Journal of Theoretical Politics , 17 (2): 163–98.

—— 2007 a. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—— 2007 b . Global justice as an empirical question.   PS: Political Science and Politics , 40: 67–78.

——and Barresi, P. A.   2003 . Putting ordinary language to work: a min-max strategy of concept formation in the social sciences. Journal of Theoretical Politics , 15 (2): 201–32.

Gerring, J. and Thomas, C. 2005. Comparability: a key issue in research design. Manuscript.

Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L.   1967 . The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research . New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Goertz, G.   2003 . The substantive importance of necessary condition hypotheses. Ch. 4 in Necessary Conditions: Theory, Methodology and Applications , ed. G. Goertz and H. Starr . New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

——and Levy, J. (eds.) forthcoming . Causal explanations, necessary conditions, and case studies: World War I and the end of the Cold War. MS.

——and Starr, H. (eds.) 2003 . Necessary Conditions: Theory, Methodology and Applications . New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Goldstone, J. A.   1997 . Methodological issues in comparative macrosociology.   Comparative Social Research , 16: 121–32.

—— Gurr, T. R. , Harff, B. , Levy, M. A. , Marshall, M. G. , Bates, R. H. , Epstein, D. L. , Kahl, C. H. , Surko, P. T. , Ulfelder, J. C., Jr. , and Unger, A. N. 2000. State Failure Task Force report: phase III findings. Available at: www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/stfail/SFTF%20Phase%20III%20Report%20Final.pdf .

Goldthorpe, J. H.   1997 . Current issues in comparative macrosociology: a debate on methodological issues. Comparative Social Research , 16: 121–32.

Griffin, L. J.   1993 . Narrative, event-structure analysis, and causal interpretation in historical sociology. American Journal of Sociology , 98: 1094–133.

Gutting, G. (ed.) 1980 . Paradigms and Revolutions: Appraisals and Applications of Thomas Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science . Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press.

Hall, P. A.   2003 . Aligning ontology and methodology in comparative politics. In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences , ed. J. Mahoney and D. Rueschemeyer . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hedstrom, P. and Swedberg, R. (eds.). 1998 . Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hersen, M. and Barlow, D. H.   1976 . Single-Case Experimental Designs: Strategies for Studying Behavior Change . Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Hochschild, J. L.   1981 . What’s Fair? American Beliefs about Distributive Justice . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Jervis, R.   1989 . Rational deterrence: theory and evidence.   World Politics , 41 (2): 183–207.

Kennedy, P.   2003 . A Guide to Econometrics , 5th edn. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

King, C.   2004 . The micropolitics of social violence.   World Politics , 56 (3): 431–55.

King, G. , Keohane, R. O. , and Verba, S.   1994 . Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Kittel, B.   1999 . Sense and sensitivity in pooled analysis of political data.   European Journal of Political Research , 35: 225–53.

——2005. A crazy methodology? On the limits of macroquantitative social science research. Unpublished MS. University of Amsterdam.

Kittel, B. and Winner, H.   2005 . How reliable is pooled analysis in political economy? The globalization–welfare state nexus revisited. European Journal of Political Research , 44 (2): 269–93.

Kuhn, T. S.   1962 /1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lane, R.   1962 . Political Ideology: Why the American Common Man Believes What He Does . New York: Free Press.

Lebow, R. N.   2000 . What’s so different about a counterfactual? World Politics , 52: 550–85.

Levine, R. and Renelt, D.   1992 . A sensitivity analysis of cross-country growth regressions. American Economic Review , 82 (4): 942–63.

Libecap, G. D.   1993 . Contracting for Property Rights . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lieberson, S.   1985 . Making it Count: The Improvement of Social Research and Theory . Berkeley: University of California Press.

—— 1992 . Einstein, Renoir, and Greeley: some thoughts about evidence in sociology: 1991 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review , 57 (1): 1–15.

—— 1994 . More on the uneasy case for using Mill-type methods in small-N comparative studies. Social Forces , 72 (4): 1225–37.

Lijphart, A.   1968 . The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands . Los Angeles: University of California Press.

—— 1969 . Consociational democracy.   World Politics , 21 (2): 207–25.

——. 1971 . Comparative politics and the comparative method. American Political Science Review , 65 (3): 682–93.

Lipset, S. M.   1960 /1963. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics . Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

—— Trow, M. A. , and Coleman, J. S.   1956 . Union Democracy: The Internal Politics of the International Typographical Union . New York: Free Press.

Little, D.   1998 . Microfoundations, Method, and Causation . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Lynd, R. S. and Lynd, H. M.   1929 /1956. Middletown: A Study in American Culture . New York: Harcourt, Brace.

McKeown, T. J.   1983 . Hegemonic stability theory and nineteenth-century tariff levels. International Organization , 37 (1): 73–91.

Mahoney, J.   2001 . Beyond correlational analysis: recent innovations in theory and method. Sociological Forum , 16 (3): 575–93.

——and Rueschemeyer, D. (eds.) 2003 . Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

——and Goertz, G.   2004 . The possibility principle: choosing negative cases in comparative research. American Political Science Review , 98 (4): 653–69.

Manski, C. F.   1993 . Identification problems in the social sciences.   Sociological Methodology , 23: 1–56.

Martin, C. J. and Swank, D.   2004 . Does the organization of capital matter? Employers and active labor market policy at the national and firm levels. American Political Science Review , 98 (4): 593–612.

Martin, L. L.   1992 . Coercive Cooperation: Explaining Multilateral Economic Sanctions . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Meehl, P. E.   1954 . Clinical versus Statistical Predictions: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Mulligan, C. , Gil, R. , and Sala-i-Martin, X.   2002 . Social security and democracy. Manuscript, University of Chicago and Columbia University.

Munck, G. L. and Snyder, R. (eds.) 2007 . Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

——and Verkuilen, J.   2002 . Measuring democracy: evaluating alternative indices. Comparative Political Studies , 35 (1): 5–34.

Njolstad, O.   1990 . Learning from history? Case studies and the limits to theory-building. Pp. 220–46 in Arms Races: Technological and Political Dynamics , ed. O. Njolstad . Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

North, D. C. , Anderson, T. L. , and Hill, P. J.   1983 . Growth and Welfare in the American Past: A New American History , 3rd edn. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

——and Thomas, R. P.   1973 . The Rise of the Western World . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

——and Weingast, B. R.   1989 . Constitutions and commitment: the evolution of institutions governing public choice in seventeenth-century England. Journal of Economic History , 49: 803–32.

Odell, J. S.   2004 . Case study methods in international political economy. Pp. 56–80 in Models, Numbers and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations , ed. D. F. Sprinz and Y. Wolinsky-Nahmias . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Orum, A. M. , Feagin, J. R. , and Sjoberg, G.   1991 . Introduction: the nature of the case study. Pp. 1–26 in A Case for the Case , ed. J. R. Feagin , A. M. Orum , and G. Sjoberg . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Papyrakis, E. and Gerlagh, R.   2003 . The resource curse hypothesis and its transmission channels. Journal of Comparative Economics , 32: 181–93.

Patton, M. Q.   2002 . Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods . Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.

Popper, K.   1934 /1968. The Logic of Scientific Discovery . New York: Harper and Row.

—— 1969 . Conjectures and Refutations . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Posner, D.   2004 . The political salience of cultural difference: why Chewas and Tumbukas are allies in Zambia and adversaries in Malawi. American Political Science Review , 98 (4): 529–46.

Przeworski, A. and Teune, H.   1970 . The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry . New York: John Wiley.

Ragin, C. C.   1987 . The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies . Berkeley: University of California Press.

—— 1992 . Cases of “what is a case?” Pp. 1–17 in What Is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry , ed. C. C. Ragin and H. S. Becker . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—— 1997 . Turning the tables: how case-oriented research challenges variable-oriented research. Comparative Social Research , 16: 27–42.

—— 2000 . Fuzzy-Set Social Science . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

—— 2004 . Turning the tables. Pp. 123–38 in Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards , ed. H. E. Brady and D. Collier . Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.

Robinson, W. S.   1951 . The logical structure of analytic induction.   American Sociological Review , 16 (6): 812–18.

Rodrik, D. (ed.) 2003 . In Search of Prosperity: Analytic Narratives on Economic Growth . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rogowski, R.   1995 . The role of theory and anomaly in social-scientific inference. American Political Science Review , 89 (2): 467–70.

Ross, M.   2001 . Does oil hinder democracy? World Politics , 53: 325–61.

Rubin, D. B.   1974 . Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology , 66: 688–701.

Rueschemeyer, D. and Stephens, J. D.   1997 . Comparing historical sequences: a powerful tool for causal analysis. Comparative Social Research , 16: 55–72.

Sambanis, N.   2004 . Using case studies to expand economic models of civil war.   Perspectives on Politics , 2 (2): 259–79.

Sartori, G.   1976 . Parties and Party Systems . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sekhon, J. S.   2004 . Quality meets quantity: case studies, conditional probability and counter-factuals. Perspectives in Politics , 2 (2): 281–93.

Shalev, M. 1998. Limits of and alternatives to multiple regression in macro-comparative research. Paper prepared for presentation at the second conference on The Welfare State at the Crossroads, Stockholm.

Smelser, N. J.   1973 . The methodology of comparative analysis. Pp. 42–86 in Comparative Research Methods , ed. D. P. Warwick and S. Osherson . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Srinivasan, T. N. and Bhagwati, J. 1999. Outward-orientation and development: are revisionists right? Discussion Paper no. 806, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.

Stoecker, R.   1991 . Evaluating and rethinking the case study.   Sociological Review , 39: 88–112.

Symposium: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)   2004 . Qualitative Methods: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Qualitative Methods , 1 (2): 2–25.

Temple, J.   1999 . The new growth evidence.   Journal of Economic Literature , 37: 112–56.

Tetlock, P. E. and Belkin, A. (eds.) 1996 . Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Thies, M. F.   2001 . Keeping tabs on partners: the logic of delegation in coalition governments. American Journal of Political Science , 45 (3): 580–98.

Tilly, C.   2001 . Mechanisms in political processes.   Annual Review of Political Science , 4: 21–41.

Treier, S. and Jackman, S.   2005 . Democracy as a latent variable. Department of Political Science, Stanford University.

Truman, D. B.   1951 . The Governmental Process . New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Vandenbroucke, J. P.   2001 . In defense of case reports and case series. Annals of Internal Medicine , 134 (4): 330–4.

Vreeland, J. R.   2003 . The IMF and Economic Development . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ward, M. D. and Bakke, K.   2005 . Predicting civil conflicts: on the utility of empirical research. Manuscript.

Winship, C. and Morgan, S. L.   1999 . The estimation of causal effects of observational data.   Annual Review of Sociology , 25: 659–707.

——and Sobel, M.   2004 . Causal inference in sociological studies. Pp. 481–503 in Handbook of Data Analysis , ed. M. Hardy and A. Bryman . London: Sage.

Wolin, S. S.   1968 . Paradigms and political theories. Pp. 125–52 in Politics and Experience , ed. P. King and B. C. Parekh . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Young, O. R. (ed.). 1999 . The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Causal Connections and Behavioral Mechanisms . Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Znaniecki, F.   1934 . The Method of Sociology . New York: Rinehart.

Acemoglu, Johnson, and Robinson (2003) , Chernoff and Warner (2002) , Rodrik (2003) . See also studies focused on particular firms or regions, e.g. Coase ( 1959 ; 2000 ).

For general discussion of the following points see Achen (1986) , Freedman (1991) , Kittel ( 1999 , 2005 ), Kittel and Winner (2005) , Manski (1993) , Winship and Morgan (1999) , Winship and Sobel (2004) .

Achen and Snidal ( 1989 , 160). See also Geddes ( 1990 ; 2003 ), Goldthorpe (1997) , King, Keohane, and Verba (1994) , Lieberson ( 1985 , 107–15; 1992 ; 1994 ), Lijphart ( 1971 , 683–4), Odell (2004) , Sekhon (2004) , Smelser ( 1973 , 45, 57). It should be noted that these writers, while critical of the case study format, are not necessarily opposed to case studies per se (that is to say, they should not be classified as opponents of the case study).

My intention is to include only those attributes commonly associated with the case study method that are always implied by our use of the term, excluding those attributes that are sometimes violated by standard usage. Thus, I chose not to include “ethnography” as a defining feature of the case study, since many case studies (so called) are not ethnographic. For further discussion of minimal definitions see Gerring (2001 , ch. 4 ), Gerring and Barresi (2003) , Sartori (1976) .

These additional attributes might also be understood as comprising an ideal-type (“maximal”) definition of the topic ( Gerring 2001 , ch. 4 ; Gerring and Barresi 2003 ).

Popper (1969) .

Karl Popper (quoted in King, Keohane, and Verba 1994 , 14) writes: “there is no such thing as a logical method of having new ideas…Discovery contains ‘an irrational element,’ or a ‘creative intuition.”’ One recent collection of essays and interviews takes new ideas as its special focus ( Munck and Snyder 2007 ), though it may be doubted whether there are generalizable results.

Gerring (2001 , ch. 10 ). The tradeoff between these two styles of research is implicit in Achen and Snidal (1989) , who criticize the case study for its deficits in the latter genre but also acknowledge the benefits of the case study along the former dimension (1989, 167–8). Reichenbach also distinguished between a “context of discovery,” and a “context of justification.” Likewise, Peirce’s concept of abduction recognizes the importance of a generative component in science.

Bonoma ( 1985 , 199). Some of the following examples are discussed in Patton (2002 , 245).

North and Weingast (1989) ; North and Thomas (1973) .

Vandenbroucke ( 2001 , 331).

For discussion of this trade-off in the context of economic growth theory see Temple ( 1999 , 120).

Geddes (2003) , King, Keohane, and Verba (1994) , Popper ( 1934 /1968).

Ragin (1992) .

Eckstein (1975) , Ragin ( 1992 ; 1997 ), Rueschemeyer and Stephens (1997) .

Eckstein (1975) .

Campbell and Stanley ( 1963 , 3).

Lane (1962) .

Lynd and Lynd (1929/1956) .

Note that the intensive study of a single unit may be a perfectly appropriate way to estimate causal effects within that unit . Thus, if one is interested in the relationship between welfare benefits and work effort in the United States one might obtain a more accurate assessment by examining data drawn from the USA alone, rather than crossnationally. However, since the resulting generalization does not extend beyond the unit in question it is not a case study in the usual sense.

Achen (2002) , Dessler (1991) , Elster (1998) , George and Bennett (2005) , Gerring (2005) , Hedstrom and Swedberg (1998) , Mahoney (2001) , Tilly (2001) .

In a discussion of instrumental variables in two-stage least-squares analysis, Angrist and Krueger ( 2001 : 8) note that “good instruments often come from detailed knowledge of the economic mechanism, institutions determining the regressor of interest.”

Goldstone et al. (2000) .

This has something to do with the existence of process-tracing evidence, a matter discussed below. But it is not necessarily predicated on this sort of evidence. Sensitive time-series data, another specialty of the case study, is also relevant to the question of causal mechanisms.

Glaser and Strauss ( 1967 , 40).

Chong ( 1993 , 868). For other examples of in-depth interviewing see Hochschild (1981) , Lane (1962) .

Rueschemeyer and Stephens ( 1997 , 62).

Other good examples of within-case research that shed light on a broader theory can be found in Martin (1992) ; Martin and Swank (2004) ; Thies (2001) ; Young (1999) .

Cameron (1978) .

Alesina, Glaeser, and Sacerdote (2001) .

For additional examples of this nature, see Feng (2003) ; Papyrakis and Gerlagh (2003) ; Ross (2001) .

Eckstein ( 1975 , 122).

I am using the term “thick” in a somewhat different way than in Geertz (1973) .

See Ragin ( 2000 , 22).

Ragin (1987 , ch. 2 ). Herbert Blumer’s (1969 , ch. 7 ) complaints, however, are more far-reaching.

Orum, Feagin, and Sjoberg ( 1991 , 7).

Ragin ( 2000 , 35). See also Abbott (1990) ; Bendix (1963) ; Meehl (1954) ; Przeworski and Teune ( 1970 , 8–9); Ragin ( 1987 ; 2004 , 124); Znaniecki (1934 , 250–1).

George and Smoke (1974 , 514).

Hersen and Barlow (1976 , 11).

Shalev (1998) .

To be sure, if adjacent cases are identical , the phenomenon of interest is invariant then the researcher gains nothing at all by studying more examples of a phenomenon, for the results obtained with the first case will simply be replicated. However, virtually all phenomena of interest to social scientists have some degree of heterogeneity (cases are not identical), some stochastic element. Thus, the theoretical possibility of identical, invariant cases is rarely met in practice.

Gutting (1980) ; Hall (2003) ; Kuhn ( 1962 /1970); Wolin (1968) .

Dion (1998) .

Almond (1956) ; Bentley ( 1908 /1967); Lipset ( 1960 /1963); Truman (1951) .

Lijphart (1968) ; see also Lijphart (1969) . For additional examples of case studies disconfirming general propositions of a deterministic nature see Allen (1965) ; Lipset, Trow, and Coleman (1956) ; Njolstad (1990) ; discussion in Rogowski (1995) .

Znaniecki (1934) . See also discussion in Robinson (1951) .

Kittel ( 1999 ; 2005 ); Kittel and Winner (2005) ; Levine and Renelt (1992) ; Temple (1999) .

Consider the following topics and their—extremely rare—instances of variation: early industrialization (England, the Netherlands), fascism (Germany, Italy), the use of nuclear weapons (United States), world war (WWI, WWII), single non-transferable vote electoral systems (Jordan, Taiwan, Vanuatu, pre-reform Japan), electoral system reforms within established democracies (France, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Thailand). The problem of “rareness” is less common where parameters are scalar, rather than dichotomous. But there are still plenty of examples of phenomena whose distributions are skewed by a few outliers, e.g. population (China, India), personal wealth (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett), ethnic heterogeneity (Papua New Guinea).

Of course, what we know about the potential cases is not independent of the underlying reality; it is, nonetheless, not entirely dependent on that reality.

Gerring (2007 b ) .

Mulligan, Gil, and Sala-i-Martin (2002 , 13).

Bollen (1993) ; Bowman, Lehoucq, and Mahoney (2005) ; Munck and Verkuilen (2002) ; Treier and Jackman (2005) .

Bowman, Lehoucq, and Mahoney (2005) .

Bollen (1993) ; Treier and Jackman (2005) .

Stoecker ( 1991 , 91).

• 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.

Research Writing and Analysis

• NVivo Group and Study Sessions
• SPSS This link opens in a new window
• Statistical Analysis Group sessions
• Using Qualtrics
• Dissertation and Data Analysis Group Sessions
• Defense Schedule - Commons Calendar This link opens in a new window
• Research Process Flow Chart
• Research Alignment Chapter 1 This link opens in a new window
• Step 1: Seek Out Evidence
• Step 2: Explain
• Step 3: The Big Picture
• Step 4: Own It
• Step 5: Illustrate
• Annotated Bibliography
• Literature Review This link opens in a new window
• Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses
• How to Synthesize and Analyze
• Synthesis and Analysis Practice
• Synthesis and Analysis Group Sessions
• Problem Statement
• Purpose Statement
• Conceptual Framework
• Theoretical Framework
• Quantitative Research Questions
• Qualitative Research Questions
• Trustworthiness of Qualitative Data
• Analysis and Coding Example- Qualitative Data
• Thematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Design
• Dissertation to Journal Article This link opens in a new window
• International Journal of Online Graduate Education (IJOGE) This link opens in a new window
• Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning (JRIT&L) This link opens in a new window

Writing a Case Study

What is a case study?

A Case study is: 

• An in-depth research design that primarily uses a qualitative methodology but sometimes​​ includes quantitative methodology.
• Used to examine an identifiable problem confirmed through research.
• Used to investigate an individual, group of people, organization, or event.
• Used to mostly answer "how" and "why" questions.

What are the different types of case studies?

Note: These are the primary case studies. As you continue to research and learn

about case studies you will begin to find a robust list of different types. 

Who are your case study participants?

What is triangulation ? 

Validity and credibility are an essential part of the case study. Therefore, the researcher should include triangulation to ensure trustworthiness while accurately reflecting what the researcher seeks to investigate.

How to write a Case Study?

When developing a case study, there are different ways you could present the information, but remember to include the five parts for your case study.

Was this resource helpful?

• << Previous: Thematic Data Analysis in Qualitative Design
• Next: Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) >>
• Last Updated: May 16, 2024 8:25 AM
• URL: https://resources.nu.edu/researchtools

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

What Is a Case Study?

Weighing the pros and cons of this method of research

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Cara Lustik is a fact-checker and copywriter.

Verywell / Colleen Tighe

• Pros and Cons

What Types of Case Studies Are Out There?

Where do you find data for a case study, how do i write a psychology case study.

A case study is an in-depth study of one person, group, or event. In a case study, nearly every aspect of the subject's life and history is analyzed to seek patterns and causes of behavior. Case studies can be used in many different fields, including psychology, medicine, education, anthropology, political science, and social work.

The point of a case study is to learn as much as possible about an individual or group so that the information can be generalized to many others. Unfortunately, case studies tend to be highly subjective, and it is sometimes difficult to generalize results to a larger population.

While case studies focus on a single individual or group, they follow a format similar to other types of psychology writing. If you are writing a case study, we got you—here are some rules of APA format to reference.  

At a Glance

A case study, or an in-depth study of a person, group, or event, can be a useful research tool when used wisely. In many cases, case studies are best used in situations where it would be difficult or impossible for you to conduct an experiment. They are helpful for looking at unique situations and allow researchers to gather a lot of˜ information about a specific individual or group of people. However, it's important to be cautious of any bias we draw from them as they are highly subjective.

What Are the Benefits and Limitations of Case Studies?

A case study can have its strengths and weaknesses. Researchers must consider these pros and cons before deciding if this type of study is appropriate for their needs.

One of the greatest advantages of a case study is that it allows researchers to investigate things that are often difficult or impossible to replicate in a lab. Some other benefits of a case study:

• Allows researchers to capture information on the 'how,' 'what,' and 'why,' of something that's implemented
• Gives researchers the chance to collect information on why one strategy might be chosen over another
• Permits researchers to develop hypotheses that can be explored in experimental research

On the other hand, a case study can have some drawbacks:

• It cannot necessarily be generalized to the larger population
• Cannot demonstrate cause and effect
• It may not be scientifically rigorous
• It can lead to bias

Researchers may choose to perform a case study if they want to explore a unique or recently discovered phenomenon. Through their insights, researchers develop additional ideas and study questions that might be explored in future studies.

It's important to remember that the insights from case studies cannot be used to determine cause-and-effect relationships between variables. However, case studies may be used to develop hypotheses that can then be addressed in experimental research.

Case Study Examples

There have been a number of notable case studies in the history of psychology. Much of  Freud's work and theories were developed through individual case studies. Some great examples of case studies in psychology include:

• Anna O : Anna O. was a pseudonym of a woman named Bertha Pappenheim, a patient of a physician named Josef Breuer. While she was never a patient of Freud's, Freud and Breuer discussed her case extensively. The woman was experiencing symptoms of a condition that was then known as hysteria and found that talking about her problems helped relieve her symptoms. Her case played an important part in the development of talk therapy as an approach to mental health treatment.
• Phineas Gage : Phineas Gage was a railroad employee who experienced a terrible accident in which an explosion sent a metal rod through his skull, damaging important portions of his brain. Gage recovered from his accident but was left with serious changes in both personality and behavior.
• Genie : Genie was a young girl subjected to horrific abuse and isolation. The case study of Genie allowed researchers to study whether language learning was possible, even after missing critical periods for language development. Her case also served as an example of how scientific research may interfere with treatment and lead to further abuse of vulnerable individuals.

Such cases demonstrate how case research can be used to study things that researchers could not replicate in experimental settings. In Genie's case, her horrific abuse denied her the opportunity to learn a language at critical points in her development.

This is clearly not something researchers could ethically replicate, but conducting a case study on Genie allowed researchers to study phenomena that are otherwise impossible to reproduce.

There are a few different types of case studies that psychologists and other researchers might use:

• Collective case studies : These involve studying a group of individuals. Researchers might study a group of people in a certain setting or look at an entire community. For example, psychologists might explore how access to resources in a community has affected the collective mental well-being of those who live there.
• Descriptive case studies : These involve starting with a descriptive theory. The subjects are then observed, and the information gathered is compared to the pre-existing theory.
• Explanatory case studies : These   are often used to do causal investigations. In other words, researchers are interested in looking at factors that may have caused certain things to occur.
• Exploratory case studies : These are sometimes used as a prelude to further, more in-depth research. This allows researchers to gather more information before developing their research questions and hypotheses .
• Instrumental case studies : These occur when the individual or group allows researchers to understand more than what is initially obvious to observers.
• Intrinsic case studies : This type of case study is when the researcher has a personal interest in the case. Jean Piaget's observations of his own children are good examples of how an intrinsic case study can contribute to the development of a psychological theory.

The three main case study types often used are intrinsic, instrumental, and collective. Intrinsic case studies are useful for learning about unique cases. Instrumental case studies help look at an individual to learn more about a broader issue. A collective case study can be useful for looking at several cases simultaneously.

The type of case study that psychology researchers use depends on the unique characteristics of the situation and the case itself.

There are a number of different sources and methods that researchers can use to gather information about an individual or group. Six major sources that have been identified by researchers are:

• Archival records : Census records, survey records, and name lists are examples of archival records.
• Direct observation : This strategy involves observing the subject, often in a natural setting . While an individual observer is sometimes used, it is more common to utilize a group of observers.
• Documents : Letters, newspaper articles, administrative records, etc., are the types of documents often used as sources.
• Interviews : Interviews are one of the most important methods for gathering information in case studies. An interview can involve structured survey questions or more open-ended questions.
• Participant observation : When the researcher serves as a participant in events and observes the actions and outcomes, it is called participant observation.
• Physical artifacts : Tools, objects, instruments, and other artifacts are often observed during a direct observation of the subject.

If you have been directed to write a case study for a psychology course, be sure to check with your instructor for any specific guidelines you need to follow. If you are writing your case study for a professional publication, check with the publisher for their specific guidelines for submitting a case study.

Here is a general outline of what should be included in a case study.

Section 1: A Case History

This section will have the following structure and content:

Background information : The first section of your paper will present your client's background. Include factors such as age, gender, work, health status, family mental health history, family and social relationships, drug and alcohol history, life difficulties, goals, and coping skills and weaknesses.

Description of the presenting problem : In the next section of your case study, you will describe the problem or symptoms that the client presented with.

Describe any physical, emotional, or sensory symptoms reported by the client. Thoughts, feelings, and perceptions related to the symptoms should also be noted. Any screening or diagnostic assessments that are used should also be described in detail and all scores reported.

Your diagnosis : Provide your diagnosis and give the appropriate Diagnostic and Statistical Manual code. Explain how you reached your diagnosis, how the client's symptoms fit the diagnostic criteria for the disorder(s), or any possible difficulties in reaching a diagnosis.

Section 2: Treatment Plan

This portion of the paper will address the chosen treatment for the condition. This might also include the theoretical basis for the chosen treatment or any other evidence that might exist to support why this approach was chosen.

• Cognitive behavioral approach : Explain how a cognitive behavioral therapist would approach treatment. Offer background information on cognitive behavioral therapy and describe the treatment sessions, client response, and outcome of this type of treatment. Make note of any difficulties or successes encountered by your client during treatment.
• Humanistic approach : Describe a humanistic approach that could be used to treat your client, such as client-centered therapy . Provide information on the type of treatment you chose, the client's reaction to the treatment, and the end result of this approach. Explain why the treatment was successful or unsuccessful.
• Psychoanalytic approach : Describe how a psychoanalytic therapist would view the client's problem. Provide some background on the psychoanalytic approach and cite relevant references. Explain how psychoanalytic therapy would be used to treat the client, how the client would respond to therapy, and the effectiveness of this treatment approach.
• Pharmacological approach : If treatment primarily involves the use of medications, explain which medications were used and why. Provide background on the effectiveness of these medications and how monotherapy may compare with an approach that combines medications with therapy or other treatments.

This section of a case study should also include information about the treatment goals, process, and outcomes.

When you are writing a case study, you should also include a section where you discuss the case study itself, including the strengths and limitiations of the study. You should note how the findings of your case study might support previous research. 

In your discussion section, you should also describe some of the implications of your case study. What ideas or findings might require further exploration? How might researchers go about exploring some of these questions in additional studies?

Need More Tips?

Here are a few additional pointers to keep in mind when formatting your case study:

• Never refer to the subject of your case study as "the client." Instead, use their name or a pseudonym.
• Read examples of case studies to gain an idea about the style and format.
• Remember to use APA format when citing references .

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach .  BMC Med Res Methodol . 2011;11:100.

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach . BMC Med Res Methodol . 2011 Jun 27;11:100. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Gagnon, Yves-Chantal.  The Case Study as Research Method: A Practical Handbook . Canada, Chicago Review Press Incorporated DBA Independent Pub Group, 2010.

Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods . United States, SAGE Publications, 2017.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being

Methodology or method? A critical review of qualitative case study reports

Despite on-going debate about credibility, and reported limitations in comparison to other approaches, case study is an increasingly popular approach among qualitative researchers. We critically analysed the methodological descriptions of published case studies. Three high-impact qualitative methods journals were searched to locate case studies published in the past 5 years; 34 were selected for analysis. Articles were categorized as health and health services ( n= 12), social sciences and anthropology ( n= 7), or methods ( n= 15) case studies. The articles were reviewed using an adapted version of established criteria to determine whether adequate methodological justification was present, and if study aims, methods, and reported findings were consistent with a qualitative case study approach. Findings were grouped into five themes outlining key methodological issues: case study methodology or method, case of something particular and case selection, contextually bound case study, researcher and case interactions and triangulation, and study design inconsistent with methodology reported. Improved reporting of case studies by qualitative researchers will advance the methodology for the benefit of researchers and practitioners.

Case study research is an increasingly popular approach among qualitative researchers (Thomas, 2011 ). Several prominent authors have contributed to methodological developments, which has increased the popularity of case study approaches across disciplines (Creswell, 2013b ; Denzin & Lincoln, 2011b ; Merriam, 2009 ; Ragin & Becker, 1992 ; Stake, 1995 ; Yin, 2009 ). Current qualitative case study approaches are shaped by paradigm, study design, and selection of methods, and, as a result, case studies in the published literature vary. Differences between published case studies can make it difficult for researchers to define and understand case study as a methodology.

Experienced qualitative researchers have identified case study research as a stand-alone qualitative approach (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011b ). Case study research has a level of flexibility that is not readily offered by other qualitative approaches such as grounded theory or phenomenology. Case studies are designed to suit the case and research question and published case studies demonstrate wide diversity in study design. There are two popular case study approaches in qualitative research. The first, proposed by Stake ( 1995 ) and Merriam ( 2009 ), is situated in a social constructivist paradigm, whereas the second, by Yin ( 2012 ), Flyvbjerg ( 2011 ), and Eisenhardt ( 1989 ), approaches case study from a post-positivist viewpoint. Scholarship from both schools of inquiry has contributed to the popularity of case study and development of theoretical frameworks and principles that characterize the methodology.

The diversity of case studies reported in the published literature, and on-going debates about credibility and the use of case study in qualitative research practice, suggests that differences in perspectives on case study methodology may prevent researchers from developing a mutual understanding of practice and rigour. In addition, discussion about case study limitations has led some authors to query whether case study is indeed a methodology (Luck, Jackson, & Usher, 2006 ; Meyer, 2001 ; Thomas, 2010 ; Tight, 2010 ). Methodological discussion of qualitative case study research is timely, and a review is required to analyse and understand how this methodology is applied in the qualitative research literature. The aims of this study were to review methodological descriptions of published qualitative case studies, to review how the case study methodological approach was applied, and to identify issues that need to be addressed by researchers, editors, and reviewers. An outline of the current definitions of case study and an overview of the issues proposed in the qualitative methodological literature are provided to set the scene for the review.

Definitions of qualitative case study research

Case study research is an investigation and analysis of a single or collective case, intended to capture the complexity of the object of study (Stake, 1995 ). Qualitative case study research, as described by Stake ( 1995 ), draws together “naturalistic, holistic, ethnographic, phenomenological, and biographic research methods” in a bricoleur design, or in his words, “a palette of methods” (Stake, 1995 , pp. xi–xii). Case study methodology maintains deep connections to core values and intentions and is “particularistic, descriptive and heuristic” (Merriam, 2009 , p. 46).

As a study design, case study is defined by interest in individual cases rather than the methods of inquiry used. The selection of methods is informed by researcher and case intuition and makes use of naturally occurring sources of knowledge, such as people or observations of interactions that occur in the physical space (Stake, 1998 ). Thomas ( 2011 ) suggested that “analytical eclecticism” is a defining factor (p. 512). Multiple data collection and analysis methods are adopted to further develop and understand the case, shaped by context and emergent data (Stake, 1995 ). This qualitative approach “explores a real-life, contemporary bounded system (a case ) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection involving multiple sources of information … and reports a case description and case themes ” (Creswell, 2013b , p. 97). Case study research has been defined by the unit of analysis, the process of study, and the outcome or end product, all essentially the case (Merriam, 2009 ).

The case is an object to be studied for an identified reason that is peculiar or particular. Classification of the case and case selection procedures informs development of the study design and clarifies the research question. Stake ( 1995 ) proposed three types of cases and study design frameworks. These include the intrinsic case, the instrumental case, and the collective instrumental case. The intrinsic case is used to understand the particulars of a single case, rather than what it represents. An instrumental case study provides insight on an issue or is used to refine theory. The case is selected to advance understanding of the object of interest. A collective refers to an instrumental case which is studied as multiple, nested cases, observed in unison, parallel, or sequential order. More than one case can be simultaneously studied; however, each case study is a concentrated, single inquiry, studied holistically in its own entirety (Stake, 1995 , 1998 ).

Researchers who use case study are urged to seek out what is common and what is particular about the case. This involves careful and in-depth consideration of the nature of the case, historical background, physical setting, and other institutional and political contextual factors (Stake, 1998 ). An interpretive or social constructivist approach to qualitative case study research supports a transactional method of inquiry, where the researcher has a personal interaction with the case. The case is developed in a relationship between the researcher and informants, and presented to engage the reader, inviting them to join in this interaction and in case discovery (Stake, 1995 ). A postpositivist approach to case study involves developing a clear case study protocol with careful consideration of validity and potential bias, which might involve an exploratory or pilot phase, and ensures that all elements of the case are measured and adequately described (Yin, 2009 , 2012 ).

Current methodological issues in qualitative case study research

The future of qualitative research will be influenced and constructed by the way research is conducted, and by what is reviewed and published in academic journals (Morse, 2011 ). If case study research is to further develop as a principal qualitative methodological approach, and make a valued contribution to the field of qualitative inquiry, issues related to methodological credibility must be considered. Researchers are required to demonstrate rigour through adequate descriptions of methodological foundations. Case studies published without sufficient detail for the reader to understand the study design, and without rationale for key methodological decisions, may lead to research being interpreted as lacking in quality or credibility (Hallberg, 2013 ; Morse, 2011 ).

There is a level of artistic license that is embraced by qualitative researchers and distinguishes practice, which nurtures creativity, innovation, and reflexivity (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011b ; Morse, 2009 ). Qualitative research is “inherently multimethod” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011a , p. 5); however, with this creative freedom, it is important for researchers to provide adequate description for methodological justification (Meyer, 2001 ). This includes paradigm and theoretical perspectives that have influenced study design. Without adequate description, study design might not be understood by the reader, and can appear to be dishonest or inaccurate. Reviewers and readers might be confused by the inconsistent or inappropriate terms used to describe case study research approach and methods, and be distracted from important study findings (Sandelowski, 2000 ). This issue extends beyond case study research, and others have noted inconsistencies in reporting of methodology and method by qualitative researchers. Sandelowski ( 2000 , 2010 ) argued for accurate identification of qualitative description as a research approach. She recommended that the selected methodology should be harmonious with the study design, and be reflected in methods and analysis techniques. Similarly, Webb and Kevern ( 2000 ) uncovered inconsistencies in qualitative nursing research with focus group methods, recommending that methodological procedures must cite seminal authors and be applied with respect to the selected theoretical framework. Incorrect labelling using case study might stem from the flexibility in case study design and non-directional character relative to other approaches (Rosenberg & Yates, 2007 ). Methodological integrity is required in design of qualitative studies, including case study, to ensure study rigour and to enhance credibility of the field (Morse, 2011 ).

Case study has been unnecessarily devalued by comparisons with statistical methods (Eisenhardt, 1989 ; Flyvbjerg, 2006 , 2011 ; Jensen & Rodgers, 2001 ; Piekkari, Welch, & Paavilainen, 2009 ; Tight, 2010 ; Yin, 1999 ). It is reputed to be the “the weak sibling” in comparison to other, more rigorous, approaches (Yin, 2009 , p. xiii). Case study is not an inherently comparative approach to research. The objective is not statistical research, and the aim is not to produce outcomes that are generalizable to all populations (Thomas, 2011 ). Comparisons between case study and statistical research do little to advance this qualitative approach, and fail to recognize its inherent value, which can be better understood from the interpretive or social constructionist viewpoint of other authors (Merriam, 2009 ; Stake, 1995 ). Building on discussions relating to “fuzzy” (Bassey, 2001 ), or naturalistic generalizations (Stake, 1978 ), or transference of concepts and theories (Ayres, Kavanaugh, & Knafl, 2003 ; Morse et al., 2011 ) would have more relevance.

Case study research has been used as a catch-all design to justify or add weight to fundamental qualitative descriptive studies that do not fit with other traditional frameworks (Merriam, 2009 ). A case study has been a “convenient label for our research—when we ‘can't think of anything ‘better”—in an attempt to give it [qualitative methodology] some added respectability” (Tight, 2010 , p. 337). Qualitative case study research is a pliable approach (Merriam, 2009 ; Meyer, 2001 ; Stake, 1995 ), and has been likened to a “curious methodological limbo” (Gerring, 2004 , p. 341) or “paradigmatic bridge” (Luck et al., 2006 , p. 104), that is on the borderline between postpositivist and constructionist interpretations. This has resulted in inconsistency in application, which indicates that flexibility comes with limitations (Meyer, 2001 ), and the open nature of case study research might be off-putting to novice researchers (Thomas, 2011 ). The development of a well-(in)formed theoretical framework to guide a case study should improve consistency, rigour, and trust in studies published in qualitative research journals (Meyer, 2001 ).

Assessment of rigour

The purpose of this study was to analyse the methodological descriptions of case studies published in qualitative methods journals. To do this we needed to develop a suitable framework, which used existing, established criteria for appraising qualitative case study research rigour (Creswell, 2013b ; Merriam, 2009 ; Stake, 1995 ). A number of qualitative authors have developed concepts and criteria that are used to determine whether a study is rigorous (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011b ; Lincoln, 1995 ; Sandelowski & Barroso, 2002 ). The criteria proposed by Stake ( 1995 ) provide a framework for readers and reviewers to make judgements regarding case study quality, and identify key characteristics essential for good methodological rigour. Although each of the factors listed in Stake's criteria could enhance the quality of a qualitative research report, in Table I we present an adapted criteria used in this study, which integrates more recent work by Merriam ( 2009 ) and Creswell ( 2013b ). Stake's ( 1995 ) original criteria were separated into two categories. The first list of general criteria is “relevant for all qualitative research.” The second list, “high relevance to qualitative case study research,” was the criteria that we decided had higher relevance to case study research. This second list was the main criteria used to assess the methodological descriptions of the case studies reviewed. The complete table has been preserved so that the reader can determine how the original criteria were adapted.

Framework for assessing quality in qualitative case study research.

Adapted from Stake ( 1995 , p. 131).

Study design

The critical review method described by Grant and Booth ( 2009 ) was used, which is appropriate for the assessment of research quality, and is used for literature analysis to inform research and practice. This type of review goes beyond the mapping and description of scoping or rapid reviews, to include “analysis and conceptual innovation” (Grant & Booth, 2009 , p. 93). A critical review is used to develop existing, or produce new, hypotheses or models. This is different to systematic reviews that answer clinical questions. It is used to evaluate existing research and competing ideas, to provide a “launch pad” for conceptual development and “subsequent testing” (Grant & Booth, 2009 , p. 93).

Qualitative methods journals were located by a search of the 2011 ISI Journal Citation Reports in Social Science, via the database Web of Knowledge (see m.webofknowledge.com). No “qualitative research methods” category existed in the citation reports; therefore, a search of all categories was performed using the term “qualitative.” In Table II , we present the qualitative methods journals located, ranked by impact factor. The highest ranked journals were selected for searching. We acknowledge that the impact factor ranking system might not be the best measure of journal quality (Cheek, Garnham, & Quan, 2006 ); however, this was the most appropriate and accessible method available.

International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being.

Search strategy

In March 2013, searches of the journals, Qualitative Health Research , Qualitative Research , and Qualitative Inquiry were completed to retrieve studies with “case study” in the abstract field. The search was limited to the past 5 years (1 January 2008 to 1 March 2013). The objective was to locate published qualitative case studies suitable for assessment using the adapted criterion. Viewpoints, commentaries, and other article types were excluded from review. Title and abstracts of the 45 retrieved articles were read by the first author, who identified 34 empirical case studies for review. All authors reviewed the 34 studies to confirm selection and categorization. In Table III , we present the 34 case studies grouped by journal, and categorized by research topic, including health sciences, social sciences and anthropology, and methods research. There was a discrepancy in categorization of one article on pedagogy and a new teaching method published in Qualitative Inquiry (Jorrín-Abellán, Rubia-Avi, Anguita-Martínez, Gómez-Sánchez, & Martínez-Mones, 2008 ). Consensus was to allocate to the methods category.

Outcomes of search of qualitative methods journals.

In Table III , the number of studies located, and final numbers selected for review have been reported. Qualitative Health Research published the most empirical case studies ( n= 16). In the health category, there were 12 case studies of health conditions, health services, and health policy issues, all published in Qualitative Health Research . Seven case studies were categorized as social sciences and anthropology research, which combined case study with biography and ethnography methodologies. All three journals published case studies on methods research to illustrate a data collection or analysis technique, methodological procedure, or related issue.

The methodological descriptions of 34 case studies were critically reviewed using the adapted criteria. All articles reviewed contained a description of study methods; however, the length, amount of detail, and position of the description in the article varied. Few studies provided an accurate description and rationale for using a qualitative case study approach. In the 34 case studies reviewed, three described a theoretical framework informed by Stake ( 1995 ), two by Yin ( 2009 ), and three provided a mixed framework informed by various authors, which might have included both Yin and Stake. Few studies described their case study design, or included a rationale that explained why they excluded or added further procedures, and whether this was to enhance the study design, or to better suit the research question. In 26 of the studies no reference was provided to principal case study authors. From reviewing the description of methods, few authors provided a description or justification of case study methodology that demonstrated how their study was informed by the methodological literature that exists on this approach.

The methodological descriptions of each study were reviewed using the adapted criteria, and the following issues were identified: case study methodology or method; case of something particular and case selection; contextually bound case study; researcher and case interactions and triangulation; and, study design inconsistent with methodology. An outline of how the issues were developed from the critical review is provided, followed by a discussion of how these relate to the current methodological literature.

Case study methodology or method

A third of the case studies reviewed appeared to use a case report method, not case study methodology as described by principal authors (Creswell, 2013b ; Merriam, 2009 ; Stake, 1995 ; Yin, 2009 ). Case studies were identified as a case report because of missing methodological detail and by review of the study aims and purpose. These reports presented data for small samples of no more than three people, places or phenomenon. Four studies, or “case reports” were single cases selected retrospectively from larger studies (Bronken, Kirkevold, Martinsen, & Kvigne, 2012 ; Coltart & Henwood, 2012 ; Hooghe, Neimeyer, & Rober, 2012 ; Roscigno et al., 2012 ). Case reports were not a case of something, instead were a case demonstration or an example presented in a report. These reports presented outcomes, and reported on how the case could be generalized. Descriptions focussed on the phenomena, rather than the case itself, and did not appear to study the case in its entirety.

Case reports had minimal in-text references to case study methodology, and were informed by other qualitative traditions or secondary sources (Adamson & Holloway, 2012 ; Buzzanell & D'Enbeau, 2009 ; Nagar-Ron & Motzafi-Haller, 2011 ). This does not suggest that case study methodology cannot be multimethod, however, methodology should be consistent in design, be clearly described (Meyer, 2001 ; Stake, 1995 ), and maintain focus on the case (Creswell, 2013b ).

To demonstrate how case reports were identified, three examples are provided. The first, Yeh ( 2013 ) described their study as, “the examination of the emergence of vegetarianism in Victorian England serves as a case study to reveal the relationships between boundaries and entities” (p. 306). The findings were a historical case report, which resulted from an ethnographic study of vegetarianism. Cunsolo Willox, Harper, Edge, ‘My Word’: Storytelling and Digital Media Lab, and Rigolet Inuit Community Government (2013) used “a case study that illustrates the usage of digital storytelling within an Inuit community” (p. 130). This case study reported how digital storytelling can be used with indigenous communities as a participatory method to illuminate the benefits of this method for other studies. This “case study was conducted in the Inuit community” but did not include the Inuit community in case analysis (Cunsolo Willox et al., 2013 , p. 130). Bronken et al. ( 2012 ) provided a single case report to demonstrate issues observed in a larger clinical study of aphasia and stroke, without adequate case description or analysis.

Case study of something particular and case selection

Case selection is a precursor to case analysis, which needs to be presented as a convincing argument (Merriam, 2009 ). Descriptions of the case were often not adequate to ascertain why the case was selected, or whether it was a particular exemplar or outlier (Thomas, 2011 ). In a number of case studies in the health and social science categories, it was not explicit whether the case was of something particular, or peculiar to their discipline or field (Adamson & Holloway, 2012 ; Bronken et al., 2012 ; Colón-Emeric et al., 2010 ; Jackson, Botelho, Welch, Joseph, & Tennstedt, 2012 ; Mawn et al., 2010 ; Snyder-Young, 2011 ). There were exceptions in the methods category ( Table III ), where cases were selected by researchers to report on a new or innovative method. The cases emerged through heuristic study, and were reported to be particular, relative to the existing methods literature (Ajodhia-Andrews & Berman, 2009 ; Buckley & Waring, 2013 ; Cunsolo Willox et al., 2013 ; De Haene, Grietens, & Verschueren, 2010 ; Gratton & O'Donnell, 2011 ; Sumsion, 2013 ; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2012 ).

Case selection processes were sometimes insufficient to understand why the case was selected from the global population of cases, or what study of this case would contribute to knowledge as compared with other possible cases (Adamson & Holloway, 2012 ; Bronken et al., 2012 ; Colón-Emeric et al., 2010 ; Jackson et al., 2012 ; Mawn et al., 2010 ). In two studies, local cases were selected (Barone, 2010 ; Fourie & Theron, 2012 ) because the researcher was familiar with and had access to the case. Possible limitations of a convenience sample were not acknowledged. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit participants within the case of one study, but not of the case itself (Gallagher et al., 2013 ). Random sampling was completed for case selection in two studies (Colón-Emeric et al., 2010 ; Jackson et al., 2012 ), which has limited meaning in interpretive qualitative research.

To demonstrate how researchers provided a good justification for the selection of case study approaches, four examples are provided. The first, cases of residential care homes, were selected because of reported occurrences of mistreatment, which included residents being locked in rooms at night (Rytterström, Unosson, & Arman, 2013 ). Roscigno et al. ( 2012 ) selected cases of parents who were admitted for early hospitalization in neonatal intensive care with a threatened preterm delivery before 26 weeks. Hooghe et al. ( 2012 ) used random sampling to select 20 couples that had experienced the death of a child; however, the case study was of one couple and a particular metaphor described only by them. The final example, Coltart and Henwood ( 2012 ), provided a detailed account of how they selected two cases from a sample of 46 fathers based on personal characteristics and beliefs. They described how the analysis of the two cases would contribute to their larger study on first time fathers and parenting.

Contextually bound case study

The limits or boundaries of the case are a defining factor of case study methodology (Merriam, 2009 ; Ragin & Becker, 1992 ; Stake, 1995 ; Yin, 2009 ). Adequate contextual description is required to understand the setting or context in which the case is revealed. In the health category, case studies were used to illustrate a clinical phenomenon or issue such as compliance and health behaviour (Colón-Emeric et al., 2010 ; D'Enbeau, Buzzanell, & Duckworth, 2010 ; Gallagher et al., 2013 ; Hooghe et al., 2012 ; Jackson et al., 2012 ; Roscigno et al., 2012 ). In these case studies, contextual boundaries, such as physical and institutional descriptions, were not sufficient to understand the case as a holistic system, for example, the general practitioner (GP) clinic in Gallagher et al. ( 2013 ), or the nursing home in Colón-Emeric et al. ( 2010 ). Similarly, in the social science and methods categories, attention was paid to some components of the case context, but not others, missing important information required to understand the case as a holistic system (Alexander, Moreira, & Kumar, 2012 ; Buzzanell & D'Enbeau, 2009 ; Nairn & Panelli, 2009 ; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2012 ).

In two studies, vicarious experience or vignettes (Nairn & Panelli, 2009 ) and images (Jorrín-Abellán et al., 2008 ) were effective to support description of context, and might have been a useful addition for other case studies. Missing contextual boundaries suggests that the case might not be adequately defined. Additional information, such as the physical, institutional, political, and community context, would improve understanding of the case (Stake, 1998 ). In Boxes 1 and 2 , we present brief synopses of two studies that were reviewed, which demonstrated a well bounded case. In Box 1 , Ledderer ( 2011 ) used a qualitative case study design informed by Stake's tradition. In Box 2 , Gillard, Witt, and Watts ( 2011 ) were informed by Yin's tradition. By providing a brief outline of the case studies in Boxes 1 and 2 , we demonstrate how effective case boundaries can be constructed and reported, which may be of particular interest to prospective case study researchers.

Article synopsis of case study research using Stake's tradition

Ledderer ( 2011 ) used a qualitative case study research design, informed by modern ethnography. The study is bounded to 10 general practice clinics in Denmark, who had received federal funding to implement preventative care services based on a Motivational Interviewing intervention. The researcher question focussed on “why is it so difficult to create change in medical practice?” (Ledderer, 2011 , p. 27). The study context was adequately described, providing detail on the general practitioner (GP) clinics and relevant political and economic influences. Methodological decisions are described in first person narrative, providing insight on researcher perspectives and interaction with the case. Forty-four interviews were conducted, which focussed on how GPs conducted consultations, and the form, nature and content, rather than asking their opinion or experience (Ledderer, 2011 , p. 30). The duration and intensity of researcher immersion in the case enhanced depth of description and trustworthiness of study findings. Analysis was consistent with Stake's tradition, and the researcher provided examples of inquiry techniques used to challenge assumptions about emerging themes. Several other seminal qualitative works were cited. The themes and typology constructed are rich in narrative data and storytelling by clinic staff, demonstrating individual clinic experiences as well as shared meanings and understandings about changing from a biomedical to psychological approach to preventative health intervention. Conclusions make note of social and cultural meanings and lessons learned, which might not have been uncovered using a different methodology.

Article synopsis of case study research using Yin's tradition

Gillard et al. ( 2011 ) study of camps for adolescents living with HIV/AIDs provided a good example of Yin's interpretive case study approach. The context of the case is bounded by the three summer camps of which the researchers had prior professional involvement. A case study protocol was developed that used multiple methods to gather information at three data collection points coinciding with three youth camps (Teen Forum, Discover Camp, and Camp Strong). Gillard and colleagues followed Yin's ( 2009 ) principles, using a consistent data protocol that enhanced cross-case analysis. Data described the young people, the camp physical environment, camp schedule, objectives and outcomes, and the staff of three youth camps. The findings provided a detailed description of the context, with less detail of individual participants, including insight into researcher's interpretations and methodological decisions throughout the data collection and analysis process. Findings provided the reader with a sense of “being there,” and are discovered through constant comparison of the case with the research issues; the case is the unit of analysis. There is evidence of researcher immersion in the case, and Gillard reports spending significant time in the field in a naturalistic and integrated youth mentor role.

This case study is not intended to have a significant impact on broader health policy, although does have implications for health professionals working with adolescents. Study conclusions will inform future camps for young people with chronic disease, and practitioners are able to compare similarities between this case and their own practice (for knowledge translation). No limitations of this article were reported. Limitations related to publication of this case study were that it was 20 pages long and used three tables to provide sufficient description of the camp and program components, and relationships with the research issue.

Researcher and case interactions and triangulation

Researcher and case interactions and transactions are a defining feature of case study methodology (Stake, 1995 ). Narrative stories, vignettes, and thick description are used to provoke vicarious experience and a sense of being there with the researcher in their interaction with the case. Few of the case studies reviewed provided details of the researcher's relationship with the case, researcher–case interactions, and how these influenced the development of the case study (Buzzanell & D'Enbeau, 2009 ; D'Enbeau et al., 2010 ; Gallagher et al., 2013 ; Gillard et al., 2011 ; Ledderer, 2011 ; Nagar-Ron & Motzafi-Haller, 2011 ). The role and position of the researcher needed to be self-examined and understood by readers, to understand how this influenced interactions with participants, and to determine what triangulation is needed (Merriam, 2009 ; Stake, 1995 ).

Gillard et al. ( 2011 ) provided a good example of triangulation, comparing data sources in a table (p. 1513). Triangulation of sources was used to reveal as much depth as possible in the study by Nagar-Ron and Motzafi-Haller ( 2011 ), while also enhancing confirmation validity. There were several case studies that would have benefited from improved range and use of data sources, and descriptions of researcher–case interactions (Ajodhia-Andrews & Berman, 2009 ; Bronken et al., 2012 ; Fincham, Scourfield, & Langer, 2008 ; Fourie & Theron, 2012 ; Hooghe et al., 2012 ; Snyder-Young, 2011 ; Yeh, 2013 ).

Study design inconsistent with methodology

Good, rigorous case studies require a strong methodological justification (Meyer, 2001 ) and a logical and coherent argument that defines paradigm, methodological position, and selection of study methods (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011b ). Methodological justification was insufficient in several of the studies reviewed (Barone, 2010 ; Bronken et al., 2012 ; Hooghe et al., 2012 ; Mawn et al., 2010 ; Roscigno et al., 2012 ; Yeh, 2013 ). This was judged by the absence, or inadequate or inconsistent reference to case study methodology in-text.

In six studies, the methodological justification provided did not relate to case study. There were common issues identified. Secondary sources were used as primary methodological references indicating that study design might not have been theoretically sound (Colón-Emeric et al., 2010 ; Coltart & Henwood, 2012 ; Roscigno et al., 2012 ; Snyder-Young, 2011 ). Authors and sources cited in methodological descriptions were inconsistent with the actual study design and practices used (Fourie & Theron, 2012 ; Hooghe et al., 2012 ; Jorrín-Abellán et al., 2008 ; Mawn et al., 2010 ; Rytterström et al., 2013 ; Wimpenny & Savin-Baden, 2012 ). This occurred when researchers cited Stake or Yin, or both (Mawn et al., 2010 ; Rytterström et al., 2013 ), although did not follow their paradigmatic or methodological approach. In 26 studies there were no citations for a case study methodological approach.

The findings of this study have highlighted a number of issues for researchers. A considerable number of case studies reviewed were missing key elements that define qualitative case study methodology and the tradition cited. A significant number of studies did not provide a clear methodological description or justification relevant to case study. Case studies in health and social sciences did not provide sufficient information for the reader to understand case selection, and why this case was chosen above others. The context of the cases were not described in adequate detail to understand all relevant elements of the case context, which indicated that cases may have not been contextually bounded. There were inconsistencies between reported methodology, study design, and paradigmatic approach in case studies reviewed, which made it difficult to understand the study methodology and theoretical foundations. These issues have implications for methodological integrity and honesty when reporting study design, which are values of the qualitative research tradition and are ethical requirements (Wager & Kleinert, 2010a ). Poorly described methodological descriptions may lead the reader to misinterpret or discredit study findings, which limits the impact of the study, and, as a collective, hinders advancements in the broader qualitative research field.

The issues highlighted in our review build on current debates in the case study literature, and queries about the value of this methodology. Case study research can be situated within different paradigms or designed with an array of methods. In order to maintain the creativity and flexibility that is valued in this methodology, clearer descriptions of paradigm and theoretical position and methods should be provided so that study findings are not undervalued or discredited. Case study research is an interdisciplinary practice, which means that clear methodological descriptions might be more important for this approach than other methodologies that are predominantly driven by fewer disciplines (Creswell, 2013b ).

Authors frequently omit elements of methodologies and include others to strengthen study design, and we do not propose a rigid or purist ideology in this paper. On the contrary, we encourage new ideas about using case study, together with adequate reporting, which will advance the value and practice of case study. The implications of unclear methodological descriptions in the studies reviewed were that study design appeared to be inconsistent with reported methodology, and key elements required for making judgements of rigour were missing. It was not clear whether the deviations from methodological tradition were made by researchers to strengthen the study design, or because of misinterpretations. Morse ( 2011 ) recommended that innovations and deviations from practice are best made by experienced researchers, and that a novice might be unaware of the issues involved with making these changes. To perpetuate the tradition of case study research, applications in the published literature should have consistencies with traditional methodological constructions, and deviations should be described with a rationale that is inherent in study conduct and findings. Providing methodological descriptions that demonstrate a strong theoretical foundation and coherent study design will add credibility to the study, while ensuring the intrinsic meaning of case study is maintained.

The value of this review is that it contributes to discussion of whether case study is a methodology or method. We propose possible reasons why researchers might make this misinterpretation. Researchers may interchange the terms methods and methodology, and conduct research without adequate attention to epistemology and historical tradition (Carter & Little, 2007 ; Sandelowski, 2010 ). If the rich meaning that naming a qualitative methodology brings to the study is not recognized, a case study might appear to be inconsistent with the traditional approaches described by principal authors (Creswell, 2013a ; Merriam, 2009 ; Stake, 1995 ; Yin, 2009 ). If case studies are not methodologically and theoretically situated, then they might appear to be a case report.

Case reports are promoted by university and medical journals as a method of reporting on medical or scientific cases; guidelines for case reports are publicly available on websites ( http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institutional_review_board/guidelines_policies/guidelines/case_report.html ). The various case report guidelines provide a general criteria for case reports, which describes that this form of report does not meet the criteria of research, is used for retrospective analysis of up to three clinical cases, and is primarily illustrative and for educational purposes. Case reports can be published in academic journals, but do not require approval from a human research ethics committee. Traditionally, case reports describe a single case, to explain how and what occurred in a selected setting, for example, to illustrate a new phenomenon that has emerged from a larger study. A case report is not necessarily particular or the study of a case in its entirety, and the larger study would usually be guided by a different research methodology.

This description of a case report is similar to what was provided in some studies reviewed. This form of report lacks methodological grounding and qualities of research rigour. The case report has publication value in demonstrating an example and for dissemination of knowledge (Flanagan, 1999 ). However, case reports have different meaning and purpose to case study, which needs to be distinguished. Findings of our review suggest that the medical understanding of a case report has been confused with qualitative case study approaches.

In this review, a number of case studies did not have methodological descriptions that included key characteristics of case study listed in the adapted criteria, and several issues have been discussed. There have been calls for improvements in publication quality of qualitative research (Morse, 2011 ), and for improvements in peer review of submitted manuscripts (Carter & Little, 2007 ; Jasper, Vaismoradi, Bondas, & Turunen, 2013 ). The challenging nature of editor and reviewers responsibilities are acknowledged in the literature (Hames, 2013 ; Wager & Kleinert, 2010b ); however, review of case study methodology should be prioritized because of disputes on methodological value.

Authors using case study approaches are recommended to describe their theoretical framework and methods clearly, and to seek and follow specialist methodological advice when needed (Wager & Kleinert, 2010a ). Adequate page space for case study description would contribute to better publications (Gillard et al., 2011 ). Capitalizing on the ability to publish complementary resources should be considered.

Limitations of the review

There is a level of subjectivity involved in this type of review and this should be considered when interpreting study findings. Qualitative methods journals were selected because the aims and scope of these journals are to publish studies that contribute to methodological discussion and development of qualitative research. Generalist health and social science journals were excluded that might have contained good quality case studies. Journals in business or education were also excluded, although a review of case studies in international business journals has been published elsewhere (Piekkari et al., 2009 ).

The criteria used to assess the quality of the case studies were a set of qualitative indicators. A numerical or ranking system might have resulted in different results. Stake's ( 1995 ) criteria have been referenced elsewhere, and was deemed the best available (Creswell, 2013b ; Crowe et al., 2011 ). Not all qualitative studies are reported in a consistent way and some authors choose to report findings in a narrative form in comparison to a typical biomedical report style (Sandelowski & Barroso, 2002 ), if misinterpretations were made this may have affected the review.

Case study research is an increasingly popular approach among qualitative researchers, which provides methodological flexibility through the incorporation of different paradigmatic positions, study designs, and methods. However, whereas flexibility can be an advantage, a myriad of different interpretations has resulted in critics questioning the use of case study as a methodology. Using an adaptation of established criteria, we aimed to identify and assess the methodological descriptions of case studies in high impact, qualitative methods journals. Few articles were identified that applied qualitative case study approaches as described by experts in case study design. There were inconsistencies in methodology and study design, which indicated that researchers were confused whether case study was a methodology or a method. Commonly, there appeared to be confusion between case studies and case reports. Without clear understanding and application of the principles and key elements of case study methodology, there is a risk that the flexibility of the approach will result in haphazard reporting, and will limit its global application as a valuable, theoretically supported methodology that can be rigorously applied across disciplines and fields.

Conflict of interest and funding

The authors have not received any funding or benefits from industry or elsewhere to conduct this study.

• Adamson S, Holloway M. Negotiating sensitivities and grappling with intangibles: Experiences from a study of spirituality and funerals. Qualitative Research. 2012; 12 (6):735–752. doi: 10.1177/1468794112439008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ajodhia-Andrews A, Berman R. Exploring school life from the lens of a child who does not use speech to communicate. Qualitative Inquiry. 2009; 15 (5):931–951. doi: 10.1177/1077800408322789. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alexander B. K, Moreira C, Kumar H. S. Resisting (resistance) stories: A tri-autoethnographic exploration of father narratives across shades of difference. Qualitative Inquiry. 2012; 18 (2):121–133. doi: 10.1177/1077800411429087. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Austin W, Park C, Goble E. From interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary research: A case study. Qualitative Health Research. 2008; 18 (4):557–564. doi: 10.1177/1049732307308514. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ayres L, Kavanaugh K, Knafl K. A. Within-case and across-case approaches to qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 2003; 13 (6):871–883. doi: 10.1177/1049732303013006008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barone T. L. Culturally sensitive care 1969–2000: The Indian Chicano Health Center. Qualitative Health Research. 2010; 20 (4):453–464. doi: 10.1177/1049732310361893. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bassey M. A solution to the problem of generalisation in educational research: Fuzzy prediction. Oxford Review of Education. 2001; 27 (1):5–22. doi: 10.1080/03054980123773. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bronken B. A, Kirkevold M, Martinsen R, Kvigne K. The aphasic storyteller: Coconstructing stories to promote psychosocial well-being after stroke. Qualitative Health Research. 2012; 22 (10):1303–1316. doi: 10.1177/1049732312450366. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Broyles L. M, Rodriguez K. L, Price P. A, Bayliss N. K, Sevick M. A. Overcoming barriers to the recruitment of nurses as participants in health care research. Qualitative Health Research. 2011; 21 (12):1705–1718. doi: 10.1177/1049732311417727. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buckley C. A, Waring M. J. Using diagrams to support the research process: Examples from grounded theory. Qualitative Research. 2013; 13 (2):148–172. doi: 10.1177/1468794112472280. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buzzanell P. M, D'Enbeau S. Stories of caregiving: Intersections of academic research and women's everyday experiences. Qualitative Inquiry. 2009; 15 (7):1199–1224. doi: 10.1177/1077800409338025. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter S. M, Little M. Justifying knowledge, justifying method, taking action: Epistemologies, methodologies, and methods in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research. 2007; 17 (10):1316–1328. doi: 10.1177/1049732307306927. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cheek J, Garnham B, Quan J. What's in a number? Issues in providing evidence of impact and quality of research(ers) Qualitative Health Research. 2006; 16 (3):423–435. doi: 10.1177/1049732305285701. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Colón-Emeric C. S, Plowman D, Bailey D, Corazzini K, Utley-Smith Q, Ammarell N, et al. Regulation and mindful resident care in nursing homes. Qualitative Health Research. 2010; 20 (9):1283–1294. doi: 10.1177/1049732310369337. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Coltart C, Henwood K. On paternal subjectivity: A qualitative longitudinal and psychosocial case analysis of men's classed positions and transitions to first-time fatherhood. Qualitative Research. 2012; 12 (1):35–52. doi: 10.1177/1468794111426224. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J. W. Five qualitative approaches to inquiry. In: Creswell J. W, editor. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2013a. pp. 53–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J. W. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2013b. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2011; 11 (1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-100. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cunsolo Willox A, Harper S. L, Edge V. L, ‘My Word’: Storytelling and Digital Media Lab, & Rigolet Inuit Community Government Storytelling in a digital age: Digital storytelling as an emerging narrative method for preserving and promoting indigenous oral wisdom. Qualitative Research. 2013; 13 (2):127–147. doi: 10.1177/1468794112446105. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Haene L, Grietens H, Verschueren K. Holding harm: Narrative methods in mental health research on refugee trauma. Qualitative Health Research. 2010; 20 (12):1664–1676. doi: 10.1177/1049732310376521. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• D'Enbeau S, Buzzanell P. M, Duckworth J. Problematizing classed identities in fatherhood: Development of integrative case studies for analysis and praxis. Qualitative Inquiry. 2010; 16 (9):709–720. doi: 10.1177/1077800410374183. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin N. K, Lincoln Y. S. Introduction: Disciplining the practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin N. K, Lincoln Y. S, editors. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2011a. pp. 1–6. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin N. K, Lincoln Y. S, editors. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2011b. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edwards R, Weller S. Shifting analytic ontology: Using I-poems in qualitative longitudinal research. Qualitative Research. 2012; 12 (2):202–217. doi: 10.1177/1468794111422040. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenhardt K. M. Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review. 1989; 14 (4):532–550. doi: 10.2307/258557. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fincham B, Scourfield J, Langer S. The impact of working with disturbing secondary data: Reading suicide files in a coroner's office. Qualitative Health Research. 2008; 18 (6):853–862. doi: 10.1177/1049732307308945. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flanagan J. Public participation in the design of educational programmes for cancer nurses: A case report. European Journal of Cancer Care. 1999; 8 (2):107–112. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2354.1999.00141.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flyvbjerg B. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry. 2006; 12 (2):219–245. doi: 10.1177/1077800405284.363. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Flyvbjerg B. Case study. In: Denzin N. K, Lincoln Y. S, editors. The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2011. pp. 301–316. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fourie C. L, Theron L. C. Resilience in the face of fragile X syndrome. Qualitative Health Research. 2012; 22 (10):1355–1368. doi: 10.1177/1049732312451871. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gallagher N, MacFarlane A, Murphy A. W, Freeman G. K, Glynn L. G, Bradley C. P. Service users’ and caregivers’ perspectives on continuity of care in out-of-hours primary care. Qualitative Health Research. 2013; 23 (3):407–421. doi: 10.1177/1049732312470521. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerring J. What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review. 2004; 98 (2):341–354. doi: 10.1017/S0003055404001182. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillard A, Witt P. A, Watts C. E. Outcomes and processes at a camp for youth with HIV/AIDS. Qualitative Health Research. 2011; 21 (11):1508–1526. doi: 10.1177/1049732311413907. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant M, Booth A. A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal. 2009; 26 :91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gratton M.-F, O'Donnell S. Communication technologies for focus groups with remote communities: A case study of research with First Nations in Canada. Qualitative Research. 2011; 11 (2):159–175. doi: 10.1177/1468794110394068. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hallberg L. Quality criteria and generalization of results from qualitative studies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Wellbeing. 2013; 8 :1. doi: 10.3402/qhw.v8i0.20647. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hames I. Committee on Publication Ethics, 1. 2013, March. COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Retrieved April 7, 2013, from http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines . [ Google Scholar ]
• Hooghe A, Neimeyer R. A, Rober P. “Cycling around an emotional core of sadness”: Emotion regulation in a couple after the loss of a child. Qualitative Health Research. 2012; 22 (9):1220–1231. doi: 10.1177/1049732312449209. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson C. B, Botelho E. M, Welch L. C, Joseph J, Tennstedt S. L. Talking with others about stigmatized health conditions: Implications for managing symptoms. Qualitative Health Research. 2012; 22 (11):1468–1475. doi: 10.1177/1049732312450323. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jasper M, Vaismoradi M, Bondas T, Turunen H. Validity and reliability of the scientific review process in nursing journals—time for a rethink? Nursing Inquiry. 2013 doi: 10.1111/nin.12030. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jensen J. L, Rodgers R. Cumulating the intellectual gold of case study research. Public Administration Review. 2001; 61 (2):235–246. doi: 10.1111/0033-3352.00025. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jorrín-Abellán I. M, Rubia-Avi B, Anguita-Martínez R, Gómez-Sánchez E, Martínez-Mones A. Bouncing between the dark and bright sides: Can technology help qualitative research? Qualitative Inquiry. 2008; 14 (7):1187–1204. doi: 10.1177/1077800408318435. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ledderer L. Understanding change in medical practice: The role of shared meaning in preventive treatment. Qualitative Health Research. 2011; 21 (1):27–40. doi: 10.1177/1049732310377451. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln Y. S. Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry. 1995; 1 (3):275–289. doi: 10.1177/107780049500100301. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luck L, Jackson D, Usher K. Case study: A bridge across the paradigms. Nursing Inquiry. 2006; 13 (2):103–109. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1800.2006.00309.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mawn B, Siqueira E, Koren A, Slatin C, Devereaux Melillo K, Pearce C, et al. Health disparities among health care workers. Qualitative Health Research. 2010; 20 (1):68–80. doi: 10.1177/1049732309355590. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Merriam S. B. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer C. B. A case in case study methodology. Field Methods. 2001; 13 (4):329–352. doi: 10.1177/1525822x0101300402. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse J. M. Mixing qualitative methods. Qualitative Health Research. 2009; 19 (11):1523–1524. doi: 10.1177/1049732309349360. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse J. M. Molding qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research. 2011; 21 (8):1019–1021. doi: 10.1177/1049732311404706. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse J. M, Dimitroff L. J, Harper R, Koontz A, Kumra S, Matthew-Maich N, et al. Considering the qualitative–quantitative language divide. Qualitative Health Research. 2011; 21 (9):1302–1303. doi: 10.1177/1049732310392386. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nagar-Ron S, Motzafi-Haller P. “My life? There is not much to tell”: On voice, silence and agency in interviews with first-generation Mizrahi Jewish women immigrants to Israel. Qualitative Inquiry. 2011; 17 (7):653–663. doi: 10.1177/1077800411414007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nairn K, Panelli R. Using fiction to make meaning in research with young people in rural New Zealand. Qualitative Inquiry. 2009; 15 (1):96–112. doi: 10.1177/1077800408318314. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nespor J. The afterlife of “teachers’ beliefs”: Qualitative methodology and the textline. Qualitative Inquiry. 2012; 18 (5):449–460. doi: 10.1177/1077800412439530. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Piekkari R, Welch C, Paavilainen E. The case study as disciplinary convention: Evidence from international business journals. Organizational Research Methods. 2009; 12 (3):567–589. doi: 10.1177/1094428108319905. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ragin C. C, Becker H. S. What is a case?: Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roscigno C. I, Savage T. A, Kavanaugh K, Moro T. T, Kilpatrick S. J, Strassner H. T, et al. Divergent views of hope influencing communications between parents and hospital providers. Qualitative Health Research. 2012; 22 (9):1232–1246. doi: 10.1177/1049732312449210. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenberg J. P, Yates P. M. Schematic representation of case study research designs. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2007; 60 (4):447–452. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04385.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rytterström P, Unosson M, Arman M. Care culture as a meaning- making process: A study of a mistreatment investigation. Qualitative Health Research. 2013; 23 :1179–1187. doi: 10.1177/1049732312470760. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Research in Nursing & Health. 2000; 23 (4):334–340. doi: 10.1002/1098-240X. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M. What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health. 2010; 33 (1):77–84. doi: 10.1002/nur.20362. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Reading qualitative studies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2002; 1 (1):74–108. [ Google Scholar ]
• Snyder-Young D. “Here to tell her story”: Analyzing the autoethnographic performances of others. Qualitative Inquiry. 2011; 17 (10):943–951. doi: 10.1177/1077800411425149. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stake R. E. The case study method in social inquiry. Educational Researcher. 1978; 7 (2):5–8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stake R. E. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stake R. E. Case studies. In: Denzin N. K, Lincoln Y. S, editors. Strategies of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. pp. 86–109. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sumsion J. Opening up possibilities through team research: Investigating infants’ experiences of early childhood education and care. Qualitative Research. 2013; 14 (2):149–165. doi: 10.1177/1468794112468471.. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas G. Doing case study: Abduction not induction, phronesis not theory. Qualitative Inquiry. 2010; 16 (7):575–582. doi: 10.1177/1077800410372601. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas G. A typology for the case study in social science following a review of definition, discourse, and structure. Qualitative Inquiry. 2011; 17 (6):511–521. doi: 10.1177/1077800411409884. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tight M. The curious case of case study: A viewpoint. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2010; 13 (4):329–339. doi: 10.1080/13645570903187181. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wager E, Kleinert S. Responsible research publication: International standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22–24, 2010. In: Mayer T, Steneck N, editors. Promoting research integrity in a global environment. Singapore: Imperial College Press/World Scientific; 2010a. pp. 309–316. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wager E, Kleinert S. Responsible research publication: International standards for editors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22–24, 2010. In: Mayer T, Steneck N, editors. Promoting research integrity in a global environment. Singapore: Imperial College Press/World Scientific; 2010b. pp. 317–328. [ Google Scholar ]
• Webb C, Kevern J. Focus groups as a research method: A critique of some aspects of their use in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2000; 33 (6):798–805. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01720.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wimpenny K, Savin-Baden M. Exploring and implementing participatory action synthesis. Qualitative Inquiry. 2012; 18 (8):689–698. doi: 10.1177/1077800412452854. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yeh H.-Y. Boundaries, entities, and modern vegetarianism: Examining the emergence of the first vegetarian organization. Qualitative Inquiry. 2013; 19 (4):298–309. doi: 10.1177/1077800412471516. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin R. K. Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Services Research. 1999; 34 (5 Pt 2):1209–1224. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin R. K. Case study research: Design and methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin R. K. Applications of case study research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• Write for Us
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 21, Issue 1
• What is a case study?
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Roberta Heale 1 ,
• Alison Twycross 2
• 1 School of Nursing , Laurentian University , Sudbury , Ontario , Canada
• 2 School of Health and Social Care , London South Bank University , London , UK
• Correspondence to Dr Roberta Heale, School of Nursing, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON P3E2C6, Canada; rheale{at}laurentian.ca

https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2017-102845

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

What is it?

Case study is a research methodology, typically seen in social and life sciences. There is no one definition of case study research. 1 However, very simply… ‘a case study can be defined as an intensive study about a person, a group of people or a unit, which is aimed to generalize over several units’. 1 A case study has also been described as an intensive, systematic investigation of a single individual, group, community or some other unit in which the researcher examines in-depth data relating to several variables. 2

Often there are several similar cases to consider such as educational or social service programmes that are delivered from a number of locations. Although similar, they are complex and have unique features. In these circumstances, the evaluation of several, similar cases will provide a better answer to a research question than if only one case is examined, hence the multiple-case study. Stake asserts that the cases are grouped and viewed as one entity, called the quintain . 6  ‘We study what is similar and different about the cases to understand the quintain better’. 6

The steps when using case study methodology are the same as for other types of research. 6 The first step is defining the single case or identifying a group of similar cases that can then be incorporated into a multiple-case study. A search to determine what is known about the case(s) is typically conducted. This may include a review of the literature, grey literature, media, reports and more, which serves to establish a basic understanding of the cases and informs the development of research questions. Data in case studies are often, but not exclusively, qualitative in nature. In multiple-case studies, analysis within cases and across cases is conducted. Themes arise from the analyses and assertions about the cases as a whole, or the quintain, emerge. 6

Benefits and limitations of case studies

If a researcher wants to study a specific phenomenon arising from a particular entity, then a single-case study is warranted and will allow for a in-depth understanding of the single phenomenon and, as discussed above, would involve collecting several different types of data. This is illustrated in example 1 below.

Using a multiple-case research study allows for a more in-depth understanding of the cases as a unit, through comparison of similarities and differences of the individual cases embedded within the quintain. Evidence arising from multiple-case studies is often stronger and more reliable than from single-case research. Multiple-case studies allow for more comprehensive exploration of research questions and theory development. 6

Despite the advantages of case studies, there are limitations. The sheer volume of data is difficult to organise and data analysis and integration strategies need to be carefully thought through. There is also sometimes a temptation to veer away from the research focus. 2 Reporting of findings from multiple-case research studies is also challenging at times, 1 particularly in relation to the word limits for some journal papers.

Examples of case studies

Example 1: nurses’ paediatric pain management practices.

One of the authors of this paper (AT) has used a case study approach to explore nurses’ paediatric pain management practices. This involved collecting several datasets:

Observational data to gain a picture about actual pain management practices.

Questionnaire data about nurses’ knowledge about paediatric pain management practices and how well they felt they managed pain in children.

Questionnaire data about how critical nurses perceived pain management tasks to be.

These datasets were analysed separately and then compared 7–9 and demonstrated that nurses’ level of theoretical did not impact on the quality of their pain management practices. 7 Nor did individual nurse’s perceptions of how critical a task was effect the likelihood of them carrying out this task in practice. 8 There was also a difference in self-reported and observed practices 9 ; actual (observed) practices did not confirm to best practice guidelines, whereas self-reported practices tended to.

Example 2: quality of care for complex patients at Nurse Practitioner-Led Clinics (NPLCs)

The other author of this paper (RH) has conducted a multiple-case study to determine the quality of care for patients with complex clinical presentations in NPLCs in Ontario, Canada. 10 Five NPLCs served as individual cases that, together, represented the quatrain. Three types of data were collected including:

Review of documentation related to the NPLC model (media, annual reports, research articles, grey literature and regulatory legislation).

Interviews with nurse practitioners (NPs) practising at the five NPLCs to determine their perceptions of the impact of the NPLC model on the quality of care provided to patients with multimorbidity.

Chart audits conducted at the five NPLCs to determine the extent to which evidence-based guidelines were followed for patients with diabetes and at least one other chronic condition.

The three sources of data collected from the five NPLCs were analysed and themes arose related to the quality of care for complex patients at NPLCs. The multiple-case study confirmed that nurse practitioners are the primary care providers at the NPLCs, and this positively impacts the quality of care for patients with multimorbidity. Healthcare policy, such as lack of an increase in salary for NPs for 10 years, has resulted in issues in recruitment and retention of NPs at NPLCs. This, along with insufficient resources in the communities where NPLCs are located and high patient vulnerability at NPLCs, have a negative impact on the quality of care. 10

These examples illustrate how collecting data about a single case or multiple cases helps us to better understand the phenomenon in question. Case study methodology serves to provide a framework for evaluation and analysis of complex issues. It shines a light on the holistic nature of nursing practice and offers a perspective that informs improved patient care.

• Gustafsson J
• Calanzaro M
• Sandelowski M

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Short and sweet: multiple mini case studies as a form of rigorous case study research

• Original Article
• Open access
• Published: 15 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Sebastian Käss   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0640-3500 1 ,
• Christoph Brosig   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7809-0796 1 ,
• Markus Westner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6623-880X 2 &
• Susanne Strahringer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9465-9679 1  

Case study research is one of the most widely used research methods in Information Systems (IS). In recent years, an increasing number of publications have used case studies with few sources of evidence, such as single interviews per case. While there is much methodological guidance on rigorously conducting multiple case studies, it remains unclear how researchers can achieve an acceptable level of rigour for this emerging type of multiple case study with few sources of evidence, i.e., multiple mini case studies. In this context, we synthesise methodological guidance for multiple case study research from a cross-disciplinary perspective to develop an analytical framework. Furthermore, we calibrate this analytical framework to multiple mini case studies by reviewing previous IS publications that use multiple mini case studies to provide guidelines to conduct multiple mini case studies rigorously. We also offer a conceptual definition of multiple mini case studies, distinguish them from other research approaches, and position multiple mini case studies as a pragmatic and rigorous approach to research emerging and innovative phenomena in IS.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Case study research has become a widely used research method in Information Systems (IS) research (Palvia et al. 2015 ) that allows for a comprehensive analysis of a contemporary phenomenon in its real-world context (Dubé and Paré, 2003 ). This research method is particularly useful due to its flexibility in covering complex phenomena with multiple contextual variables, different types of evidence, and a wide range of analytical options (Voss et al. 2002 ; Yin 2018 ). Although case study research is particularly useful for studying contemporary phenomena, some researchers feel that it lacks rigour, particularly in terms of the validity of findings (Lee and Hubona 2009 ). In response to these criticisms, Yin ( 2018 ) provides comprehensive methodological steps to conduct case studies rigorously. In addition, many other publications with a partly discipline-specific view on case study research, offer guidelines for achieving rigour in case study research, e.g., Benbasat et al. ( 1987 ), Dubé and Paré ( 2003 ), Pan and Tan ( 2011 ), or Voss et al. ( 2002 ). Most publications on case study methodology converge on four criteria for ensuring rigour in case study research: (1) construct validity, (2) internal validity, (3) external validity, and (4) reliability (Gibbert et al. 2008 ; Voss et al. 2002 ; Yin 2018 ).

A key element of rigour in case study research is to look at the unit of analysis of a case from multiple perspectives in order to draw informed conclusions (Dubois and Gadde 2002 ). Case study researchers refer to this as triangulation, for example, by using multiple sources of evidence per case to support findings (Benbasat et al. 1987 ; Yin 2018 ). However, in our own research experience, we have come across numerous IS publications with a limited number of sources of evidence per case, such as a single interview per case. Some researchers refer to these studies as mini case studies (e.g., McBride 2009 ; Weill and Olson 1989 ), while others refer to them as multiple mini cases (e.g., Eisenhardt 1989 ). We were unable to find a definition or conceptualisation of this type of case study. Therefore, we will refer to this type of case study as a multiple mini case study (MMCS). Interestingly, many researchers use these MMCSs to study emerging and innovative phenomena.

From a methodological perspective, multiple case study publications with limited sources of evidence, also known as MMCSs, may face criticism for their lack of rigour (Dubé and Paré 2003 ). Alternatively, they may be referred to as “marginal case studies” (Piekkari et al. 2009 , p. 575) if they fail to establish a connection between theory and empirical evidence, provide only limited context, or merely offer illustrative aspects (Piekkari et al. 2009 ). IS scholars advocate conducting case study research in a mindful manner by balancing methodological blueprints and justified design choices (Keutel et al. 2014 ). Consequently, we propose MMCSs as a mindful approach with the potential for rigour, distinguishing them from marginal case studies. The following research question guides our study:

RQ: How can researchers rigorously conduct MMCSs in the IS discipline?

As shown in Fig.  1 , we develop an analytical framework by synthesising methodological guidance on how to rigorously conduct multiple case study research. We then address three aspects of our research question: For aspect (1), we analyse published MMCSs in the IS discipline to derive a "Research in Practice" definition of MMCSs and research situations for MMCSs. For aspect (2), we use the analytical framework to analyse how researchers in the IS discipline ensure that existing MMCSs follow a rigorous methodology. For aspect (3), we discuss the methodological findings about rigorous MMCSs in order to derive methodological guidelines for MMCSs that researchers in the IS discipline can follow.

Overview of the research approach

We approach these aspects by introducing the conceptual foundation for case study research in Sect.  2 . We define commonly accepted criteria for ensuring validity in case study research, introduce the concept of MMCSs, and distinguish them from other types of case studies. Furthermore, as a basis for analysis, we present an analytical framework of methodological steps and options for the rigorous conduct of multiple case study research. Section  3 presents our methodological approach to identifying published MMCSs in the IS discipline. In Sect.  4 , we first define MMCSs from a research in practice perspective (Sect.  4.1 ). Second, we present an overview of methodological options for rigorous MMCSs based on our analytical framework (Sect.  4.2 ). In Sect.  5 , we differentiate MMCSs from other research approaches, identify research situations of MMCSs (i.e., to study emerging and innovative phenomena), and provide guidance on how to ensure rigour in MMCSs. In our conclusion, we clarify the limitations of our study and provide an outlook for future research with MMCSs.

2 Conceptual foundation

2.1 case study research.

Case study research is about understanding phenomena by studying one or multiple cases in their context. Creswell and Poth ( 2016 ) define it as an “approach in which the investigator explores a bounded system (a case) or multiple bounded systems (cases) over time, through detailed, in-depth data collection” (p. 73). Therefore, it is suitable for complex topics with little available knowledge, needing an in-depth investigation, or where the research subject is inseparable from its context (Paré 2004 ). Additionally, Yin ( 2018 ) states that case study research is useful if the research focuses on contemporary events where no control of behavioural events is required. Typically, this type of research is most suitable for how and why research questions (Yin 2018 ). Eventually, the inferences from case study research are based on analytic or logical generalisation (Yin 2018 ). Instead of drawing conclusions from a representative statistical sample towards the population, case study research builds on analytical findings from the observed cases (Dubois and Gadde 2002 ; Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007 ). Case studies can be descriptive, exploratory, or explanatory (Dubé and Paré 2003 ).

The contribution of research to theory can be divided into the steps of theory building , development and testing , which is a continuum (Ridder 2017 ; Welch et al. 2011 ), and case studies are useful at all stages (Ridder 2017 ). In theory building, there is no theory to explain a phenomenon, and the researcher identifies new concepts, constructs, and relationships based on the data (Ridder 2017 ). In theory development, a tentative theory already exists that is extended or refined (e.g., by adding new antecedents, moderators, mediators, and outcomes) (Ridder 2017 ). In theory testing, an existing theory is challenged through empirical investigation (Ridder 2017 ).

In case study research, there are different paradigms for obtaining research results, either positivist or interpretivist (Dubé and Paré 2003 ; Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991 ). The positivist paradigm assumes that a set of variables and relationships can be objectively identified by the researcher (Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991 ). In contrast, the interpretivist paradigm assumes that the results are inherently rooted in the researcher’s worldview (Orlikowski and Baroudi 1991 ). Nowadays, researchers find that there are similar numbers of positivist and interpretivist case studies in the IS discipline compared to almost 20 years ago when positivist research was perceived as dominant (Keutel et al. 2014 ; Klein and Myers 1999 ). As we aim to understand how to conduct MMCSs rigorously, we focus on methodological guidance for positivist case study research.

The literature proposes a four-phased approach to conducting a case study: (1) the definition of the research design, (2) the data collection, (3) the data analysis, and (4) the composition (Yin 2018 ). Table 1 provides an overview and explanation of the four phases.

Case studies can be classified based on their depth and breadth, as shown in Fig.  2 . We can distinguish five types of case studies: in-depth single case studies , marginal case studies , multiple case studies , MMCSs , and extensive in-depth multiple case studies . Each type has distinct characteristics, yet the boundaries between the different types of case studies is blurred. Except for the marginal case studies, the italic references in Fig.  2 are well-established publications that define the respective type and provide methodological guidance. The shading is to visualise the different types of case studies. The italic references in Fig.  2 for marginal case studies refer to publications that conceptualise them.

Simplistic conceptualisation of MMCS

In-depth single case studies focus on a single bounded system as a case (Creswell and Poth 2016 ; Paré 2004 ; Yin 2018 ). According to the literature, a single case study should only be used if a case meets one or more of the following five characteristics: it is a critical, unusual, common, revelatory, or longitudinal case (Benbasat et al. 1987 ; Yin 2018 ). Single case studies are more often used for descriptive research (Dubé and Paré 2003 ).

A second type of case studies are marginal case studies , which generally have low depth (Keutel et al. 2014 ; Piekkari et al. 2009 ). Marginal case studies lack a clear link between theory and empirical evidence, a clear contextualisation of the case, and are often used for illustration purposes (Keutel et al. 2014 ; Piekkari et al. 2009 ). Therefore, marginal case studies provide only marginal insights with a lack of generalisability.

In contrast, multiple case studies employ multiple cases to obtain a broader picture of the researched phenomenon from different perspectives (Creswell and Poth 2016 ; Paré 2004 ; Yin 2018 ). These multiple case studies are often considered to provide more robust results due to the multiplicity of their insights (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007 ). However, often discussed criticisms of multiple case studies are high costs, difficult access to multiple sources of evidence for each case, and long duration (Dubé and Paré 2003 ; Meredith 1998 ; Voss et al. 2002 ). Eisenhardt ( 1989 ) considers four to ten in-depth cases as a suitable number of cases for multiple case study research. With fewer than four cases, the empirical grounding is less convincing, and with more than ten cases, researchers quickly get overwhelmed by the complexity and volume of data (Eisenhardt 1989 ). Therefore, methodological literature views extensive in-depth multiple case studies as almost infeasible due to their high complexity and resource demands, which can easily overwhelm the research team and the readers (Stake 2013 ). Hence, we could not find a methodological publication outlining the approach for this case study type.

To solve the complexity and resource issues for multiple case studies, a new phenomenon has emerged: MMCS . An MMCS is a special type of multiple case study that focuses on an investigation's breadth by using a relatively high number of cases while having a somewhat limited depth per case. We characterise breadth not only by the number of cases but also by the variety of the cases. Even though there is no formal conceptualisation of the term, we understand MMCSs as a type of multiple case study research with few sources of evidence per case. Due to the limited depth per case, one can overcome the resource and complexity issues of classical multiple case studies. However, having only some sources of evidence per case may be considered a threat to rigour. Therefore, in this publication, we provide suggestions on how to address these threats.

2.2 Rigour in case study research

Rigour is essential for case study research (Dubé and Paré 2003 ; Yin 2018 ) and, in the early 2000s, researchers criticised case study research for inadequate rigour (e.g., Dubé and Paré 2003 ; Gibbert et al. 2008 ). Based on this, various methodological publications provide guidance for rigorous case study research (e.g., Dubé and Paré 2003 ; Gibbert et al. 2008 ).

Methodological literature proposes four criteria to ensure rigour in case study research: Construct validity , internal validity , external validity , and reliability (Dubé and Paré 2003 ; Gibbert et al. 2008 ; Yin 2018 ). Table 2 outlines these criteria and states in which research phase they should be addressed (Yin 2018 ). Methodological literature agrees that all four criteria must be met for rigorous case study research (Dubé and Paré 2003 ).

The methodological literature discusses multiple options for achieving rigour in case study research (e.g., Benbasat et al. 1987 ; Dubé and Paré 2003 ; Eisenhardt 1989 ; Yin 2018 ). We aggregated guidance from multiple sources by conducting a cross-disciplinary literature review to build our analytical foundation (cf. Fig. 1 ). This literature review aims to identify the most relevant multiple case study methodology publications from a cross-disciplinary and IS-specific perspective. We focus on the most cited methodology publications, while being aware that this may over-represent disciplines with a higher number of case study publications. However, this approach helps to capture an implicit consensus among case study researchers on how to conduct multiple case studies rigorously. The literature review produced an analytical framework of methodological steps and options for conducting multiple case studies rigorously. Appendix A Footnote 1 provides a detailed documentation of the literature review process. The analytical framework derived from the set of methodological publications is presented in Table  3 . We identified required and optional steps for each research stage. The analytical framework is the basis for the further analysis of MMCS and an explanation of all methodological steps is provided in Appendix B. Footnote 2

3 Research methodology

For our research, we analysed published MMCSs in the IS discipline with the goal of understanding how these publications ensured rigour. This section outlines the methodology of how we identified our MMCS publications.

First, we searched bibliographic databases and citation indexing services (Vom Brocke et al. 2009 ; Vom Brocke et al. 2015 ) to retrieve IS-specific MMCSs (Hanelt et al. 2015 ). As shown in Fig.  3 , we used two sets of keywords, the first set focusing on multiple case studies and the second set explicitly on mini case studies. We decided to follow this approach as many MMCSs are positioned as multiple case studies, avoiding the connotation “mini” or “short”. We restricted our search to completed research publications written in English from litbaskets.io size “S”, a set of 29 highly ranked IS journals (Boell and Wang 2019 ) Footnote 3 and leading IS conference proceedings from AMCIS, ECIS, HICSS, ICIS, and PACIS (published until end of June 2023). We focused on these outlets, as they can be taken as a representative sample of high quality IS research (Gogan et al. 2014 ; Sørensen and Landau 2015 ).

The search process for published MMCSs in the IS discipline

Second, we screened the obtained set of IS publications to identify MMCSs. We only included publications with positivist multiple cases where the majority of cases was captured with only one primary source of evidence. Further, we excluded all publications which were interview studies rather than case studies (i.e., they do not have a clearly defined case). In some cases, it was unclear from the full text whether a publication fulfils this requirement. Therefore, we contacted the authors and clarified the research methodology with them. Eventually, our final set contained 50 publications using MMCSs.

For qualitative data analysis, we employed axial coding (Recker 2012 ) based on the pre-defined analytical framework shown in Table  3 . For the coding, we followed the explanations of the authors in the manuscripts. The coding was conducted and reviewed by two of the authors. We coded the first five publications of the set of IS MMCS publications together and discussed our decisions. After the initial coding was completed, we checked the reliability and validity by re-coding a sample of the other author’s set. In this sample, we achieved inter-coder reliability of 91% as a percent agreement in the decisions made (Nili et al. 2020 ). Hence, we consider our coding as highly consistent.

In the results section, we illustrate the chosen methodological steps for each MMCS type (descriptive, exploratory, and explanatory). For this purpose, we selected three publications based on two criteria: only journal publications, as they have more details about their methodological steps and publications which applied most of the analytical framework’s methodology steps. This led to three exemplary IS MMCS publications: (1) McBride ( 2009 ) for descriptive MMCSs, (2) Baker and Niederman ( 2014 ) for exploratory MMCSs, and (3) van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 ) for explanatory MMCSs.

4.1 MMCS from a “Research in Practice" perspective

In this section, we explain MMCSs from a "Research in Practice" perspective and identify different types based on our sample of 50 MMCS publications. As outlined in Sect.  2.1 , an MMCS is a special type of a multiple case study, which focuses on an investigation’s breadth by using a relatively high number of cases while having a limited depth per case. In the most extreme scenario, an MMCS only has one source of evidence per case. Moreover, breadth is not only characterised by the number of cases, but also by the variety of the cases. MMCSs have been used widely but hardly labelled as such, i.e., only 10 of our analysed 50 MMCS publications explicitly use the terms mini or short case in the manuscript . Multiple case study research distinguishes between descriptive, exploratory, and explanatory case studies (Dubé and Paré 2003 ). The MMCSs in our sample follow the same classification with three descriptive, 40 exploratory, and seven explanatory MMCSs. Descriptive and exploratory MMCSs are used in the early stages of research , and exploratory and explanatory MMCSs are used to corroborate findings .

Descriptive MMCSs provide little information on the methodological steps for the design, data collection, analysis, and presentation of results. They are used to illustrate novel phenomena and create research questions, not solutions, and can be useful for developing research agendas (e.g., McBride 2009 ; Weill and Olson 1989 ). The descriptive MMCS publications analysed contained between four to six cases, with an average of 4.6 cases per publication. Of the descriptive MMCSs analysed, one did not state research questions, one answered a how question and the third answered how and what questions. Descriptive MMCSs are illustrative and have a low depth per case, resulting in the highest risk of being considered a marginal case study.

Exploratory MMCSs are used to explore new phenomena quickly, generate first research results, and corroborate findings. Most of the analysed exploratory MMCSs answer what and how questions or combinations. However, six publications do not explicitly state a research question, and some MMCSs use why, which, or whether research questions. The analysed exploratory MMCSs have three to 27 cases, with an average of 10.2 cases per publication. An example of an exploratory MMCS is the study by Baker and Niederman ( 2014 ), who explore the impacts of strategic alignment during merger and acquisition (M&A) processes. They argue that previous research with multiple case studies (mostly with  three cases) shows some commonalities, but much remains unclear due to the low number of cases. Moreover, they justify the limited depth of their research with the “proprietary and sensitive nature of the questions” (Baker and Niederman 2014 , p. 123).

Explanatory MMCSs use an a priori framework with a relatively high number of cases to find groups of cases that share similar characteristics. Most explanatory MMCSs answer how questions, yet some publications answer what, why, or combinations of the three questions. The analysed explanatory MMCSs have three to 18 cases, with an average of 7.2 cases per publication. An example of an explanatory MMCS publication is van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 ), who researched the influence of organisational factors on the adoption of Software as a Service (SaaS) in Indonesia.

4.2 Applied MMCS methodology in IS publications

4.2.1 overarching.

In the following sections, we present the results of our analysis. For this purpose, we mapped our 50 IS MMCS publications to the methodological options (Table  3 ) and present one example per MMCS type. We extended some methodological steps with options from methodology-in-use. A full coding table can be found in Appendix D Footnote 4 . Tables 4 , 5 , 6 and 7 summarise the absolute and percentual occurrences of each methodological option in descriptive, exploratory, and explanatory IS MMCS publications. All tables are structured in the same way and show the number of absolute and, in parentheses, the percentual occurrences of each methodological option. The percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. The bold numbers show the most common methodological option for each MMCS type and step. Most publications were classified in previously identified options. Some IS MMCS publications lacked detail on methodological steps, so we classified them as "step not evident". Only 16% (8 out of 50) explained how they addressed validity and reliability threats.

4.2.2 Research design phase

There are six methodological steps in the research design phase, as shown in Table  4 . Descriptive MMCSs usually define the research question (2 out of 3, 67%), clarify the unit of analysis (2 out of 3, 67%), bound the case (2 out of 3, 67%), or specify an a priori theoretical framework (2 out of 3, 67%). The case replication logic is mostly not evident (2 out of 3, 67%). Descriptive MMCS use a criterion-based selection (1 out of 3, 33%), a maximum variation selection (1 out of 3, 33%), or do not specify the selection logic (1 out of 3, 33%). Descriptive MMCSs have a high risk of becoming a marginal case study due to their illustrative nature–our chosen example is not different. McBride ( 2009 ) does not define the research question, does not have a priori theoretical framework, nor does he justify the case replication and the case selection logic. However, he clarifies the unit of analysis and extensively bounds each case with significant context about the case organisation and its setup.

The majority of exploratory MMCSs define the research question (34 out of 40, 85%) clarify the unit of analysis (35 out of 40, 88%), and specify an a priori theoretical framework (33 out of 40, 83%). However, only a minority (6 out of 40, 15%) follow the instructions of bounding the case or justify the case replication logic (13 out of 40, 33%). The most used case selection logic is the criterion-based selection (23 out of 40, 58%), followed by step not evident (5 out of 40, 13%), other selection approaches (3 of 40, 13%), maximum variation selection (3 out of 40, 13%), a combination of approaches (2 out of 40, 5%), snowball selection (2 out of 40, 5%), typical case selection (1 out of 40, 3%), and convenience-based selection (1 out of 40, 3%). Baker and Niederman ( 2014 ) build their exploratory MMCS on previous multiple case studies with three cases that showed ambiguous results. Hence, Baker and Niederman ( 2014 ) formulate three research objectives instead of defining a research question. They clearly define the unit of analysis (i.e., the integration of the IS function after M&A) but lack the bounding of the case. The authors use a rather complex a priori framework, leading to a high number of required cases. This a priori framework is also used for the “theoretical replication logic [to choose] conforming and disconfirming cases” (Baker and Niederman 2014 , p. 116). A combination of maximum variation and snowball selection is used to select the cases (Baker and Niederman 2014 ). The maximum variation is chosen to get evidence for all elements of their rather complex a priori framework (i.e., the breadth), and the snowball sampling is chosen to get more details for each framework element.

All explanatory MMCS s define the research question, clarify the unit of analysis, and specify an a priori theoretical framework. However, only one (14%) bounds the case. The case replication logic is mostly a mixture of theoretical and literal replication (3 out of 7, 43%) and one (14%) MMCS does a literal replication. For 43% (3 out of 7) of the publications, the step is not evident. Most explanatory MMCSs use criterion-based selection (4 out of 7, 57%), followed by maximum variation selection (2 out of 7, 29%) and snowball selection (1 out of 7, 14%). In their publication, van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 ) define the research question and clarify the unit of analysis (i.e., the influence of organisational factors on SaaS adoption in Indonesian SMEs). Further, they specify an a priori framework (i.e., based on organisational size, organisational readiness, and top management support) to target the research (van de Weerd et al. 2016 ). A combination of theoretical (between the groups of cases) and literal (within the groups of cases) replication was used. To strengthen the findings, van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 ) find at least one other literally replicated case for each theoretically replicated case.

To summarize this phase, we see that in all three types of MMCSs, the majority of publications define the research question, clarify the unit of analysis, and specify an a priori theoretical framework. Moreover, descriptive MMCSs are more likely to bound the case than exploratory and explanatory MMCSs. However, only a minority across all MMCSs justify the case replication logic, whereas the majority does not. Most MMCSs justify the case selection logic, with criterion-based case selection being the most often applied methodological option.

4.2.3 Data collection phase

In the data collection phase, there are four methodological steps, as summarised in Table  5 .

One descriptive MMCS applies triangulation via multiple sources, whereas for the majority (2 out of 3, 67%), the step is not evident. One (33%) of the analysed descriptive MMCSs creates a full chain of evidence, none creates a case study database, and one (33%) uses a case study protocol. McBride ( 2009 ) applies triangulation via multiple sources, as he followed “up practitioner talks delivered at several UK annual conferences” (McBride 2009 , p. 237). Therefore, we view the follow-up interviews as the primary source of evidence per case, as dedicated questions to the unit of analysis can be asked per case. Triangulation via multiple sources was then conducted by combining practitioner talks and documents with follow-up interviews. McBride ( 2009 ) does not create a full chain of evidence, a case study database, nor a case study protocol. This design decision might be rooted in the objective of a descriptive MMCS to illustrate and open up new questions rather than find clear solutions (McBride 2009 ).

Most exploratory MMCSs triangulate via multiple sources (20 out of 40, 50%) or via multiple investigators (4 out of 40, 10%). Eight (20%) exploratory MMCSs apply multiple triangulation types and for eight (20%), no triangulation is evident. At first glance, a triangulation via multiple sources may seem contradictory to the definition of MMCSs–yet it is not. MMCSs that triangulate via multiple sources have one source per case as the primary, detailed evidence (e.g., an interview), which is combined with easily available supplementary sources of evidence (e.g., public reports and documents (Baker and Niederman 2014 ), press articles (Hahn et al. 2015 ), or online data (Kunduru and Bandi 2019 )). As this leads to multiple sources of evidence, we understand this as a triangulation via multiple sources; however, on a different level than triangulating via multiple in-depth interviews per case. Only a minority of exploratory MMCSs create a full chain of evidence (14 out of 40, 35%), and a majority (23 out of 40, 58%) use a case study database or a case study protocol (20 out of 40, 50%). Baker and Niederman ( 2014 ) triangulate with multiple sources (i.e., financial reports as supplementary sources) to increase the validity of their research. Further, the authors create a full chain of evidence from their research question through an identical interview protocol to the case study’s results. For every case, an individual case report is created and stored in the case study database (Baker and Niederman 2014 ).

All explanatory MMCSs triangulate during the data collection phase, either via multiple sources (2 out of 7, 29%) or a combination of multiple investigators and sources (5 out of 7, 71%). Interestingly, only three explanatory MMCSs (43%) create a full chain of evidence. All create a case study database (7 out of 7, 100%) and the majority creates a case study protocol (6 out of 7, 86%). In their explanatory MMCS, van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 ) use semi-structured interviews as the primary data collection method. The interview data is complemented “with field notes and (online) documentation” (van de Weerd et al. 2016 , p. 919), e.g., data from corporate websites or annual reports. Moreover, a case study protocol and a case study database in NVivo are created to increase reliability.

To summarise the data collection phase, we see that most (40 out of 50, 80%) of MMCSs apply some type of triangulation. However, only 36% (18 out of 50) of the analysed MMCSs create a full chain of evidence. Moreover, descriptive MMCSs are less likely to create a case study database (0 out of 3, 0%) or a case study protocol (1 out of 3, 33%). In contrast, most exploratory and explanatory MMCS publications create a case study database and case study protocol.

4.2.4 Data analysis phase

There are three methodological steps (cf. Table 6 ) for the data analysis phase, each with multiple methodological options.

One descriptive MMCS (33%) corroborates findings through triangulation, and two do not (67%). Further, one (33%) uses a rich description of findings as other corroboration approaches, whereas for the majority (2 out of 3, 67%), the corroboration with other approaches is not evident. Descriptive MMCSs mostly do not define their within-case analysis strategy (2 out of 3, 67%). However, pre-defined patterns are used to conduct a cross-case analysis (2 out of 3, 67%). In the data analysis, McBride ( 2009 ) triangulates via multiple sources of evidence (i.e., talks at practitioner conferences and resulting follow-up interviews), but does not apply other corroboration approaches or provides methodological explanations for the within or cross-case analysis. This design decision might be rooted in the illustrative nature of his descriptive MMCS and the focus on analysing each case standalone.

Exploratory MMCSs mostly corroborate findings through a combination of triangulation via multiple investigators and sources (15 out of 40, 38%) or triangulation via multiple sources (9 out of 40, 23%). However, for ten (25%) exploratory MMCSs, this step is not evident. For the other corroboration approaches, a combination of approaches is mostly used (15 out of 40, 38%), followed by rich description of findings (11 out of 40, 28%), peer review (6 out of 40, 15%), and prolonged field visits (1 out of 40, 3%). For five (13%) publications, other corroboration approaches are not evident. Pattern matching (17 out of 40, 43%) and explanation building (5 out of 40, 13%) are the most used methodological options for the within-case analysis. To conduct a cross-case analysis, 11 (28%) MMCSs use a comparison of pairs or groups of cases, nine (23%) pre-defined patterns, and six (15%) structure their data along themes. Interestingly, for 14 (35%) exploratory MMCSs, no methodological step to conduct the cross-case analysis is evident. Baker and Niederman ( 2014 ) use a combination of triangulation via multiple investigators (“The interviews were coded by both researchers independently […], with a subsequent discussion to reach complete agreement” (Baker and Niederman 2014 , p. 117)) and sources to increase internal validity. Moreover, the authors use a rich description of the findings. An explanation-building strategy is used for the within-case analysis, and the cross-case analysis is done based on pre-defined patterns (Baker and Niederman 2014 ). This decision for the cross-case analysis is justified by a citation of Dubé and Paré ( 2003 , p. 619), who see it as “a form of pattern-matching in which the analysis of the case study is carried out by building a textual explanation of the case.”

Explanatory MMCSs corroborate findings through a triangulation via multiple sources (4 out of 7, 57%) or a combination of multiple investigators and sources (3 out of 7, 43%). For the other corroboration approaches, a rich description of findings (3 out of 7, 43%), a combination of approaches (3 out of 7, 43%), or peer review (1 out of 7, 14%) are used. To conduct a within-case analysis, pattern matching (5 out of 7, 71%) or explanation building (1 out of 7, 14%) are used. For the cross-case analysis, pre-defined patterns (3 out of 7, 43%) and a comparison of pairs or groups of cases (2 out of 7, 29%) are used; yet, for two (29%) explanatory MMCSs a cross-case analysis step is not evident. van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 ) corroborate their findings through a triangulation via multiple sources, a combination of rich description of findings and solicitation of participants’ views (“summarizing the interview results of each case company for feedback and approval” (van de Weerd et al. 2016 , p. 920)) as other corroboration approaches. Moreover, for the within-case analysis, the authors “followed an explanation-building procedure to strengthen […] [the] internal validity” (van de Weerd et al. 2016 , p. 920). For the cross-case, the researchers compare groups of cases. They refer to this approach as an informal qualitative comparative analysis.

To summarize the results of the data analysis phase, we see that some type of triangulation is used by most of the MMCSs, with source triangulation (alone or in combination with another approach) being the most often used methodological option. For the within-case analysis, pattern matching (22 of 50, 44%) is the most often used methodological option. For the cross-case analysis, pre-defined patterns are most often used (14 out of 50, 28%). However, depending on the type of MMCS, there are differences in the options used and some methodological options are never used (e.g., time-series analysis and solicitation of participants’ views).

4.2.5 Composition phase

We can find two methodological steps for the composition phase, as summarized in Table  7 .

Descriptive MMCSs do not apply triangulation in the composition phase (3 out of 3, 100%), nor do they use the methodological step to let key informants review the draft of the case study report (3 of 3, 100%). Also, the descriptive MMCS by McBride ( 2009 ) does not apply any of the methodological steps.

Exploratory MMCSs mostly use triangulation via multiple sources (25 out of 40, 63%), a combination of multiple sources and theories (2 out of 40, 5%), triangulation via multiple investigators (1 out of 40, 3%), and a combination of multiple sources and methods (1 out of 40, 3%). However, for 11 (28%) exploratory MMCS publications, no triangulation step is evident. Moreover, the majority (24 out of 40, 85%) do not let key informants review a draft of the case study report. Baker and Niederman ( 2014 ) do not use triangulation in the composition phase nor let key informants review the draft of the case study report. An example of an exploratory publication that applies both methodological steps is the publication by Kurnia et al. ( 2015 ). The authors triangulate via multiple sources and let key informants review their interview transcripts and the case study report to increase construct validity.

Explanatory MMCSs mostly use triangulation via multiple sources (5 out of 7, 71%) and for two (29%), the step is not evident. Furthermore, only two MMCS (29%) publications let key informants review the draft of the case study report, whereas the majority (5 out of 7, 71%) do not. In their publication , van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 ) use both methodological steps of the composition phase. The authors triangulate via multiple sources by presenting interview snippets from different cases for each result in the case study manuscript. Moreover, each case and the final case study report were shared with key informants for review and approval to reduce the risk of misinterpretations and increase construct validity.

To summarize, most exploratory and explanatory MMCSs use triangulation in the composition phase, whereas descriptive MMCSs do not. Moreover, only a fraction of all MMCSs let key informants review a draft of the case study report (8 out of 50, 16%).

5 Discussion

5.1 mmcs from a “research in practice" perspective, 5.1.1 delineating mmcs from other research approaches.

In this section, we delineate MMCSs from related research approaches. In the subsequent sections, we outline research situations for which MMCSs can be used and the benefits MMCSs provide.

Closely related research approaches from which we delineate MMCSs are multiple case studies , interviews, and vignettes . As shown in Fig.  2 , MMCSs differ from multiple case studies in that they focus on breadth by using a high number of cases with limited depth per case. In the most extreme situation, an MMCS only has one primary source of evidence per case. Moreover, MMCSs can also consider a greater variety of cases. In contrast, multiple case studies have a high depth per case and multiple sources of evidence per case to allow for a source triangulation (Benbasat et al. 1987 ; Yin 2018 ). Moreover, multiple case studies mainly focus on how and why research questions (Yin 2018 ), whereas MMCSs can additionally answer what, whether, and which research questions. The rationale why MMCSs are used for more types of research questions is their breadth, allowing them to also answer rather explorative research questions.

Distinguishing MMCSs from interviews is more difficult . Yet, we see two differences. First, interview studies do not have a clear unit of analysis. Interview studies may choose interviewees based on expertise (expert interviews), whereas case study researchers select informants based on the ability to inform about the case (key informants) (Yin 2018 ). Most of the 50 analysed MMCS (88%) specify their unit of analysis. Second, MMCSs can use multiple data collection methods (e.g., observations, interviews, documents), while interviews only use one (the interview) (Lamnek and Krell 2010 ). An example showing these delineation difficulties between MMCSs and interviews is the publication of Demlehner and Laumer ( 2020 ). The authors claim to take “a multiple case study approach including 39 expert interviews” (Demlehner and Laumer 2020 , p. 1). However, our criteria classify this as an interview study. Demlehner and Laumer ( 2020 ) contend that the interviewees were chosen using a “purposeful sampling strategy” (p. 5). However, case study research selects cases based on replication logic, not sampling (Yin 2018 ). Moreover, the results are not presented on a per-case basis (as usual for case studies); instead, the findings are presented on an aggregated level, similar to expert interviews. Therefore, we would not classify this publication as an MMCS but find that it is a very good example to discuss this delineation.

MMCSs differ from vignettes, which are used for (1) data collection , (2) data analysis , and (3) research communication (Klotz et al. 2022 ; Urquhart 2001 ). Researchers use vignettes for data collection as stimuli to which participants react (Klotz et al. 2022 ), i.e., a carefully constructed description of a person, object, or situation (Atzmüller and Steiner 2010 ; Hughes and Huby 2002 ). We can delineate MMCS from vignettes for data collection based on this definition. First, MMCSs are not used as a stimulus to which participants can react, as in MMCSs, data is collected without the stimulus requirement. Furthermore, vignettes for data collection are carefully constructed, which contradicts the characteristics of MMCS, that are all based on collected empirical data and not constructed descriptions.

A data analysis vignette is used as a retrospective tool (Klotz et al. 2022 ) and is very short, which makes it difficult to analyse deeper relationships between constructs. MMCSs differ from vignettes for data analysis in two ways. First, MMCSs are a complete research methodology with four steps, whereas vignettes for data analysis cover only one step (the data analysis) (e.g., Zamani and Pouloudi 2020 ). Second, vignettes are too short to conduct a thorough analysis of relationships, whereas MMCSs foster a more comprehensive analysis, allowing for a deeper analysis of relationships.

Finally, a vignette used for research communication “(1) is bounded to a short time span, a location, a special situation, or one or a few key actors, (2) provides vivid, authentic, and evocative accounts of the events with a narrative flow, (3) is rather short, and (4) is rooted in empirical data, sometimes inspired by data or constructed.” (Klotz et al. 2022 , p. 347). Based on the four elements for the vignettes’ definition, we can delineate MMCS from vignettes used for research communication. First, MMCSs are not necessarily bounded to a short time span, location, special situation, or key actors; instead, with MMCSs, a clearly defined case bounded in its context is researched. Second, the focus of MMCSs is not on the narrative flow; instead, the focus is on describing (c.f., McBride ( 2009 )), exploring (c.f., Baker and Niederman ( 2014 )), or explaining (c.f., van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 )) a phenomenon. Third, while MMCSs do not have the depth of multiple case studies, they are much more comprehensive than vignettes (e.g., the majority of analysed publications (42 of 50, 84%) specify an a priori theoretical framework). Fourth, every MMCS must be based on empirical data, i.e., all of our 50 MMCSs collect data for their study and base their results on this data. This is a key difference from vignettes, which can be completely fictitious (Klotz et al. 2022 ).

5.1.2 MMCS research situations

The decision to use an MMCS as a research method depends on the research context. MMCSs can be used in the early stages of research (descriptive and exploratory MMCS) and to corroborate findings (exploratory and explanatory MMCS). Academic literature has yet to agree on a uniform categorisation of research questions. For instance, Marshall and Rossman ( 2016 ) distinguish between descriptive, exploratory, explanatory, and emancipatory research questions. In contrast, Yin ( 2018 ) distinguishes between who , what , where , how , and why questions, where he argues that the latter two are especially suitable for explanatory case study research. MMCSs can answer more types of research questions than Yin ( 2018 ) proposed. The reason for this is rooted in the higher breadth of MMCSs, which allows MMCSs to also answer rather exploratory what , whether , or which questions, besides the how and why questions that are suggested by Yin ( 2018 ).

For descriptive MMCSs , the main goal of the how and what questions is to describe the phenomenon. However, in our sample of analysed MMCSs, the analysis stops after the description of the phenomenon. The main goal of the five types of exploratory MMCS research questions is to investigate little-known aspects of a particular phenomenon. The how and why questions analyse operational links between different constructs (e.g., “How do different types of IS assets account for synergies between business units to create business value?” (Mandrella et al. 2016 , p. 2)). Exploratory what questions can be answered by case study research and other research methods (e.g., surveys or archival analysis) (Yin 2018 ). Nevertheless, all whether and which MMCS research questions can also be re-formulated as exploratory what questions. The reason why many MMCSs answer what , whether , or which research questions lies in the breadth (i.e., higher number and variety of cases) of MMCS, that allow them to answer these rather exploratory research questions to a satisfactory level. Finally, the research questions of the explanatory MMCSs aim to analyse operational links (i.e., how or why something is happening). This is also in line with the findings of Yin ( 2018 ) for multiple case study research. However, for MMCSs, this view must be extended, as explanatory MMCSs are also able to answer what questions. We explain this with the higher breadth of MMCS.

To discuss an MMCS’s contribution to theory, we use the idea of the theory continuum proposed by Ridder ( 2017 ) (cf. Section  2.1 ). Despite being used in the early phase of research (descriptive and exploratory), we do not recommend using MMCSs to build theory . We argue that for theory building, data with “as much depth as […] feasible” (Eisenhardt 1989 , p. 539) is required on a per-case basis. However, a key characteristic of MMCSs is the limited depth per case, which conflicts with the in-depth requirements of theory building. Moreover, a criterion for theory building is that there is no theory available which explains the phenomenon (Ridder 2017 ). Nevertheless, in our analysed MMCSs, 84% (42 out of 50) have an a priori theoretical framework. Furthermore, for theory building, the recommendation is to use between four to ten cases; with more, “it quickly becomes difficult to cope with the complexity and volume of the data” (Eisenhardt 1989 , p. 545). However, a characteristic of MMCSs is to have a relatively high number of cases, i.e., the analysed MMCSs often have more than 20 cases, which is significantly above the recommendation for theory building.

The next phase in the theory continuum is theory development , where a tentative theory is extended or refined (Ridder 2017 ). MMCSs should and are used for theory development, i.e., 84% (42 out of 50) of analysed MMCS publications have an a priori theoretical framework extended and refined using the MMCS. An MMCS example for theory development is the research of Karunagaran et al. ( 2016 ), who use a combination of the diffusion of innovation theory and technology organisation environment framework as tentative theories to research the adoption of cloud computing. As Ridder ( 2017 ) outlined, for theory development, literal replication and pattern matching should be used. Both methodological steps are used by Karunagaran et al. ( 2016 ) to identify the mechanisms of cloud adoption more precisely.

The next step in the theory continuum is theory testing , where existing theory is challenged by finding anomalies that existing theory cannot explain (Ridder 2017 ). The boundaries between theory development and testing are often blurred (Ridder 2017 ). In theory testing, the phenomenon is understood, and the research strategy focuses on testing if the theory also holds under different circumstances, i.e., hypotheses can be formed and tested based on existing theory (Ridder 2017 ). In multiple case study research, theory testing uses theoretical replication with pattern matching or addressing rival explanations (Ridder 2017 ). In our MMCS publications, no publication addresses rival explanations, and only a few apply theoretical replication and pattern matching–yet not for theory testing. A few publications claim to test propositions derived from an a priori theoretical framework (e.g., Schäfferling et al. 2011 ; Spiegel and Lazic 2010 ; Wagner and Ettrich-Schmitt 2009 ). However, these publications either do not state their replication logic (e.g., Spiegel and Lazic 2010 ; Wagner and Ettrich-Schmitt 2009 ) or use a literal replication (e.g., Schäfferling et al. 2011 ), both of which weaken the value of their theory testing.

5.1.3 MMCS research benefits

MMCSs are beneficial in multiple research situations and can be an avenue to address the frequent criticism of multiple case study research of being time-consuming and costly (Voss et al. 2002 ; Yin 2018 ).

Firstly, MMCSs can be used for time-critical topics where it is beneficial to publish results quicker and discuss them instead of conducting in-depth multiple case studies (e.g., COVID-19 (e.g., dos Santos Tavares et al. 2021 ) or emergent technology adoption (e.g., Bremser 2017 )). Especially with COVID-19, research publishing saw a significantly higher speed due to special issues of journals and faster review processes. Further, due to the fast technological advancements, there is a higher risk that the results are obsolete and of less practical use when researched with time-consuming multiple in-depth case studies.

Secondly, MMCSs can be used in research situations when it is challenging to gather in-depth data from multiple sources of evidence for each case due to the limited availability of sources of evidence or limited accessibility of sources of evidence. When researching novel phenomena (e.g., the adoption of new technologies in organisations), managers and decision-makers are usually interviewed as sources of evidence. However, in most organisations, only one (or very few) decision-makers have the ability to inform and should be interviewed, limiting the potential sources of evidence per case. These decision-makers often have limited availability for multiple in-depth interviews. Furthermore, the sources of evidence are often difficult to access, as professional organisations have regulations that prevent sharing documents with researchers.

Thirdly, MMCSs can be beneficial when the research framework is complex and requires many cases for validation (e.g., Baker and Niederman ( 2014 ) validate their rather complex a priori framework with 22 cases) or when previous research has led to contradictory results . Therefore, in both situations, a higher breadth of cases is required to also research combinatorial effects (e.g., van de Weerd et al. 2016 ). However, conducting an in-depth multiple case study would take time and effort. Therefore, MMCSs can be a mindful way to collect many cases, but in the same vein, being time and cost-efficient.

5.2 MMCS research rigour

Table 8 outlines two types of methodological steps for MMCSs. The first are methodological steps, where MMCSs should follow multiple case study methodological guidance (e.g., clarify the unit of analysis ), while the second is unique to MMCSs due to its characteristics. This section focuses on the latter, exploring MMCS characteristics, problems, validity threats, and proposed solutions.

The characteristics of MMCSs of having only one primary source of evidence per case prevents MMCSs from using source triangulation, which is often used in multiple case study research (Stake 2013 ; Voss et al. 2002 ; Yin 2018 ). By only having one source of evidence, researchers can fail to develop a sufficient set of operational measures and instead rely on subjective judgements, which threatens construct validity (Yin 2018 ). The threats to construct validity must be addressed throughout the MMCS research process. To do so, we propose to use easily accessible supplementary data or other triangulation approaches to increase construct validity in a MMCS. For the other triangulation approaches, we see that the majority of publications use supplementary data (e.g., publicly available documents) as further sources of evidence, multiple investigators, multiple methods (e.g., quantitative and qualitative), multiple theories, or combinations of these (cf. Tables 5 , 6 and 7 ). Having one or, in the best case, all of them reduces the risk of reporting spurious relationships and subjective judgements of the researchers, as a phenomenon is analysed from multiple perspectives. Besides the above-mentioned types of triangulation, we propose to apply a new type of triangulation, which is specific to MMCSs and triangulates findings across similar cases combined to groups instead of multiple sources per case. We propose that all reported findings have to be found in more than one case in a group of cases. This is also in line with previous methodological guidelines, which suggest that findings should only be reported if they have at least three confirmations (Stake 2013 ). To triangulate across multiple cases in one group, researchers have to identify multiple similar cases by applying a literal case replication logic to reinforce similar results. One should also apply a theoretical replication to compare different groups of literally replicated cases (i.e., searching for contrary results). Therefore, researchers have to justify their case replication logic . However, in our sample of MMCS, the majority (32 of 50, 64%) does not justify their replication logic, whereas the remaining publications use either literal replication (8 of 50, 16%), theoretical replication (6 of 50, 12%), or a combination (4 of 50, 8%). We encourage researchers to use a combination of literal and theoretical replication because it allows triangulation across different groups of cases. An exemplary MMCS that uses this approach is the publication of van de Weerd et al. ( 2016 ), who use theoretical replication to find cases with different outcomes (e.g., adoption and non-adoption) and use literal replication to find cases with similar characteristics and form groups of them.

Two further methodological steps, which are not exclusive to MMCS but recommended for increasing the construct validity, are creating a chain of evidence and letting key informants review a draft of the case study report . Only 36% (18 out of 50) of the analysed MMCS publications establish a chain of evidence. One reason for this lower usage may be that the majority (35 out of 50, 70%) of the publications analysed are conference proceedings. While we understand that these publications face space limitations, we note that no publication offers a supplementary appendix with in-depth insights. However, we encourage researchers to create a full chain of evidence with as much transparency as possible. Therefore, online directories for supplementary appendices could be a valuable addition. As opposed to a few years ago, these repositories today are widely available and using them for such purposes could become a good research practice for qualitative research. Interestingly, only 16% (8 of 50) analysed MMCS publications let key informants review the draft of the case study report . As MMCSs only have one source of evidence per case, misinterpretations and subjective judgement by the researcher have a significantly higher impact on the results compared to multiple case study research. Therefore, MMCS researchers should let key informants review the case study report before publishing.

MMCSs only have few (one) sources of evidence per case, so the risk of focusing on spurious relationships is higher, threatening internal validity (Dubé and Paré 2003 ). This threat to internal validity must be addressed in the data analysis phase. In the context of MMCSs, researchers may aggregate fewer data points to obtain a within-case overview. Therefore, having a clear perspective of the existing data points and rigorously applying the within-case analysis methodological steps (e.g., pattern matching) is even more critical. However, due to the limited depth of data at MMCSs, the within-case analysis must be combined with an analysis across groups of cases (to allow triangulation via multiple groups of cases). For MMCSs, we propose not doing the cross-case analysis on a per-case basis. Instead, we propose to build groups of similar cases across which researchers could conduct an analysis across groups of cases. This solidifies internal validity in case study research (Eisenhardt 1989 ) by viewing and synthesising insights from multiple perspectives (Paré 2004 ; Yin 2018 ).

Another risk of MMCSs is the relatively high number of cases (i.e., we found up to 27 for exploratory MMCSs) that is higher than Eisenhardt’s ( 1989 ) recommendation of maximal ten cases in multiple case study research. With more than ten in-depth cases, researchers struggled to manage the complexity and data volume, resulting in models with low generalisability and reduced external validity (Eisenhardt 1989 ). We propose to use two methodological steps to address the threat to external validity.

First, like Yin’s ( 2018 ) recommendation to use theory for single case studies, we suggest an a priori theoretical framework for MMCSs. 84% (42 out of 50) of the analysed MMCS publications use such a framework. An a priori theoretical framework has two advantages: it simplifies research by pre-defining constructs and relationships, and it enables analytical techniques like pattern matching. Second, instead of doing the within and then cross-case analysis on a per-case basis, for MMCSs, we propose first doing the within-case analysis and then forming groups of similar cases. Then, the cross-case analysis is performed on the formed groups of cases. To form case groups, replication logic (literal and theoretical) must be chosen carefully. Cross-group analysis (with at least two cases per group) can increase the generalisability of results.

To increase MMCS reliability, a case study database and protocol should be created, similar to multiple case studies. To ensure higher reliability, researchers should document MMCS design decisions in more detail. As outlined in the results section, the documentation on why design decisions were taken is often relatively short and should be more detailed. This call for better documentation is not exclusive to MMCSs, as Benbasat et al. ( 1987 ) and Dubé and Paré ( 2003 ) also criticised this for multiple case study research.To ensure rigour in MMCS, we suggest following the steps for multiple case study research. However, MMCSs have unique characteristics, such as an inability to source triangulate on a per-case level, a higher risk of marginal cases, and difficulty in managing a high number of cases. Therefore, for some methodological steps (cf. Table 8 ), we propose MMCS-specific methodological options. First, MMCS should include supplementary data per case (to increase construct validity). Second, instead of doing a cross-case analysis, we propose to form groups of similar cases and focus on the cross-group analysis (i.e., in each group, there must be at least two cases). Third, researchers should justify their case replication logic , i.e., a combination of theoretical replication (to form different groups) and literal replication (to find the same cases within groups) should be conducted to allow for this cross-group analysis.

6 Conclusion

Our publication contributes to case study research in the IS discipline and beyond by making four methodological contributions. First, we provide a conceptual definition of MMCSs and distinguish them from other research approaches. Second, we provide a contemporary collection of exemplary MMCS publications and their methodological choices. Third, we outline methodological guidelines for rigorous MMCS research and provide examples of good practice. Fourth, we identify research situations for which MMCSs can be used as a pragmatic and rigorous approach.

Our findings have three implications for research practice: First, we found that MMCSs can be descriptive, exploratory, or explanatory and can be considered as a type of multiple case study. Our set of IS MMCS publications shows that this pragmatic approach is advantageous in three situations. First, for time-sensitive topics, where rapid discussion of results, especially in the early stages of research, is beneficial. Second, when it is difficult to collect comprehensive data from multiple sources for each case, either because of limited availability or limited accessibility to the data source. Third, in situations where the research setting is complex, many cases are needed to validate effects (e.g., combinatorial effects) or previous research has produced conflicting results. It is important, however, that the pragmatism of the MMCS should not be misunderstood as a lack of methodological rigour.

Second, we have provided guidelines that researchers can follow to conduct MMCSs rigorously. As we observe an increasing number of MMCSs being published, we encourage their authors to clarify their methodological approach by referring to our analytical MMCS framework. Our analytical framework helps researchers to justify their approach and to distinguish it from approaches that lack methodological rigour.

Third, throughout our collection of MMCS publications, we contacted several authors to clarify their case study research methodology. In many cases, these publications lacked critical details that would be important to classify them as MMCS or marginal cases. Many researchers responded that some details were not mentioned due to space limitations. While we understand these constraints, we suggest that researchers still present these details, for example, by considering online appendices in research repositories.

Our paper has five limitations that could be addressed by future research. First, we focus exclusively on methodological guidelines for positivist multiple case study research. Therefore, we have not explicitly covered methodological approaches from other research paradigms.

Second, we aggregated methodological guidance on multiple case study research from the most relevant publications by citation count only. As a result, we did not capture evidence from publications with far fewer citations or that are relevant in specific niches. However, our design choice is still justified as the aim was to identify established and widely accepted methodological strategies to ensure rigour in case study research.

Third, the literature reviews were keyword-based. Therefore, concepts that fall within our understanding of MMCS but do not include the keywords used for the literature search could not be identified. However, due to the different search terms and versatile search approaches, our search should have captured the most relevant contributions.

Fourth, we selected publications from highly ranked IS MMCS publications and proceedings of leading IS conferences to analyse how rigour is ensured in MMCSs in the IS discipline. We therefore excluded all other research outlets. As with the limitations arising from the keyword-based search, we may have omitted IS MMCS publications that refer to short or mini case studies. However, the limitation of our search is justified as it helps us to ensure that all selected publications have undergone a substantial peer review process and qualify as a reference base in IS.

Fifth, we coded our variables based on the characteristics explicitly stated in the manuscript (i.e., if authors position their MMCS as exploratory, we coded it as exploratory). However, for some variables, researchers do not have a consistent understanding (e.g., the discussion of what constitutes exploratory research by cf., Sarker et al. ( 2018 )). Therefore, we took the risk that MMCS may have different understandings of the coded variables.

For the future, our manuscript on positivist MMCSs provides researchers with guidance for an emerging type of case study research. Based on our study, we can identify promising areas for future research. By limiting ourselves to the most established strategies for ensuring rigour, we also invite authors to enrich our methodological guidelines with other, less commonly used steps. In addition, future research could compare the use of MMCSs in IS with other disciplines in order to solidify our findings.

Data availability

Provided at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24916458

The information can be found in the online Appendix: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24916458 .

litbaskets.io is a web interface that allows searching for literature across the top 847 IS journals. It offers ranging from 2XS (Basket of Eight) to 3XL (847) essential IS journals and a full list of 29 journals which are the basis for this study can be found in Appendix C ( https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.24916458 ).

Atzmüller C, Steiner PM (2010) Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Method Eur J Res Methods Behav Soc Sci. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000014

Article   Google Scholar  

Baker EW, Niederman F (2014) Integrating the IS functions after mergers and acquisitions: analyzing business-IT alignment. J Strateg Inf Syst 23(2):112–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2013.08.002

Benbasat I, Goldstein DK, Mead M (1987) The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Q 11(3):369–386. https://doi.org/10.2307/248684

Boell S, Wang B (2019) www.litbaskets.io , an IT artifact supporting exploratory literature searches for information systems research. In: Proceedings ACIS 2019

Bremser CP, Gunther Rothlauf F (2017) Strategies and influencing factors for big data exploration. In: proceedings AMCIS 2017

Vom Brocke J, Simons A, Niehaves B, Riemer K, Plattfaut R, Cleven A (2009) Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. In: Proceedings ECIS 2009

Creswell JW, Poth CN (2016) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 4th edn. Sage Publications, California

Google Scholar  

Demlehner Q, Laumer S (2020) Shall we use it or not? Explaining the adoption of artificial intelligence for car manufacturing purposes. In: Proceedings ECIS 2020

Dubé L, Paré G (2003) Rigor in information systems positivist case research: current practices, trends, and recommendations. MIS Q 27(4):597–636. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036550

Dubois A, Gadde L-E (2002) Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. J Bus Res 55(7):553–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00195-8

Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad Manag Rev 14(4):532–550. https://doi.org/10.2307/258557

Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad Manag J 50(1):25–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24160888

Gibbert M, Ruigrok W, Wicki B (2008) What passes as a rigorous case study? Strateg Manag J 29(13):1465–1474. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.722

Gogan JL, McLaughlin MD, Thomas D (2014) Critical incident technique in the basket. In: Proceedings ICIS 2014

Hahn C, Röher D, Zarnekow R (2015) A value proposition oriented typology of electronic marketplaces for B2B SaaS applications. In: Proceedings AMCIS 2015

Hanelt A, Hildebrandt B, Polier J (2015) Uncovering the role of IS in business model innovation: a taxonomy-driven approach to structure the field. In: Proceedings ECIS 2015

Hughes R, Huby M (2002) The application of vignettes in social and nursing research. J Adv Nurs 37(4):382–386. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02100.x

Karunagaran S, Mathew S, Lehner F (2016) Differential adoption of cloud technology: a multiple case study of large firms and SMEs. In: Proceedings ICIS 2016

Keutel M, Michalik B, Richter J (2014) Towards mindful case study research in IS: a critical analysis of the past ten years. Eur J Inf Syst 23(3):256–272. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2013.26

Klein HK, Myers MD (1999) A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Q 23(1):67–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/249410

Klotz S, Kratzer S, Westner M, Strahringer S (2022) Literary sketches in information systems research: conceptualization and guidance for using vignettes as a narrative form. Inf Syst Manag. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2021.1996661

Kunduru SR, Bandi RK (2019) Fluidity of power structures underpinning public discourse on social media: a multi-case study on twitter discourse in India. In: Proceedings AMCIS 2019

Kurnia S, Karnali RJ, Rahim MM (2015) A qualitative study of business-to-business electronic commerce adoption within the indonesian grocery industry: a multi-theory perspective. Inf Manag 52(4):518–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2015.03.003

Lamnek S, Krell C (2010) Qualitative sozialforschung: mit online-materialien, 6th edn. Beltz Verlangsgruppe, Germany

Lee AS, Hubona GS (2009) A scientific basis for rigor in information systems research. MIS Q 33(2):237–262. https://doi.org/10.2307/20650291

Mandrella M, Zander S, Trang S (2016) How different types of IS assets account for synergy-enabled value in multi-unit firms: mapping of critical success factors and key performance indicators. In: Proceedings AMCIS 2016

Marshall C, Rossman GB (2016) Designing qualitative research, 6th edn. SAGE Publications, Inc., California

McBride N (2009) Exploring service issues within the IT organisation: four mini-case studies. Int J Inf Manag 29(3):237–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.11.010

Meredith J (1998) Building operations management theory through case and field research. J Oper Manag 16:441–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00023-0

Nili A, Tate M, Barros A, Johnstone D (2020) An approach for selecting and using a method of inter-coder reliability in information management research. Int J Inf Manage 54:102154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102154

Orlikowski WJ, Baroudi JJ (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: research approaches and assumptions. Inf Syst Res 2(1):1–28

Palvia P, Daneshvar Kakhki M, Ghoshal T, Uppala V, Wang W (2015) Methodological and topic trends in information systems research: a meta-analysis of IS journals. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 37(1):30. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03730

Pan SL, Tan B (2011) Demystifying case research: a structured–pragmatic–situational (SPS) approach to conducting case studies. Inf Organ 21(3):161–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2011.07.001

Paré G (2004) Investigating information systems with positivist case research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 13(1):18. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.01318

Piekkari R, Welch C, Paavilainen E (2009) The case study as disciplinary convention: evidence from international business journals. Organ Res Methods 12(3):567–589. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810831990

Recker J (2012) Scientific research in information systems: a beginner’s guide. Springer, Berlin

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

dos Santos Tavares AP, Fornazin M, Joia LA (2021) The good, the bad, and the ugly: digital transformation and the Covid-19 pandemic. In: Proceedings AMCIS 2021

Sarker S, Xiao X, Beaulieu T, Lee AS (2018) Learning from first-generation qualitative approaches in the IS discipline: an evolutionary view and some implications for authors and evaluators (PART 1/2). J Assoc Inf Syst 19(8):752–774. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00508

Schäfferling A, Wagner H-T, Schulz M, Dum T (2011) The effect of knowledge management systems on absorptive capacity: findings from international law firms. In: Proceedings PACIS 2011

Sørensen C, Landau JS (2015) Academic agility in digital innovation research: the case of mobile ICT publications within information systems 2000–2014. J Strateg Inf Syst 24(3):158–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2015.07.001

Spiegel F, Lazic M (2010) Incentive and control mechanisms for mitigating relational risk in IT outsourcing relationships. In: Proceedings AMCIS 2010

Stake RE (2013) Multiple case study analysis. The Guilford Press

Urquhart C (2001) Bridging information requirements and information needs assessment: Do scenarios and vignettes provide a link? Inf Res 6(2):6–2

van de Weerd I, Mangula IS, Brinkkemper S (2016) Adoption of software as a service in indonesia: examining the influence of organizational factors. Inf Manag 53(7):915–928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.05.008

Vom Brocke J, Simons A, Riemer K, Niehaves B, Plattfaut R, Cleven A (2015) Standing on the shoulders of giants: challenges and recommendations of literature search in information systems research. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 37(1):9. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03709

Voss C, Tsikriktsis N, Frohlich M (2002) Case research in operations management. Int J Oper Prod Manag 22(2):195–219

Wagner H-T, Ettrich-Schmitt K (2009) Integrating value-adding mobile services into an emergency management system for tourist destinations. In: Proceedings ECIS 2009

Welch C, Piekkari R, Plakoyiannaki E. et al (2011) Theorising from case studies: Towards a pluralist future for international business research. J Int Bus Stud 42, 740–762. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2010.55

Weill P, Olson MH (1989) Managing investment in information technology: mini case examples and implications. MIS Q 13(1):3–17. https://doi.org/10.2307/248694

Yin RK (2018) Case study research and applications: design and methods, 5th edn. Sage Publications, California

Zamani E, Pouloudi N (2020) Generative mechanisms of workarounds, discontinuance and reframing: a study of negative disconfirmation with consumerised IT. Inf Syst J 31(3):284–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12315

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No funding was received for conducting this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

Sebastian Käss, Christoph Brosig & Susanne Strahringer

OTH Regensburg, Seybothstr 2, 93053, Regensburg, Germany

Markus Westner

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Literature search and analyses were performed by the first two authors, and reviewed by the other two. All authors contributed to the interpretation and the discussion of the results. The first draft of the manuscript was written by the first two authors and all authors commented on the previous versions of the manuscript and critically revised the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susanne Strahringer .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this study.

Ethical approval

Not Applicable, no human participants.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Käss, S., Brosig, C., Westner, M. et al. Short and sweet: multiple mini case studies as a form of rigorous case study research. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-024-00674-2

Download citation

Received : 24 January 2024

Accepted : 23 February 2024

Published : 15 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-024-00674-2

Share this article

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

• Case study research
• Multiple mini case study
• Short case study
• Methodological guidance
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Contact Information
• Guidelines for Examining Unusual Patterns of Cancer and Environmental Concerns
• Resources and Tools

Phased Approach to Respond to Community Inquiries: Phase 3

• Conduct a feasibility assessment to determine whether an epidemiologic study would provide meaningful answers.
• Establish a community advisory committee (CAC) to create a link back to the community for valuable information.
• Consider different aspects to include in the study design and protocol development.

Phase 3: Considerations for epidemiologic studies

Feasibility assessment.

The feasibility of designing and conducting an epidemiologic study is dependent upon a variety of factors. For that reason, a feasibility assessment should be conducted to determine whether it is practical to conduct a study that would provide meaningful answers. The feasibility assessment should address multiple issues, including, but not limited to, data availability, adequate sample size to detect meaningful differences or associations, staff capacity, and other resources. In addition, to support studies and investigations it may be important for STLT health departments to consider all sources of funding and resources that may be available to them, including funding at the federal and state or local level, as well as nontraditional sources of funding.

When it has been determined that an epidemiologic study is feasible, do the following:

• Schedule meetings to discuss the initial findings and proposed approach for further assessment with the initial inquirer and other community members.
• Provide a detailed description of the next steps for evaluation. These next steps should be based on summary findings from the analysis of the 10 criteria in Phase 2 .
• Develop a summary that includes a rationale for continuing the investigation. For example, the assessment identified a potential spatial cluster or environmental factors that warrant further exploration.

Establish a community advisory committee

A community advisory committee (CAC) can contribute valuable sources of information and liaise with other community members. A CAC can provide specific details on the community, including help with cultural sensitivities or knowledge of current and/or historical environmental concerns in the area. A CAC can serve as a communication link back to the community at large.

Open communication will be needed to set goals, establish timelines, and discuss other issues (e.g., possible study limitations) so that expectations are clear. As previously mentioned, it may be important to also discuss issues related to resource requirements and other barriers that may impact conducting an epidemiologic study. Every community is different; however, agencies may be able to work with some existing organizations (e.g., neighborhood or religious organizations) to establish a CAC.

CAC and other community members can provide important insight and assist investigations:

• Help promote participation in studies and conduct outreach
• Identify specific tasks for community members that would contribute to the success of the investigation
• Identify additional data sources within the community (e.g., local lists that may be maintained which would identify previous residents)
• Identify population mobility patterns and housing development considerations

Consider the following for study design and protocol development

The following sections highlight the most important considerations for study design and protocol development. Consider developing a peer review committee with external partners to assess study design issues. Committee members should have a breadth of related skill sets in epidemiology, cancer, biostatistics, toxicology, and environmental health. The final draft of the protocol should be shared with the CAC in advance of initiating the study.

Case definition

Generate a formal case definition ahead of further analyses. Include the type of cancer, the population, the geographic area of concern, and the time period of interest. Review the study area and revise (if necessary) before starting additional analyses. For example, early assessments may have indicated that a particular contaminant was of concern and that more populations were found to be at potential risk for exposure to this contaminant. Thus, the study area would be expanded to include the other populations who were at potential risk for the exposure of concern.

A hypothesis regarding cancer cases or potential environmental contaminants was likely already generated during the assessment phase. However, hypotheses can evolve during an investigation, particularly if a potential exposure source has not been identified 1 . Re-review and update hypotheses regarding the cancer cases and contaminant(s) of interest (i.e., based on observations within the assessment phase to formulate analyses a priori). The hypothesis helps to guide the collection of data, the analysis plan, and interpretation of results.

Study population

Define the population of interest for the study. Ask the following questions to help define the study population as well as the time period of interest:

• How are the boundaries defined for the geographic area of interest?
• What are the characteristics of the population? Are there specific characteristics that are noted for the people with cancer (i.e., age group, race/ethnicity)?
• What is the latency period for the particular cancers of interest? What years of residence would need to be included to reflect the latency/development period assumed for the cancers of concern?
• How long have the residents lived in the area? What is the mobility and migration of former residents?
• Is there a potential for in utero exposures for the cancer(s) of concern based on where the mother lived during pregnancy?

Latency and change of residence add to the complexity of these investigations. Because residential history data are generally not available, collecting such data is critical as part of any epidemiologic study. Given the long latency period associated with cancers in adults, behaviors and exposures that might have contributed to the development of cancer in a person typically occur years to decades before the diagnosis. For example, malignant mesothelioma, a tumor of the lining of the lung, is associated with asbestos exposure, and the latency period between first exposure to asbestos and death from mesothelioma is often 30 years or longer 2 .

Latency in an epidemiologic investigation influences the exposure period relevant to the investigation. For example, if a person with cancer did not live in the suspected area of cancer concern during the relevant exposure period, then that person's cancer would not likely be related to an exposure in the area of concern. Conversely, the latency period might limit the ability to detect unusual patterns of cancer or identify cancers related to an environmental exposure that occurred in the past. In a mobile population, patterns resulting from an environmental contamination occurring years or even decades earlier might go undetected because exposed residents may have moved away from the community before the cancer developed. Thus, as persons move in and out of different communities, their cumulative exposure profile will change.

Because childhood cancers generally have shorter latency periods than cancers in adults, changes of residence might be less of an issue in the investigation of unusual patterns of childhood cancers. However, childhood cancer investigations may have the same limitations as adult counterparts. For example, in one California study of 380 children with a diagnosis of leukemia, approximately 65% of the study participants changed residence between birth and diagnosis 3 , indicating that even among cancers with short latency periods, migration might be an important factor. Account for latency when designing any additional analyses or studies.

Additional environmental data

If additional environmental data are needed, partner with state or local environmental regulatory agencies. ATSDR, including the regional offices, can also provide technical assistance, such as review of environmental sampling plans. Outline the types of sampling needed and resources available or necessary to conduct such sampling. Also, consider the following:

• Potential sources and routes of exposure (e.g., through air inhalation, water ingestion, in utero )
• Contaminant transport (e.g., if exposure occurs via ambient air, meteorological factors such as wind direction and speed are important)
• Other contributing sources of exposure
• Boundaries of potential spread/movement (important to understand the potential at-risk population)
• Any prior or ongoing remediation or reduction activities related to the environmental concern of interest
• Role of participating agencies in data collection and identification of resources to support the collection of environmental data.

Existing health data for case finding

Primarily, cases of cancer among the study population are identified from a state’s cancer registry, using the case definition. Consider multiple existing data sources for use to help identify cases. Forming partnerships with health information exchange or network entities may help with identifying other existing data sources. For additional support and guidance, CDC/ATSDR can provide technical assistance.

Contributing risk factors

An environmental factor may have been identified as a potential risk factor for the cancer of interest; however, cancers may be caused by several different risk factors or through multiple causal mechanisms 4 . Review additional risk factors for the type(s) of cancer under investigation, such as social determinants of health, behavioral risks, occupational exposures, and in some cases genetic factors.

Types of epidemiologic studies to consider

Methods used in environmental epidemiology are observational, not experimental. This makes the process of identifying a causative agent more difficult because researchers may not have access to information about other exposures or other variables that can create bias in the analysis 1 5 6 . However, additional studies can potentially help make inferences about cancer cases and potential associations. Consider the following types of descriptive or analytical studies:

• Case-series study : A case-series study is a descriptive analysis of persons with a similar cancer diagnosis. This study can be particularly helpful when there are small numbers of cases and it is not feasible to pursue other studies (e.g., statistical challenges associated with a small number of individuals diagnosed with the disease). Case-series studies are often designed to collect more information about each person to identify any commonalities. For these studies, identify as many relevant cases as possible to avoid selection bias. Depending on the findings, a further analytical study may be possible or warranted (see case-control or cohort below).
• Ecological study : An ecological study compares aggregated environmental data to aggregated cancer data to examine general associations. Exposures and outcomes are generally grouped to a geographic area, such as a census tract, for comparison. Individual exposures are not included in an ecological analysis. Ecological studies are most often done initially to explore potential associations but alone cannot determine causality. Epidemiologists must use caution when interpreting this type of analysis because the association with a particular environmental contaminant might not be true for individual cases, especially if there is heterogeneous distribution of the exposure over the geographic area. The related bias is known as ecological inference fallacy and could result in exposure misclassification.
• Cross-sectional study : A cross-sectional study is another descriptive study that measures health outcomes and exposure factors during a specific point in time. This type of study is helpful in describing the frequency of different characteristics in a study population during the time frame of interest. However, it may not be the ideal study design for investigating unusual patterns of cancer because this type of study design only looks at data distributions in a specific time frame, and temporal patterns cannot be established. In instances when biomarker data are available, a cross-sectional study may provide insights about key exposures among the population.
• Case-control study : Consider a case-control study when the etiology of the cancer is unknown. This type of analytical study can also be used to assess the association between cancer and a presumed exposure while being able to control for confounding factors. A case-control study collects information from cancer cases meeting the case-definition and controls within the same study area. Exposures and risk factors are compared between the two groups, for example using regression analysis methods. Case-control studies are suggested for rare cancer outcomes. Unlike the ecological study, case-control studies allow for the collection of individual-level data and risk factors to assess within the analyses. The primary disadvantages of a case-control study are the inability for individuals to recall historic events (e.g., exposures) and the difficulty of providing a direct estimate of risk. Risk is often estimated as an odds ratio, showing the odds for a particular cancer to have occurred given a particular exposure, compared to odds of the same cancer without the exposure. For this type of study, the sample size needed should be calculated ahead of time considering the power needed to detect statistical differences between the populations ( Appendix A ).
• Cohort (retrospective or prospective) : Consider a cohort study when the exposure source is known or being investigated. Select people who have varying levels of exposure for the study. Prospective cohort studies, while one of the strongest types of studies to examine exposure-disease relationships, are very time consuming and expensive. Depending on the latency of the cancer(s) of concern, a prospective cohort study may need to be 10–20 years or longer to collect enough data for analyses. The length of time needed often must account for study attrition and thus require a very large sample size. A retrospective cohort study may be feasible, but also is reliant on time-related information. For example, a cohort study may want to compare a population exposed to chemicals from Factory X, which was operating in the early 1990s. To establish a study cohort, a population within that community would have to have been in the study area ~30 years previously. Because of the length of time needed for these studies, some challenges may arise that need to be accounted for within the study design. For example, a community may have experienced a substantial percentage of movement or migration. Also, as previously mentioned, the latency of the cancer will also need to be accounted for within the study design. For example, the average latency for mesothelioma is generally thought to be decades 7 . More recently, data from the World Trade Center Health Program suggests that the minimum latency for mesothelioma is about 11 years and the minimum latency for thyroid cancer is 2.5 years 4 . Studies assessing these types of cancers would have to account for the number of years that specific types of cancers develop following exposures. Additionally, limitations exist with quantifying historic exposures for retrospective cohort studies.

Ongoing technical and scientific advancements in areas such as data science, analytic and geospatial methods, and cancer genomics may be available in the future (e.g., genomic research, gene-environment interaction).

Other considerations for your study

When evaluating the feasibility of different epidemiologic studies, consider the following:

• Funding : Funding may be needed to help with the investigation. Seek state and federal opportunities to assist with funding the investigation or with providing technical assistance. In addition, academic partnerships may help to support the investigation.
• Outreach : For more robust analyses, reach out to other states to discuss case-finding and/or environmental sampling activities, specifically in neighboring states if suspected environmental contaminants cross state borders.
• Communication : Ultimately, the goal of an epidemiologic investigation of unusual patterns or excesses of cancer is to understand the potential relationship between environmental and other risk factors identified and observed cases of cancer. Some epidemiologic investigations have identified potential associations between certain cancers and risk factors including exposures to certain chemicals 8 9 10 . However, methodological limitations and data limitations (such as unknown levels of exposure) often limit the ability to demonstrate that such relationships exist. Regardless of the outcome of an epidemiologic investigation, continuing to communicate with individuals most concerned about exposures and health outcomes is important.
• Merrill R. Environmental Epidemiology, Principles and Methods. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Inc.; 2008.
• Lanphear B, Buncher C. Latent period for malignant mesothelioma of occupational origin – PubMed. J Occup Med [Internet]. 1992 [cited 2022 Jan 7];34(7):718–21. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1494965/
• Urayama KY, Von Behren J, Reynolds P, Hertz A, Does M, Buffler PA. Factors associated with residential mobility in children with leukemia: implications for assigning exposures. Ann Epidemiol [Internet]. 2009 Nov [cited 2022 Jan 7];19(11):834–40. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19364662/
• CDC. World Trade Center Health Program [Internet]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/wtc/pdfs/policies/WTCHP-Minimum-Cancer-Latency-PP-01062015-508.pdf
• Gordis L. Epidemiology. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders; 2014.
• Dicker R, Coronado F, Koo D, Parrish R. Principles of Epidemiology in Public Health Practice: An Introduction to Applied Epidemiology and Biostatics. CDC Office of Workforce and Career Development; 2006.
• Frost G. The latency period of mesothelioma among a cohort of British asbestos workers (1978–2005). Br J Cancer. 2013 Oct 29;109(7):1965–73.
• Costas K, Knorr RS, Condon SK. A case-control study of childhood leukemia in Woburn, Massachusetts: The relationship between leukemia incidence and exposure to public drinking water. Sci Total Environ. 2002;300(1–3):23–35.
• Massachusetts Department of Public Health. The Wilmington Childhood Cancer Study: An Epidemiologic Investigation of Childhood Cancer from 1990–2000. 2021.
• Vieira VM, Hoffman K, Shin HM, Weinberg JM, Webster TF, Fletcher T. Perfluorooctanoic acid exposure and cancer outcomes in a contaminated community: A geographic analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121(3):318–23.

Unusual Cancer Patterns

Guidelines and resources for examining unusual patterns of cancer and environmental concerns.

For Everyone

Public health.

Circular economy introduction

What is a circular economy?

Other available languages

• Circular economy explained

The circular economy is a system where materials never become waste and nature is regenerated. In a circular economy, products and materials are kept in circulation through processes like maintenance, reuse, refurbishment, remanufacture, recycling, and composting. The circular economy tackles climate change and other global challenges, like biodiversity loss, waste, and pollution, by decoupling economic activity from the consumption of finite resources.

The circular economy is based on three principles, driven by design:

Eliminate waste and pollution.

Circulate products and materials (at their highest value)

Regenerate nature

In our current economy, we take materials from the Earth, make products from them, and eventually throw them away as waste – the process is linear. In a circular economy, by contrast, we stop waste being produced in the first place.

We must transform every element of our take-make-waste system: how we manage resources, how we make and use products, and what we do with the materials afterwards. Only then can we create a thriving circular economy that can benefit everyone within the limits of our planet.

A way to transform our system

What will it take to transform our throwaway economy into one where waste is eliminated, resources are circulated, and nature is regenerated?

The circular economy gives us the tools to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss together, while addressing important social needs.

It gives us the power to grow prosperity, jobs, and resilience while cutting greenhouse gas emissions, waste, and pollution.

How the circular economy works

Get the basics or explore the circular economy in detail.

The butterfly diagram: visualising the circular economy

The 'butterfly diagram' shows the continuous flow of materials in a circular economy.

Explaining the circular economy: re-thinking progress

Watch our beginner's guide to understanding how a circular economy works.

Circular economy key ideas

Get up to speed with the fundamentals of the circular economy with these content pills or dive deep...

Circular economy principles

A circular economy is based on three principles, all driven by design.

The first principle of the circular economy is to eliminate waste and pollution....

Circulate products and materials

The second principle of the circular economy is to circulate products and materials at their...

By shifting our economy from linear to circular, we shift the focus from extraction to...

Circular economy examples

See the circular economy in action with these case studies from brands, businesses and policy makers.

Natura Brazil

Working with nature to make food last longer

Apeel is a company that has come up with an innovative way to eliminate single-use shrink wrap plastic packaging on fresh fruit and veg, while at the same time tackling food waste.

Apeel is a layer of edible, plant-based coating applied to fresh products that mimics and enhances the natural defences of fruit and vegetables. This slows down the two main things that cause spoilage – water loss and oxidation.

Case studies

Our curated collection of case studies presents circular economy success stories from around the...

Ellen MacArthur Foundation FILMS

In this series of circular economy events, experts discuss how circular economy solutions are...

Podcast: What is the circular economy?

Ellen MacArthur discusses a range of topics in a conversation about the circular economy.

Circular Economy: The Big Idea

Delve into the concepts of the circular economy to understand its origin, design, and importance...

Circular economy courses

If you want to deepen your knowledge of the circular economy, learn how to stay ahead of the game...

Video series: What is the circular economy?

Building a Regenerative, Restorative Economy

An Introduction to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation

Basics of a circular economy

Our team discuss what the circular economy means to them.

Discussing Circular Economy and What It Means

In this live conversation, members of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation team will discuss and debate...

What If We Don’t Buy Products and We Buy Service? Circular Economy Explained

With the price of resources and energy becoming increasingly volatile, can today's linear economy...

Explore the circular economy by topic

Biodiversity

Biodiversity and the circular economy

This topic area examines how the circular economy can help shape a nature-positive future.

Built Environment

Built environment and the circular economy

In a circular economy our built environment can be a force for good

Cities and the circular economy

This topic area looks at the role cities play in the transition to a circular economy.

Design and the circular economy

Design is a force for change. From innovative products or disruptive business models to entire...

Climate and the circular economy

This topic area looks at how fixing the economy can help fix climate change.

Fashion and the circular economy

This topic area explores how the circular economy works for the fashion industry.

Finance and the circular economy

This topic area looks at the role of the financial sector in the shift to a circular economy.

Food and the circular economy

This topic area shows how moving to a circular economy for food will help people and nature thrive.

Plastics and the circular economy

This topic area shows how the circular economy can help keep plastic in the economy and out of the...

Government and policy for a circular economy

The circular economy provides a framework which allows governments and cities to realise many of...

Education and learning towards a circular economy

We support circular economy learning across a growing global community of schools, colleges and...

Business and the circular economy

A circular economy transformation will empower us with the tools to tackle global challenges, and...

News and updates from The Ellen MacArthur Foundation

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation works to accelerate the transition to a circular economy. We develop and promote the idea of a circular economy, and work with business, academia, policymakers, and institutions to mobilise systems solutions at scale, globally.

Charity Registration No.: 1130306

OSCR Registration No.: SC043120

Company No.: 6897785

Ellen MacArthur Foundation ANBI RSIN nummer: 8257 45 925

• Link to EMF LinkedIn page. Opens in a new tab.
• Link to EMF Twitter page. Opens in a new tab.
• Link to EMF YouTube page. Opens in a new tab.
• Link to EMF Instagram page. Opens in a new tab.
• Link to EMF Medium page. Opens in a new tab.
• Link to EMF TikTok page. Opens in a new tab.
• Link to EMF threads page. Opens in a new tab.

The work of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation is supported by our Strategic Partners and Partners.

• Link to EMF Facebook page. Opens in a new tab.

• Open access
• Published: 27 June 2011

The case study approach

• Sarah Crowe 1 ,
• Kathrin Cresswell 2 ,
• Ann Robertson 2 ,
• Guro Huby 3 ,
• Anthony Avery 1 &
• Aziz Sheikh 2  

BMC Medical Research Methodology volume  11 , Article number:  100 ( 2011 ) Cite this article

779k Accesses

1040 Citations

37 Altmetric

Metrics details

The case study approach allows in-depth, multi-faceted explorations of complex issues in their real-life settings. The value of the case study approach is well recognised in the fields of business, law and policy, but somewhat less so in health services research. Based on our experiences of conducting several health-related case studies, we reflect on the different types of case study design, the specific research questions this approach can help answer, the data sources that tend to be used, and the particular advantages and disadvantages of employing this methodological approach. The paper concludes with key pointers to aid those designing and appraising proposals for conducting case study research, and a checklist to help readers assess the quality of case study reports.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The case study approach is particularly useful to employ when there is a need to obtain an in-depth appreciation of an issue, event or phenomenon of interest, in its natural real-life context. Our aim in writing this piece is to provide insights into when to consider employing this approach and an overview of key methodological considerations in relation to the design, planning, analysis, interpretation and reporting of case studies.

The illustrative 'grand round', 'case report' and 'case series' have a long tradition in clinical practice and research. Presenting detailed critiques, typically of one or more patients, aims to provide insights into aspects of the clinical case and, in doing so, illustrate broader lessons that may be learnt. In research, the conceptually-related case study approach can be used, for example, to describe in detail a patient's episode of care, explore professional attitudes to and experiences of a new policy initiative or service development or more generally to 'investigate contemporary phenomena within its real-life context' [ 1 ]. Based on our experiences of conducting a range of case studies, we reflect on when to consider using this approach, discuss the key steps involved and illustrate, with examples, some of the practical challenges of attaining an in-depth understanding of a 'case' as an integrated whole. In keeping with previously published work, we acknowledge the importance of theory to underpin the design, selection, conduct and interpretation of case studies[ 2 ]. In so doing, we make passing reference to the different epistemological approaches used in case study research by key theoreticians and methodologists in this field of enquiry.

This paper is structured around the following main questions: What is a case study? What are case studies used for? How are case studies conducted? What are the potential pitfalls and how can these be avoided? We draw in particular on four of our own recently published examples of case studies (see Tables 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 ) and those of others to illustrate our discussion[ 3 – 7 ].

What is a case study?

A case study is a research approach that is used to generate an in-depth, multi-faceted understanding of a complex issue in its real-life context. It is an established research design that is used extensively in a wide variety of disciplines, particularly in the social sciences. A case study can be defined in a variety of ways (Table 5 ), the central tenet being the need to explore an event or phenomenon in depth and in its natural context. It is for this reason sometimes referred to as a "naturalistic" design; this is in contrast to an "experimental" design (such as a randomised controlled trial) in which the investigator seeks to exert control over and manipulate the variable(s) of interest.

Stake's work has been particularly influential in defining the case study approach to scientific enquiry. He has helpfully characterised three main types of case study: intrinsic , instrumental and collective [ 8 ]. An intrinsic case study is typically undertaken to learn about a unique phenomenon. The researcher should define the uniqueness of the phenomenon, which distinguishes it from all others. In contrast, the instrumental case study uses a particular case (some of which may be better than others) to gain a broader appreciation of an issue or phenomenon. The collective case study involves studying multiple cases simultaneously or sequentially in an attempt to generate a still broader appreciation of a particular issue.

These are however not necessarily mutually exclusive categories. In the first of our examples (Table 1 ), we undertook an intrinsic case study to investigate the issue of recruitment of minority ethnic people into the specific context of asthma research studies, but it developed into a instrumental case study through seeking to understand the issue of recruitment of these marginalised populations more generally, generating a number of the findings that are potentially transferable to other disease contexts[ 3 ]. In contrast, the other three examples (see Tables 2 , 3 and 4 ) employed collective case study designs to study the introduction of workforce reconfiguration in primary care, the implementation of electronic health records into hospitals, and to understand the ways in which healthcare students learn about patient safety considerations[ 4 – 6 ]. Although our study focusing on the introduction of General Practitioners with Specialist Interests (Table 2 ) was explicitly collective in design (four contrasting primary care organisations were studied), is was also instrumental in that this particular professional group was studied as an exemplar of the more general phenomenon of workforce redesign[ 4 ].

What are case studies used for?

According to Yin, case studies can be used to explain, describe or explore events or phenomena in the everyday contexts in which they occur[ 1 ]. These can, for example, help to understand and explain causal links and pathways resulting from a new policy initiative or service development (see Tables 2 and 3 , for example)[ 1 ]. In contrast to experimental designs, which seek to test a specific hypothesis through deliberately manipulating the environment (like, for example, in a randomised controlled trial giving a new drug to randomly selected individuals and then comparing outcomes with controls),[ 9 ] the case study approach lends itself well to capturing information on more explanatory ' how ', 'what' and ' why ' questions, such as ' how is the intervention being implemented and received on the ground?'. The case study approach can offer additional insights into what gaps exist in its delivery or why one implementation strategy might be chosen over another. This in turn can help develop or refine theory, as shown in our study of the teaching of patient safety in undergraduate curricula (Table 4 )[ 6 , 10 ]. Key questions to consider when selecting the most appropriate study design are whether it is desirable or indeed possible to undertake a formal experimental investigation in which individuals and/or organisations are allocated to an intervention or control arm? Or whether the wish is to obtain a more naturalistic understanding of an issue? The former is ideally studied using a controlled experimental design, whereas the latter is more appropriately studied using a case study design.

Case studies may be approached in different ways depending on the epistemological standpoint of the researcher, that is, whether they take a critical (questioning one's own and others' assumptions), interpretivist (trying to understand individual and shared social meanings) or positivist approach (orientating towards the criteria of natural sciences, such as focusing on generalisability considerations) (Table 6 ). Whilst such a schema can be conceptually helpful, it may be appropriate to draw on more than one approach in any case study, particularly in the context of conducting health services research. Doolin has, for example, noted that in the context of undertaking interpretative case studies, researchers can usefully draw on a critical, reflective perspective which seeks to take into account the wider social and political environment that has shaped the case[ 11 ].

How are case studies conducted?

Here, we focus on the main stages of research activity when planning and undertaking a case study; the crucial stages are: defining the case; selecting the case(s); collecting and analysing the data; interpreting data; and reporting the findings.

Defining the case

Carefully formulated research question(s), informed by the existing literature and a prior appreciation of the theoretical issues and setting(s), are all important in appropriately and succinctly defining the case[ 8 , 12 ]. Crucially, each case should have a pre-defined boundary which clarifies the nature and time period covered by the case study (i.e. its scope, beginning and end), the relevant social group, organisation or geographical area of interest to the investigator, the types of evidence to be collected, and the priorities for data collection and analysis (see Table 7 )[ 1 ]. A theory driven approach to defining the case may help generate knowledge that is potentially transferable to a range of clinical contexts and behaviours; using theory is also likely to result in a more informed appreciation of, for example, how and why interventions have succeeded or failed[ 13 ].

For example, in our evaluation of the introduction of electronic health records in English hospitals (Table 3 ), we defined our cases as the NHS Trusts that were receiving the new technology[ 5 ]. Our focus was on how the technology was being implemented. However, if the primary research interest had been on the social and organisational dimensions of implementation, we might have defined our case differently as a grouping of healthcare professionals (e.g. doctors and/or nurses). The precise beginning and end of the case may however prove difficult to define. Pursuing this same example, when does the process of implementation and adoption of an electronic health record system really begin or end? Such judgements will inevitably be influenced by a range of factors, including the research question, theory of interest, the scope and richness of the gathered data and the resources available to the research team.

Selecting the case(s)

The decision on how to select the case(s) to study is a very important one that merits some reflection. In an intrinsic case study, the case is selected on its own merits[ 8 ]. The case is selected not because it is representative of other cases, but because of its uniqueness, which is of genuine interest to the researchers. This was, for example, the case in our study of the recruitment of minority ethnic participants into asthma research (Table 1 ) as our earlier work had demonstrated the marginalisation of minority ethnic people with asthma, despite evidence of disproportionate asthma morbidity[ 14 , 15 ]. In another example of an intrinsic case study, Hellstrom et al.[ 16 ] studied an elderly married couple living with dementia to explore how dementia had impacted on their understanding of home, their everyday life and their relationships.

For an instrumental case study, selecting a "typical" case can work well[ 8 ]. In contrast to the intrinsic case study, the particular case which is chosen is of less importance than selecting a case that allows the researcher to investigate an issue or phenomenon. For example, in order to gain an understanding of doctors' responses to health policy initiatives, Som undertook an instrumental case study interviewing clinicians who had a range of responsibilities for clinical governance in one NHS acute hospital trust[ 17 ]. Sampling a "deviant" or "atypical" case may however prove even more informative, potentially enabling the researcher to identify causal processes, generate hypotheses and develop theory.

In collective or multiple case studies, a number of cases are carefully selected. This offers the advantage of allowing comparisons to be made across several cases and/or replication. Choosing a "typical" case may enable the findings to be generalised to theory (i.e. analytical generalisation) or to test theory by replicating the findings in a second or even a third case (i.e. replication logic)[ 1 ]. Yin suggests two or three literal replications (i.e. predicting similar results) if the theory is straightforward and five or more if the theory is more subtle. However, critics might argue that selecting 'cases' in this way is insufficiently reflexive and ill-suited to the complexities of contemporary healthcare organisations.

The selected case study site(s) should allow the research team access to the group of individuals, the organisation, the processes or whatever else constitutes the chosen unit of analysis for the study. Access is therefore a central consideration; the researcher needs to come to know the case study site(s) well and to work cooperatively with them. Selected cases need to be not only interesting but also hospitable to the inquiry [ 8 ] if they are to be informative and answer the research question(s). Case study sites may also be pre-selected for the researcher, with decisions being influenced by key stakeholders. For example, our selection of case study sites in the evaluation of the implementation and adoption of electronic health record systems (see Table 3 ) was heavily influenced by NHS Connecting for Health, the government agency that was responsible for overseeing the National Programme for Information Technology (NPfIT)[ 5 ]. This prominent stakeholder had already selected the NHS sites (through a competitive bidding process) to be early adopters of the electronic health record systems and had negotiated contracts that detailed the deployment timelines.

It is also important to consider in advance the likely burden and risks associated with participation for those who (or the site(s) which) comprise the case study. Of particular importance is the obligation for the researcher to think through the ethical implications of the study (e.g. the risk of inadvertently breaching anonymity or confidentiality) and to ensure that potential participants/participating sites are provided with sufficient information to make an informed choice about joining the study. The outcome of providing this information might be that the emotive burden associated with participation, or the organisational disruption associated with supporting the fieldwork, is considered so high that the individuals or sites decide against participation.

In our example of evaluating implementations of electronic health record systems, given the restricted number of early adopter sites available to us, we sought purposively to select a diverse range of implementation cases among those that were available[ 5 ]. We chose a mixture of teaching, non-teaching and Foundation Trust hospitals, and examples of each of the three electronic health record systems procured centrally by the NPfIT. At one recruited site, it quickly became apparent that access was problematic because of competing demands on that organisation. Recognising the importance of full access and co-operative working for generating rich data, the research team decided not to pursue work at that site and instead to focus on other recruited sites.

Collecting the data

In order to develop a thorough understanding of the case, the case study approach usually involves the collection of multiple sources of evidence, using a range of quantitative (e.g. questionnaires, audits and analysis of routinely collected healthcare data) and more commonly qualitative techniques (e.g. interviews, focus groups and observations). The use of multiple sources of data (data triangulation) has been advocated as a way of increasing the internal validity of a study (i.e. the extent to which the method is appropriate to answer the research question)[ 8 , 18 – 21 ]. An underlying assumption is that data collected in different ways should lead to similar conclusions, and approaching the same issue from different angles can help develop a holistic picture of the phenomenon (Table 2 )[ 4 ].

Brazier and colleagues used a mixed-methods case study approach to investigate the impact of a cancer care programme[ 22 ]. Here, quantitative measures were collected with questionnaires before, and five months after, the start of the intervention which did not yield any statistically significant results. Qualitative interviews with patients however helped provide an insight into potentially beneficial process-related aspects of the programme, such as greater, perceived patient involvement in care. The authors reported how this case study approach provided a number of contextual factors likely to influence the effectiveness of the intervention and which were not likely to have been obtained from quantitative methods alone.

In collective or multiple case studies, data collection needs to be flexible enough to allow a detailed description of each individual case to be developed (e.g. the nature of different cancer care programmes), before considering the emerging similarities and differences in cross-case comparisons (e.g. to explore why one programme is more effective than another). It is important that data sources from different cases are, where possible, broadly comparable for this purpose even though they may vary in nature and depth.

Analysing, interpreting and reporting case studies

Making sense and offering a coherent interpretation of the typically disparate sources of data (whether qualitative alone or together with quantitative) is far from straightforward. Repeated reviewing and sorting of the voluminous and detail-rich data are integral to the process of analysis. In collective case studies, it is helpful to analyse data relating to the individual component cases first, before making comparisons across cases. Attention needs to be paid to variations within each case and, where relevant, the relationship between different causes, effects and outcomes[ 23 ]. Data will need to be organised and coded to allow the key issues, both derived from the literature and emerging from the dataset, to be easily retrieved at a later stage. An initial coding frame can help capture these issues and can be applied systematically to the whole dataset with the aid of a qualitative data analysis software package.

The Framework approach is a practical approach, comprising of five stages (familiarisation; identifying a thematic framework; indexing; charting; mapping and interpretation) , to managing and analysing large datasets particularly if time is limited, as was the case in our study of recruitment of South Asians into asthma research (Table 1 )[ 3 , 24 ]. Theoretical frameworks may also play an important role in integrating different sources of data and examining emerging themes. For example, we drew on a socio-technical framework to help explain the connections between different elements - technology; people; and the organisational settings within which they worked - in our study of the introduction of electronic health record systems (Table 3 )[ 5 ]. Our study of patient safety in undergraduate curricula drew on an evaluation-based approach to design and analysis, which emphasised the importance of the academic, organisational and practice contexts through which students learn (Table 4 )[ 6 ].

Case study findings can have implications both for theory development and theory testing. They may establish, strengthen or weaken historical explanations of a case and, in certain circumstances, allow theoretical (as opposed to statistical) generalisation beyond the particular cases studied[ 12 ]. These theoretical lenses should not, however, constitute a strait-jacket and the cases should not be "forced to fit" the particular theoretical framework that is being employed.

When reporting findings, it is important to provide the reader with enough contextual information to understand the processes that were followed and how the conclusions were reached. In a collective case study, researchers may choose to present the findings from individual cases separately before amalgamating across cases. Care must be taken to ensure the anonymity of both case sites and individual participants (if agreed in advance) by allocating appropriate codes or withholding descriptors. In the example given in Table 3 , we decided against providing detailed information on the NHS sites and individual participants in order to avoid the risk of inadvertent disclosure of identities[ 5 , 25 ].

What are the potential pitfalls and how can these be avoided?

The case study approach is, as with all research, not without its limitations. When investigating the formal and informal ways undergraduate students learn about patient safety (Table 4 ), for example, we rapidly accumulated a large quantity of data. The volume of data, together with the time restrictions in place, impacted on the depth of analysis that was possible within the available resources. This highlights a more general point of the importance of avoiding the temptation to collect as much data as possible; adequate time also needs to be set aside for data analysis and interpretation of what are often highly complex datasets.

Case study research has sometimes been criticised for lacking scientific rigour and providing little basis for generalisation (i.e. producing findings that may be transferable to other settings)[ 1 ]. There are several ways to address these concerns, including: the use of theoretical sampling (i.e. drawing on a particular conceptual framework); respondent validation (i.e. participants checking emerging findings and the researcher's interpretation, and providing an opinion as to whether they feel these are accurate); and transparency throughout the research process (see Table 8 )[ 8 , 18 – 21 , 23 , 26 ]. Transparency can be achieved by describing in detail the steps involved in case selection, data collection, the reasons for the particular methods chosen, and the researcher's background and level of involvement (i.e. being explicit about how the researcher has influenced data collection and interpretation). Seeking potential, alternative explanations, and being explicit about how interpretations and conclusions were reached, help readers to judge the trustworthiness of the case study report. Stake provides a critique checklist for a case study report (Table 9 )[ 8 ].

Conclusions

The case study approach allows, amongst other things, critical events, interventions, policy developments and programme-based service reforms to be studied in detail in a real-life context. It should therefore be considered when an experimental design is either inappropriate to answer the research questions posed or impossible to undertake. Considering the frequency with which implementations of innovations are now taking place in healthcare settings and how well the case study approach lends itself to in-depth, complex health service research, we believe this approach should be more widely considered by researchers. Though inherently challenging, the research case study can, if carefully conceptualised and thoughtfully undertaken and reported, yield powerful insights into many important aspects of health and healthcare delivery.

Yin RK: Case study research, design and method. 2009, London: Sage Publications Ltd., 4

Google Scholar  

Keen J, Packwood T: Qualitative research; case study evaluation. BMJ. 1995, 311: 444-446.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Sheikh A, Halani L, Bhopal R, Netuveli G, Partridge M, Car J, et al: Facilitating the Recruitment of Minority Ethnic People into Research: Qualitative Case Study of South Asians and Asthma. PLoS Med. 2009, 6 (10): 1-11.

Article   Google Scholar  

Pinnock H, Huby G, Powell A, Kielmann T, Price D, Williams S, et al: The process of planning, development and implementation of a General Practitioner with a Special Interest service in Primary Care Organisations in England and Wales: a comparative prospective case study. Report for the National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation R&D (NCCSDO). 2008, [ http://www.sdo.nihr.ac.uk/files/project/99-final-report.pdf ]

Robertson A, Cresswell K, Takian A, Petrakaki D, Crowe S, Cornford T, et al: Prospective evaluation of the implementation and adoption of NHS Connecting for Health's national electronic health record in secondary care in England: interim findings. BMJ. 2010, 41: c4564-

Pearson P, Steven A, Howe A, Sheikh A, Ashcroft D, Smith P, the Patient Safety Education Study Group: Learning about patient safety: organisational context and culture in the education of healthcare professionals. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2010, 15: 4-10. 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009052.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

van Harten WH, Casparie TF, Fisscher OA: The evaluation of the introduction of a quality management system: a process-oriented case study in a large rehabilitation hospital. Health Policy. 2002, 60 (1): 17-37. 10.1016/S0168-8510(01)00187-7.

Stake RE: The art of case study research. 1995, London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Sheikh A, Smeeth L, Ashcroft R: Randomised controlled trials in primary care: scope and application. Br J Gen Pract. 2002, 52 (482): 746-51.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

King G, Keohane R, Verba S: Designing Social Inquiry. 1996, Princeton: Princeton University Press

Doolin B: Information technology as disciplinary technology: being critical in interpretative research on information systems. Journal of Information Technology. 1998, 13: 301-311. 10.1057/jit.1998.8.

George AL, Bennett A: Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. 2005, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

Eccles M, the Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (ICEBeRG): Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implementation Science. 2006, 1: 1-8. 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Netuveli G, Hurwitz B, Levy M, Fletcher M, Barnes G, Durham SR, Sheikh A: Ethnic variations in UK asthma frequency, morbidity, and health-service use: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2005, 365 (9456): 312-7.

Sheikh A, Panesar SS, Lasserson T, Netuveli G: Recruitment of ethnic minorities to asthma studies. Thorax. 2004, 59 (7): 634-

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hellström I, Nolan M, Lundh U: 'We do things together': A case study of 'couplehood' in dementia. Dementia. 2005, 4: 7-22. 10.1177/1471301205049188.

Som CV: Nothing seems to have changed, nothing seems to be changing and perhaps nothing will change in the NHS: doctors' response to clinical governance. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2005, 18: 463-477. 10.1108/09513550510608903.

Lincoln Y, Guba E: Naturalistic inquiry. 1985, Newbury Park: Sage Publications

Barbour RS: Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?. BMJ. 2001, 322: 1115-1117. 10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115.

Mays N, Pope C: Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ. 2000, 320: 50-52. 10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50.

Mason J: Qualitative researching. 2002, London: Sage

Brazier A, Cooke K, Moravan V: Using Mixed Methods for Evaluating an Integrative Approach to Cancer Care: A Case Study. Integr Cancer Ther. 2008, 7: 5-17. 10.1177/1534735407313395.

Miles MB, Huberman M: Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. 1994, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 2

Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N: Analysing qualitative data. Qualitative research in health care. BMJ. 2000, 320: 114-116. 10.1136/bmj.320.7227.114.

Cresswell KM, Worth A, Sheikh A: Actor-Network Theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2010, 10 (1): 67-10.1186/1472-6947-10-67.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Malterud K: Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. 2001, 358: 483-488. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Yin R: Case study research: design and methods. 1994, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing, 2

Yin R: Enhancing the quality of case studies in health services research. Health Serv Res. 1999, 34: 1209-1224.

Green J, Thorogood N: Qualitative methods for health research. 2009, Los Angeles: Sage, 2

Howcroft D, Trauth E: Handbook of Critical Information Systems Research, Theory and Application. 2005, Cheltenham, UK: Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar

Book   Google Scholar  

Blakie N: Approaches to Social Enquiry. 1993, Cambridge: Polity Press

Doolin B: Power and resistance in the implementation of a medical management information system. Info Systems J. 2004, 14: 343-362. 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00176.x.

Bloomfield BP, Best A: Management consultants: systems development, power and the translation of problems. Sociological Review. 1992, 40: 533-560.

Shanks G, Parr A: Positivist, single case study research in information systems: A critical analysis. Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems. 2003, Naples

Pre-publication history

The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/100/prepub

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the participants and colleagues who contributed to the individual case studies that we have drawn on. This work received no direct funding, but it has been informed by projects funded by Asthma UK, the NHS Service Delivery Organisation, NHS Connecting for Health Evaluation Programme, and Patient Safety Research Portfolio. We would also like to thank the expert reviewers for their insightful and constructive feedback. Our thanks are also due to Dr. Allison Worth who commented on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Primary Care, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK

Sarah Crowe & Anthony Avery

Centre for Population Health Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

Kathrin Cresswell, Ann Robertson & Aziz Sheikh

School of Health in Social Science, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Crowe .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

AS conceived this article. SC, KC and AR wrote this paper with GH, AA and AS all commenting on various drafts. SC and AS are guarantors.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A. et al. The case study approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 11 , 100 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Download citation

Received : 29 November 2010

Accepted : 27 June 2011

Published : 27 June 2011

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-100

Share this article

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

• Case Study Approach
• Electronic Health Record System
• Case Study Design
• Case Study Site
• Case Study Report

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

• General enquiries: [email protected]

A 2Gen Approach in Wisconsin: A State Case Study for Systems Leaders & Policymakers

Wisconsin’s 2Gen approach to date has brought its most significant systemic barriers into clear sight. The story also illuminates the systems change strategies that have emerged as the most significant and essential to moving this work to the next level. Throughout this case study, state leaders and partners reflect on indicators of progress and on strategies for the long game of transformational systems change to make it possible for 2Gen approaches to take hold and spread across the state.

By looking to the places where there is an enduring commitment to this transformational work, other states and communities can learn from and build on these efforts, catalyzing change and accelerating momentum. Our hope is that readers will benefit from learning about and immersing themselves in real-world stories of how this work unfolds in diverse places. This kind of exploration enables readers to understand the importance and potential impact of 2Gen approaches and of the associated systems change work involved in creating the conditions for these efforts to succeed and proliferate.

Related Resources

Start typing and press enter to search

Developing an effective M&A blueprint for insurers

At its core, programmatic M&A  is not a volume play; it’s a strategy for systematically acquiring small to midsize businesses, services, and capabilities and for effectively integrating them as new businesses or capabilities. Companies that adopt this approach to deal making , including a select group of insurers in both the life and property and casualty (P&C) sectors, have generated superior excess TSR by focusing on a series of smaller acquisitions to diversify product offerings or add new capabilities—rather than traditional financial-sector M&A goals that emphasize building scale.

About the authors

This article is a collaborative effort by Alex D’Amico , Oliver Engert , Jay Gelb , Sean O’Connell , Kurt Strovink , and Liz Wol , representing views from McKinsey’s Insurance and Strategy & Corporate Finance Practices.

It’s an approach insurers should consider. Deal making in the sector is likely to be brisk in the coming years as insurers seek to grow and diversify their earnings. Life insurers face ongoing challenges to sustaining growth in core life and annuity businesses; they also remain focused on improving ROE profiles by divesting or reinsuring legacy blocks. Meanwhile, P&C carriers are likely to seek bolt-on deals of companies that enhance their presence in growth markets and offer attractive cross-cycle ROE.

To support a programmatic approach to M&A, acquirers need to canvass a large number of potential acquisitions—as many as two to three times more than they did several years ago. But in our experience, many insurance carriers are facing that volume of activity with little more than the most basic framework describing the how and why of their M&A strategy. In a recent informal poll of insurance executives who focus on strategy, business development, and M&A, 1 Our informal poll, completed in the fourth quarter of 2021, solicited input from 12 North American insurance executives, representing traditional carriers as well as newer entrants. Seven of the 12 respondents reported closing at least one or two deals per year over the past five years, with none of them characterized as large deals. we found that some believe they have relevant capabilities in place given their frequent engagement in M&A (Exhibit 1). Yet few of these rise to the level of what we would define as a fully developed M&A blueprint . Without such a blueprint, companies will find it hard to distinguish between through-cycle opportunities  (during both upcycles and downturns) that are consistent with their corporate strategy and low-hanging opportunistic deals available in the marketplace that are not. Furthermore, without a developed M&A blueprint, insurers are more likely to pursue ad hoc synergies around each target with hit-or-miss returns.

A robust M&A blueprint addresses where, why, and how a company will undertake a systematic program of acquisition. It lays out well-defined themes and criteria that are explicitly grounded in strategy, builds conviction and alignment of stakeholders, and sets clear boundaries and integration plans. The result is that companies can be both more proactive and more opportunistic at identifying potential acquisition targets and will be better prepared for negotiations and integration. As important, an effective M&A blueprint will be an invaluable tool for executives communicating a compelling story, both internally and to investors, about the company’s deal-making strategy and its vision for the future.

Where and why

The foundation of any M&A blueprint is an explicit articulation of how M&A aligns with and furthers a company’s growth strategy. Companies that acquire businesses expecting to refine the strategic rationale later are unlikely to reap the rewards of programmatic deal making. So are those that see smaller acquisitions as malleable building blocks to be pieced together ad hoc, that take an opportunistic approach to M&A, or that proceed without a pressure-tested integration playbook.

For companies considering acquisitions, an M&A blueprint should target specific growth themes and boundary conditions that reflect a comprehensive self-assessment of a company’s competitive advantages as well as the compelling strategy requirements for its business model that make it well suited to pursue M&A in a specific area. For example, a personal lines P&C carrier’s corporate strategy included enhancing customer growth through a digital engagement platform. Confident in the company’s ability to rapidly scale new businesses, managers decided that a program of M&A to acquire the various components of an integrated, direct-to-consumer platform would be the best way to accelerate domestic growth and support international expansion.

Identifying growth themes

An effective blueprint for programmatic M&A identifies at most three actionable M&A growth themes. 2 Even experienced programmatic acquirers are often unable to focus on more than three M&A themes. Even so, companies with highly distinct business units, such as life and P&C insurance, could identify more than three themes. But in general, for carriers new to this approach, focusing on one or two M&A growth themes to start with could be more beneficial. These themes should be areas where the company can add value to targets and needs M&A to deliver its strategy. They might include, for example, themes leading to superior product manufacturing capabilities across life and annuities as well as personal and commercial P&C lines, the ability to operate effectively in multiple international markets—which can be difficult to achieve through organic growth—or opportunities to target smaller companies with differentiated offerings and niche areas, including asset management or specialty commercial P&C lines.

A vague M&A blueprint with an unclear link to strategy tends to lead to overly broad objectives for deal making. “Increasing our digital focus,” for example, is not specific enough to help executives identify potential M&A targets. A more actionable objective might be framed as “improving underwriting methodology by acquiring companies with expertise in areas such as data analytics, intelligent pricing, antifraud, and telematics.”

Converging around the top one to three areas where M&A can most substantially advance the organization’s strategy takes some planning. Getting a group of executives to agree on a shortlist of M&A themes is bound to evoke some friction. If you were to go around the table at the next strategy meeting and ask your company’s senior leadership team to identify the organization’s top M&A themes, you’d likely end up with a long list of ideas. That’s acceptable, at first, because such an exercise can serve as a mechanism that compels everyone to take a closer look at their data, assumptions, and biases—a process that elevates awareness and understanding. But eventually, the most effective M&A blueprints also reflect alignment and conviction among senior leadership (including business unit leadership and the business development team) around a shortlist of M&A themes.

Among the North American insurance industry M&A executives we polled, the two most common objectives of pursuing deals are the acquisition of new capabilities and the expansion of product and service offerings. Less relevant acquisition rationales included expanding geographically, realizing economies of scale, and acquiring undervalued companies.

The CFO of one leading insurance company successfully focuses the carrier’s M&A agenda around a prioritized set of growth and capability themes. Close collaboration between the CFO’s team and business unit leaders enables the company to identify top acquisition candidates—which is a big factor in their success at conducting due diligence on dozens of potential targets each year. This company successfully completes multiple bolt-on deals per year, many of which are privately negotiated transactions cultivated through proactive sourcing rather than well-known opportunities in the marketplace. In addition, the CFO’s team uses its playbook to create value and meet integration targets, which maintains capabilities, improves the cost structure, and typically includes a boundary condition of achieving earnings accretion within 12 months.

Setting boundary conditions

One aspect of this assessment that is often overlooked is an explicit acknowledgment of the market and organizational forces that define the boundaries of a company’s deal making in terms of size, type, and pace. The most concrete boundary is probably how much capital an insurer has on hand or can raise to fund a program of acquisitions—including capital not just for funding acquisitions but also for integrating and scaling each asset.

Boundary conditions might also include financial metrics such as those reflecting an insurer’s growth targets, margins, earnings, or ROE. If a carrier is only anchored on certain return metrics, such as ROE or ROIC, to track ongoing performance of an acquired asset, then high-growth, early-stage companies often look less attractive. Alternatively, if an insurer is willing to look at an array of metrics based on the asset profile—such as ROE or ROIC for mature assets versus top-line growth for early-stage innovators—then it will have a greater degree of freedom for deal making. Finally, even softer assessments of organizational and cultural fit, financial limitations, or regulatory boundaries can further narrow the scope of potential targets.

Establishing these boundary conditions early—with explicit agreement from the CFO and the board—can help put teeth into investment commitments and align everyone on negotiable and nonnegotiable terms. Consider, for example, the case of one personal lines carrier. Over the years, the company had a generally successful track record of acquiring large insurers to add new brands and customer segments. However, these acquisitions were seldom fully integrated, resulting in unwieldy productivity metrics and a collection of separately maintained corporate functions, such as finance and HR. This M&A strategy worked reasonably well until the company realized its loose approach was not scalable. The insurer addressed this issue by resetting both its organizational and M&A approaches and refining its methodology to implement a series of boundary conditions for acquisitions linked to tightened integration parameters. These included centralized corporate functions that created additional efficiencies, rather than maintaining separate corporate functions for each company it acquired. As a result, the company is now able to effectively pursue growth through M&A.

Programmatic acquirers must give careful thought to how they plan to pursue M&A—a critical part of the M&A blueprint to advance their strategic plans.

How: A foundation for action

Programmatic acquirers must give careful thought to how they plan to pursue M&A—a critical part of the M&A blueprint to advance their strategic plans. This process includes constructing a high-level business case to identify the objectives and preliminary integration plans for each area. It also includes identifying the right capabilities and resources for each part of the deal-making process, as well as plans for tailoring the approach for each specific deal. Plans may need adjustments to reflect each deal’s sources of risk and whether value opportunities will come from consolidation, capability building, or new business opportunities, for example.

Business case to identify objectives

Once priority M&A themes and boundary conditions are established, the next critical step is to develop a granular road map for execution. The road map should identify how an acquisition would create value and create screening criteria to prioritize potential targets—within the boundary conditions of feasibility and availability.

Once the business case is developed at the theme level, carriers need to develop a plan for each identified acquisition candidate, including a top-down growth plan, capital and cost synergy assumptions, risk mitigation, and a determination of the investment needed to scale the asset. An effective business plan should be continuously refined based on the target’s relative size, its level of similarity with the acquiring business, and, as acquirers learn more about an asset, its working culture.

It is important to recognize that in a seller’s market, buyers face the risk of overpaying for an attractive asset. A critical way to reduce this risk is to apply the discipline of developing an M&A blueprint inclusive of a theme-level business case. This process is designed to enhance the due-diligence process and allow organizations to avoid making costly mistakes that are inconsistent with their growth strategies.

Capabilities and execution

Part of the self-assessment involved in developing an M&A blueprint is a review of the company’s internal talent; its capabilities; and the time needed to evaluate, pursue, and execute M&A deals, both before and after a transaction. If there are unknowns, what are the gaps that need to be addressed?

We recommend that companies develop a comprehensive integration playbook as part of the overall blueprint, including key activities for each area (such as value capture, cultural integration, and revenue synergies) and specific leadership roles that must be filled for a successful transaction. This includes senior sponsors in the organization, ideally business unit leaders who own initiatives and assign working teams against them.

At least half of the carriers we polled have playbooks centered on the initial stages of a deal, including target identification, due diligence, valuation, and integration planning checklists. But most of them lack guidelines about tailoring execution—a critical factor in the most effective acquisitions  (Exhibit 2). In particular, based on different deal archetypes in insurance, acquirers might have different perspectives on who leads across five critical design areas of merger integration:

• Governance: Who leads the overall value creation planning and business case development and review, and how they do it?
• Leadership: Who coordinates the integration and organization effort across ideation, business case development, approval, and rigorous tracking?
• Scope: What do we integrate, and to what extent, to realize the value aspiration?
• Speed and pace: How fast should we go, and how coordinated should the effort be?
• Culture and talent: How will we handle people?

One leading global player with a history of delivering strong M&A returns employs a highly disciplined, sponsor-oriented approach to deal making. The CFO assigns leadership roles to specific executives, who have ultimate responsibility for deal execution and integration. This approach ensures speedy decision making, which unblocks pain points and helps deliver a deal’s full value.

Building conviction

Embarking on a program of M&A requires conviction, commitment, and buy-in from internal and external stakeholders alike. An effective M&A blueprint, when developed collaboratively, can ensure that competing viewpoints are heard inside the company and that risks and opportunities are thoroughly vetted. This better prepares the CEO to communicate with the board but also enables the acquisition team to seek the support of its acquisition targets.

Embarking on a program of M&A requires conviction, commitment, and buy-in from internal and external stakeholders alike.

Drafting the M&A blueprint

An M&A blueprint isn’t something a single executive can draft—and it isn’t much use if it’s developed after the fact to confirm the hypotheses supporting an exciting deal. The best blueprints reflect senior-level coordination between corporate-strategy and corporate-development executives whose collective alignment helps build conviction in their decision to commit capital to transactions. When alignment is established, the process becomes efficient because executives are not debating which types of deals to target. This alignment occurs in no small part due to a transparent and unambiguous approach from the CEO.

After one deal failed to cross the finish line, a mutual insurer’s CEO and head of M&A conducted a six-week exercise to assess and strengthen the company’s M&A approach. As a result, the company aligned its growth themes and developed a process to scan for broadened opportunities—enhancements that led to a threefold increase in the number of potential acquisition candidates. The new blueprint increased the company’s confidence in deal making and ultimately led to multiple equity investments in companies that generated substantial financial returns and turbocharged capabilities.

Your reputation as an acquirer

For programmatic acquirers, today’s competitive M&A landscape has characteristics of a seller’s market. Small and midsize companies with innovative technology, next-generation products, undeveloped intellectual assets, or even well-honed capabilities in underserved markets can have multiple suitors—and they’re often interested in more than just the bottom-line sale price. As a result, acquirers need to make longer-term investments to build conviction in acquisition targets. Yet nearly half the carriers we polled lack a clear owner for proactive target cultivation, and only one-third of carriers regularly establish relationships with potential M&A targets.

Some acquirers maintain lists of potential acquisition targets and cultivate relationships with them, and we expect more companies to begin following suit in the next year or two. This development will change the job responsibilities of carriers’ most senior executives, including the CEO. For example, one global insurance industry leader keeps an extended list of close to 100 potential acquisition candidates. Executives update this list quarterly and actively reach out to candidates to cultivate them for potential fit and deals. Senior leaders will need to allocate greater portions of their time to cultivating acquisition candidates. As a result, they need to have time blocks (appropriately leveraged in coordination and collaboration with others) focused on developing long-term relationships with targets that might ultimately lead to acquisitions.

The most successful acquirers also take the long view on establishing and supporting their brand identity as a desirable buyer. Companies known for treating people fairly after an acquisition—as well as caring about the knowledge they bring to the enterprise—often enjoy an advantaged position among competing acquirers. A robust M&A blueprint should explicitly address a company’s reputation as a buyer, how that reputation will play out in the acquisition process, and how the acquisition team might use the blueprint as a screening criterion in cultivating acquisition candidates.

Programmatic M&A is a strategy for systematically building new businesses, services, and capabilities and effectively integrating them to build something that did not exist before. The companies that use a programmatic approach create deal flow linked to their conviction in their corporate strategy, understanding of their competitive advantage, and confidence in their capacity to execute.

Alex D’Amico and Kurt Strovink are senior partners in McKinsey’s New York office, where Jay Gelb , Sean O’Connell , and Liz Wol are partners; Oliver Engert is a senior partner in the Miami office.

The authors wish to thank Shaun Ayrton, Cristian Boldan, Alok Bothra, Deniz Lenger, Aria Mason, Yves Vontobel, and Andy West for their contributions to this article.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

A better approach to M&A in North American insurance

The insurance trends private-equity investors should understand in 2021

Why private equity sees life and annuities as an enticing form of permanent capital